3 ms·

See this is just thing the commenter you are replying to is saying. Just read the comments in your second link tearing apart the study. Given the replication

See this is just thing the commenter you are replying to is saying. Just read the comments in your second link tearing apart the study. Given the replication crisis in psychology, the authors make bad choices in the experiment design that are not justifiable in 2022.

fsflover 2y ago
How about my third link?
- rpdillon 2y ago
  I'm getting a 502 error trying to access the original content. It doesn't appear to be a scientific study, but rather a testimony from a Facebook executive talking about how they disregarded user safety in the development of algorithms that increased engagement. That's not quite what I'm looking for, though. I'd like to see something examining the effects of those behaviors on the population. I will say that the lengths the executive goes to to compare social media with tobacco degrade the quality of the argument in my opinion; science tends to ask the question and then seek the answer. Arguments like this seem to start with the answer (it's like Big Tobacco) and then construct the argument accordingly.
  - fsflover 2y ago
    > I'd like to see something examining the effects of those behaviors on the population. In the testimony, they explain it: We took a page from Big Tobacco’s playbook, working to make our offering addictive at the outset. Allowing for misinformation, conspiracy theories, and fake news to flourish were like Big Tobacco’s bronchodilators, which allowed the cigarette smoke to cover more surface area of the lungs. https://web.archive.org/web/20210318063530/https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/files/documents/09.24.20%20CPC%20Witness%20Testimony_Kendall.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20210318063530/https://energycom...
    - cscurmudgeon 2y ago
      Still no science though. One exec's views in a large company doesn't equal science. If exec's views are science/truth. Then I bet you would have found execs in tobacco companies who thought they were doing good.
      - fsflover 2y ago
        True, it's not science. It is however the intention.
        hellojesus 2y ago
        > Allowing for misinformation, conspiracy theories, and fake news to flourish... I don't understand why people are so against this? Isn't it possible that people do research to determine the validity of what they read online?
        fsflover 2y ago
        Is it possible for the people to do research and avoid junk food, smoking and alcohol? (Also, to understand the danger of the climate change.)

fsflover 2y ago

How about my third link?

rpdillon 2y ago
I'm getting a 502 error trying to access the original content. It doesn't appear to be a scientific study, but rather a testimony from a Facebook executive talking about how they disregarded user safety in the development of algorithms that increased engagement. That's not quite what I'm looking for, though. I'd like to see something examining the effects of those behaviors on the population. I will say that the lengths the executive goes to to compare social media with tobacco degrade the quality of the argument in my opinion; science tends to ask the question and then seek the answer. Arguments like this seem to start with the answer (it's like Big Tobacco) and then construct the argument accordingly.
- fsflover 2y ago
  > I'd like to see something examining the effects of those behaviors on the population. In the testimony, they explain it: We took a page from Big Tobacco’s playbook, working to make our offering addictive at the outset. Allowing for misinformation, conspiracy theories, and fake news to flourish were like Big Tobacco’s bronchodilators, which allowed the cigarette smoke to cover more surface area of the lungs. https://web.archive.org/web/20210318063530/https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/files/documents/09.24.20%20CPC%20Witness%20Testimony_Kendall.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20210318063530/https://energycom...
  - cscurmudgeon 2y ago
    Still no science though. One exec's views in a large company doesn't equal science. If exec's views are science/truth. Then I bet you would have found execs in tobacco companies who thought they were doing good.
    - fsflover 2y ago
      True, it's not science. It is however the intention.
      - hellojesus 2y ago
        > Allowing for misinformation, conspiracy theories, and fake news to flourish... I don't understand why people are so against this? Isn't it possible that people do research to determine the validity of what they read online?
        fsflover 2y ago
        Is it possible for the people to do research and avoid junk food, smoking and alcohol? (Also, to understand the danger of the climate change.)