From their own internal metrics, tech giants have long known what independent research now continuously validates: that the content that is most likely to go viral is that which induces strong feelings such as outrage and disgust, regardless of its underlying veracity. Moreover, they also know that such content is heavily engaged with and most profitable. Far from acting against false, harmful content, they placed profits above its staggering—and damaging—social impact to implicitly encourage it while downplaying the massive costs.
Social media titans embrace essentially the same hypocrisy the tobacco industry embodied when they feigned concern over harm reduction while covertly pushing their product ever more aggressively. With the reelection of Trump, our tech giants now no longer even pretend to care.
Engagement is their business model, and doubt about the harms they cause is their product. Tobacco executives, and their bought-off scientists, once proclaimed uncertainty over links between cigarettes and lung cancer. Zuckerberg has likewise testified to Congress, “The existing body of scientific work has not shown a causal link between using social media and young people having worse mental health, ” even while studies find self-harm, eating disorder and misogynistic material spreads on these platform unimpeded. This equivocation echoes protestations of tobacco companies that there was no causal evidence of smoking harms, even as incontrovertible evidence to the contrary rapidly amassed.
Linktank@lemmy.today 1 week ago
Except, you know, tobacco companies are modern day tobacco companies. They were never defeated.
acosmichippo@lemmy.world 1 week ago
it’s just an analogy.
SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org 1 week ago
Yeah, it’s crazy how many commenters here are completely missing the point. I should really stop assuming people have any sort of intelligence.
taladar@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
The flaw in the analogy is that it assumes that those effects are limited to some companies when in reality every single company that existed in history has behaved this way if they weren’t stopped by regulation.
Sixtyforce@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
I argue junk food commercials draw a lot of parallels with cigarette commercials of the past.
Especially soft drinks.Coca Cola especially really loves to tie emotions and sports/holidays to sugar water.
Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 week ago
I don’t know think you’ve been to Europe much… Just a guess
Broken@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
Well, considering all the tobacco companies entrenched themselves in food companies you’re basically right.
It’s why foods are addictive, and have very little nutritional value. It’s beyond “oh no its full of sugar” it the fact that everything is processed and is full of fake sugar (as an example).
TacticalCheddar@lemm.ee 1 week ago
When you say “defeated”, what exactly do you mean? You mean that they should cease to exist to be considered as such? If that’s the case then I would say it’s an unrealistic expectation.
I would say that they’ve been largely contained. If I remember correctly, back in the '50s almost half of the American population used to smoke. The percentage of people smoking has been consistently decreasing over the years thanks to regulation and increased taxation. Tobacco companies are definetly not as influential as they once were.
Dindonmasker@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
You made me notice that a lot of companies learned from tobacco companies not just those XD