zlacker

Tobacco use as a percentage of the population has consistently declined by .5% since data started to be gathered the 1960s [0].

The Master Settlement Agreement in 1998 [1] had no statistical impact on the rate reduction of smoking - the rate of decline of smokers is the same now as it was in 1965.

The tobacco industry is more profitable than ever and they are diversifying into nicotine delivery vehicles like vapes, gum [2]. So the underlying goal - increase nicotine dependence across the global population and capture the nicotine consumption market is still going strong.

Much like the desire to be intoxicated, the desire to influence people will never go away. It's baked into our biology. Everyone in this thread interacting with each other is trying to influence everyone else. Facebook etc... is just doing successfully what Bernays dreamed of.

You can beat these platforms all you want - just like the tobacco industry was beat. The problems will just surface elsewhere in a different form.

Attack the root issue - ban advertising. oh and do it in a way that allows for "free speech." The challenge of the century.

[0]https://www.lung.org/research/trends-in-lung-disease/tobacco...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agre...

[2]https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-tobacco-industry-rebounds-f...

>>Andrew+(OP)
I tend to agree with this line of thinking, but I wonder if banning advertising wont have similar difficulties. There will be more sneaky product placement, anonymous donations to podcasters who tend to promote certain products/beliefs/etc.

I say this not because I think we should just give up and not ban advertising but because I'm curious how it might be done effectively.

>>Andrew+(OP)
In order for the decline in smoking to remain linear, you must convince people who are increasingly less likely to quit. Consistent .5% decline is (weak) evidence for the effectiveness of efforts to combat smoking, not the opposite.

I don't know if that impacts your larger point with regards to nicotine addiction in general, but I think it's worth noting.

>>dwiel+f5
Almost certainly the same influence patterns would emerge in different forms elsewhere, perhaps even more insidious forms!

Hence, why I think it really is (one of) the hardest challenges of our century: How do you eliminate or severely restrict influence vectors?

Who/how determines what qualifies as good/bad influence or reality?

Should positive (however defined) influence be allowed/promoted?

Not sure this one is solvable as it would require a global optimization vector which we don't (and maybe can't) generate.

>>Stupul+a6
It's an interesting point. I would tend to agree with that in the sense that it's a log graph of "difficulty" required.

However I'm not sure how that would be supported without assuming there is some base-rate that would smoke no matter what, as though smoking specifically is a natural inclination, with everyone above the base rate on some log distribution of "ability to convince to stop smoking."