Meta's own research (and its use of it) has shown that it repeatedly ignores well-substantiated facts about the harms of its products. Now that Section 230 seem

Meta's own research (and its use of it) has shown that it repeatedly ignores well-substantiated facts about the harms of its products. Now that Section 230 seems like a flawed shield, I fear the takeaway for other companies will be: never conduct honest research in the first place to preserve plausible deniability. Meta has always wanted the appearance of caring about safety (helps them attract talent and keep mission-related morale high), while nearly always prioritizing growth (save for tiny blips of time, like in 2017 when the fallout of the cambridge analytica stuff was hitting a crescendo), whereas companies like X are run by people explicitly disinterested in putting significant resources into safety, especially research. I will also add that, for the past few years, Meta and X both have become extremely hostile to external researchers of their platforms, shutting down access to tools and data.