> ___ has been working hard to control the scientific narrative on their products<p>Instead of tech, tobacco, <i>whatever</i><p>It's just corporations.<p>The food and sugar industries have tried to control or pollute scientific narrative. The car industry ("Unsafe at Any Speed"), oil and gas, mining, chemical manufacturers, and on and on.<p>Why do so many people seem to forget the lessons of the past with some "shiny new" industry, become enamored with it, and think "wow, these are the good guys!".<p>When billions upon billions, and now in some cases *TRILLIONS* of dollars are at stake, corporations will do whatever they can to protect and grow that money.
Does that mean that the cool kids on the schoolyard now use tech while wearing leather jackets to signal rebellion?<p>Is it finally the time for the nerds to shine?
When one says "tech" like in the linked article, one is really talking about the advertising-supported internet and subscription models. A few nerds might participate in creating that themselves because they work for FAANG, but overall nerds are insulated from that because they know how to install uBlock Origin, they use the terminally unpopular Mastodon, they still use a desktop computer a lot instead of phone apps, etc. No sign that <i>that</i> kind of nerddom is experiencing any kind of increase in social prestige.
Like doing dance videos, aspiring to be influencers and trying to pump up their follows and interactions?
Everything is the new tobacco when it comes to hiding their dangers. Tobacco showed that you could spend a relatively small amount of money and make billions for decades while kicking the can down the road.
Also in news: apparently AI researchers are taking up smoking!<p><a href="https://ground.news/article/ai-researchers-reportedly-so-confident-ai-is-about-to-cure-cancer-theyve-started-smoking-cigarettes" rel="nofollow">https://ground.news/article/ai-researchers-reportedly-so-con...</a> Etc
I don’t think it’s official until Netcraft confirms it.
So has tech replaced oil and natural gas as the new tobacco, or do we have two new tobaccos right now? Oh, what about fast fashion? Recyclable plastics that aren't actually recyclable? Dodgy financial products remixed and hidden in your mutual funds? Unsafe tap water that passes all the city's tests but not at-home tests for the same contaminates? The Texas government being run by Republicans for decades who campaign on fixing the broken schools, roads, and taxes in Texas?
Obviously not. Some of those are the new asbestos, the new lead, the new Robber Barons, etc
Would it be terrible thing if the answers to all of your rhetorical questions was "yes"?<p>As we become more democratic we can control these greedy, careless and horrid people.<p>Ignoring negative externalities is such a twentieth century way to get rich.
> New court documents make clearer than ever that Meta has been working hard to control the scientific narrative on their products<p>...<p>> The resulting documents reveal:<p><pre><code> > Explicit plans by Meta to discredit psychologist Jonathan Haidt, who has been raising alarms about social media and youth mental health.
> Frustration by internal researchers because Meta lawyers were stopping them from researching youth mental health and their platforms. (Why would lawyers stop these studies? Because they risk finding something. The researchers respond by asking "“if the study only included questions about social support/positive outcomes would legal approve?”)
> Explicit plans to work with the National Academies of Sciences on social media and youth mental health with goals to “get credit” for proposing the assessment and “greatly shape the nature of the questions they will explore.”
> Alternative plans to work with another group if they cannot adequately influence NAS research, and “ensure product feature evaluations are excluded” (i.e., their product features that might be causing harm)
> Discussions of which study questions are most likely to yield benefits for the company</code></pre>
Nothing new really, this is how US big business operate. Tech is no different from fossil fuel, chemical or medical insurance lobbies. Anyone still remembers Ethyl corporation shenanigans and the Clair Patterson odyssey? We haven't moved on, they still do the same, just the suits change style and there are few gadgets around...
John Appleseed is the new Joe Camel.
Thanks cailinoconnor.substack.com. We were waiting for you to finally make it official.
> Zuck: "They 'trust me'"<p>> Zuck: "Dumb fucks"<p>- 2004
I get you're saying we all know already, but come on, that's a mean thing to say about a blog putting effort into researching the problem.
Big Chemical is the new tobacco and always has been.<p>What has Meta or Google done in comparison to Dow, Bayer, and DuPont?
Interesting that you compare Meta and Google to Dow, Bayer, and DuPont, because to me, that's actually a pretty good praise.<p>Just look at the products these companies have created, the common theme being plastics, they essentially defined the modern age. We sometimes call eras by the material that defines it: stone age, bronze age, etc... We are now in the plastic age: look around you, what <i>doesn't</i> make use some kind of synthetic polymer. Even if you actively seek to avoid plastic, you are going to find gaskets, electrical insulators, coatings, etc... and electronics of course.<p>If it wasn't for these companies, we would be living like we did 100 years ago, which is easy to romanticize, but look at life expectancy during that time, so, no thank you.<p>Did they do bad things? Of course they did, very bad things even, leaded gasoline comes to mind. But overall, I would rather be in a world where these companies exist than one where they don't. But for the tobacco industry, a world without them is, I think, unquestionably better.<p>Meta and Google? I'd say it is like the chemical industry, but on a lesser degree, they do good, they do bad, but overall a net positive. It means I agree with your second sentence, though in a different way.
You are comparing the sins of corporations that have been around for over 100 years and world wars to one that has been around a couple decades? Give Meta some time, they seem to have aspirations.
Meta helped commit genocide: <a href="https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-facebooks-systems-promoted-violence-against-rohingya-meta-owes-reparations-new-report/" rel="nofollow">https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-faceb...</a><p>Both are also hyper Zionist and complicit in the genocide of Palestinians.
Tech = Social media? Maybe to a 5th grader.
Ultimately it all comes down to marketing and selling you products and social media is the glue holding this whole charade up. AI can help us create new apps etc but you still have to find a market. At the core, SM is what drives the doom cart forward.
+1<p>the title should be social media.
tech is also what you rely on when you travel, climb or after you break your neck.
Adtech is the part that makes the money. Even OpenAI's best idea to monetize is "put ads in it"
Social media is a subset of tech though.
that's about the maturity level the average reporter has
obligatory reminder of Thank You for Smoking 2005.
I doubt tech right now can be equated with tobacco, its use does not kill.<p>Now AI ? The day will probably come when AI will kill on purpose without a real person's involvement. I know about the Iran School, but at that time I thought I heard the final decision was made by a person as opposed to AI.<p>So we really need to learn to push back should AI starts heading down that path, even if it costs you your job.
> I doubt tech right now can be equated with tobacco, its use does not kill.<p>I don't think that's true. Tech kills plenty of people.
Social media is demonstrably bad for mental health. Paired with phones it's even worse. Facebook stopped their internal research before it began calculating the body count, but there absolutely is one. I've attached one source, but these findings are widely reported, and you will find many more with a cursory search.<p><a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2025/11/23/meta-internal-research-social-media-harm-court-filing.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.cnbc.com/2025/11/23/meta-internal-research-socia...</a>
Things like e.g. social media don't kill, you're right. They merely eat your soul and leave your body a shambling husk. Much better.
It helped kill a bunch of school children in Iran. AI use has lead to other deaths as well.
ehh... social media is a net negative on suicide rates (meaning more suicides). It would not be hard to argue social media enables deaths.