zlacker

The difference is that it's unquestionable that cigarettes are enormously harmful. To claim that the case against social media is anywhere near as clear-cut as tobacco is to do a disservice to the heroic public health efforts it took to cut down on smoking.

With social media, anecdotal accusations abound of negative impacts on mental health or political polarization. Yet the most carefully conducted research shows no evidence that either[1][2] of these charges are true to any meaningful degree. Simply put the academic evidence is not contagious with the journalistic outrage.

What's more likely is the panic over social media is mirroring previous generations' moral panic over new forms of media. When the literary novel first gained popularity, social guardians in the older generation worried that it would corrupt the youth.[3]

The same story played out with movies, rock music, video games, and porn among other things. The dynamic is propelled by old media having a vested interest in whipping up a frenzy against its new media competitors. In almost every case the concerns proved unfounded or overblown. I'd be pretty surprised if social media proved the exception, when we've always seen the same story again and again.

[1]https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/1217307200517033986 [2]https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/986146855007539201 [3]https://www.economist.com/1843/2020/01/20/an-18th-century-mo...

>>dcolki+(OP)
> The difference is that it's unquestionable that cigarettes are enormously harmful.

It was certainly questioned for many decades before we got to that point. Meanwhile, millions died. And during that entire time Big Tobacco had no difficulty drumming up doctors and scientists willing to argue against the negative health consequences of smoking.

>>munifi+5f
Precisely this. Many people denied the idea that smoking was unhealthy. It sounds hard to believe, but I personally know many people who said these things to me in the 1990s.

Rejection of science in favor of something you personally want to be true isn’t a new internet age development.

>>dcolki+(OP)
The difference between social media and all the other media you mentioned isn't the format (still mostly just images, text, and video like the old media) or in its content (Sturgeon's Law is universal); it's in the ability to disseminate messages to a global audience instantaneously, and the careful curation of that content to drive engagement.

The clear result of this algorithm has been to happily send lies, misinformation, emotionally manipulative opinions, and other content at a scale and speed that was never achieved by a New York Times bestseller, MTV, or Rockstar Games.

All media has always exploited our cognitive biases and irrationality to its end; but to do it worldwide and simultaneously, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, without rest or remorse, is pure stochastic terror.

Move fast and break things indeed.