this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2025
932 points (99.3% liked)

Technology

69346 readers
3930 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] tilllt@feddit.org 9 points 2 hours ago

Meta whistleblower Sarah Wynn-Williams says company targeted ads at teens based on their ‘emotional state’

[...] She said the company was letting advertisers know when the teens were depressed so they could be served an ad at the best time.

[...]

https://techcrunch.com/2025/04/09/meta-whistleblower-sarah-wynn-williams-says-company-targeted-ads-at-teens-based-on-their-emotional-state/

[–] MTK@lemmy.world 7 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

considering that tobacco companies are still here, it's kind of a weird title

[–] aproposnix@scribe.disroot.org 26 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

I would liken them to the automotive industry. Both have deeply harmed society by isolating people from each other (it sounds counterintuitive, I know). Both have created infrastructure that prioritizes individual consumption over collective well being, restructured daily life around corporate products, and normalized a form of privatized existence that erodes public space, shared culture, and relational life. Just as cars gutted walkable communities and made human scale living subordinate to machines, Big Tech has gutted organic social interaction, subordinating communication and attention to platforms designed for extraction and control. #fuckcars #fuckbigtech

[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 4 points 5 hours ago

Don't forget the cycle of buying up all patents and shelving them if they are a threat to their goals. What a future we've wasted.

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 2 points 5 hours ago

Reminds me of a part I've recently read on The Dawn of Everything, comparing the Great Lakes natives' freedoms to our corporate owned "freedoms": while we're busy with the "possibility of freedom", they cared about the exercise of their freedoms.

Before the colonization, they were free to visit other places because they almost always had someone that belonged to their clan living there and who would receive them with open arms. They didn't have to pay anything for the travel proper, but obviously needed to take some supplies to spend the days on the wilderness. For us, if we don't have money, we don't have freedoms: gotta pay for the car+gas (or plane or ship ticket), food, housing.

[–] NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml -1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (4 children)

The evil tobacco company is an outdated narrative. They were already regulated to hell 22 years ago when I started smoking and since then I've only ever seen the regulations increase now with the new apparent goal of outlawing nicotine. I can only speculate that people think this time we're going to get prohibition right.

btw I quit smoking 7 years ago, and nicotine altogether 5 years ago.

[–] Siegfried@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

Well, done quitting. Respect

[–] easily3667@lemmus.org 11 points 2 hours ago

It's called "history", not "outdated". Op is comparing a historical behavior with a current behavior.

[–] PalmTreeIsBestTree@lemmy.world 6 points 2 hours ago

If anything the oil companies are the most evil. They knew climate change was going to happen 50+ years ago.

[–] O_R_I_O_N@lemm.ee 2 points 2 hours ago

It's illegal to grow your own tobacco in more states now than it is to grow you own cannabis

[–] kambusha@sh.itjust.works 10 points 12 hours ago

Thank You for Posting (2025)

[–] D_C@lemm.ee 23 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

They are the asbestos of the internet.

[–] desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

asbestos at least was the best option until a couple years ago for numerous applications.

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 1 points 17 minutes ago

It probably still is. It's a miracle material. It's a real shame that it's so toxic.

[–] dwazou@lemm.ee 18 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (4 children)

Getting a dumbphone was one of the best decisions I took in my life. It helps me focus better and read books. I don't actually need the internet with me 24/7. If you really need me, you can call.

Try it. Some people will call you crazy. Just ignore them.

[–] themagzuz@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

i'm curious, what exactly is the advantage of getting a dumbphone vs just uninstalling social media apps from your existing phone, or just disabling internet access all together? doesn't that achieve pretty much the same thing while still being able to keep things like navigation and being able to see when public transport is delayed

[–] 46_and_2@lemmy.world 1 points 44 minutes ago

It's like quitting cold turkey - removes the temptation to use these apps.

[–] EvilBit@lemmy.world 12 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

I got an e-ink e-reader in the pocketable form factor of a phone (Bigme Hibreak Color). Instead of doomscrolling social media, I read a couple paragraphs of the Oppenheimer biography. Next I’ll reread Neuromancer. It’s life-changing. 10/10 highly recommended.

[–] Waphles@lemmy.world 3 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Cool! What made you chose that over something like the boox that is the same form factor but without phone functionality?

[–] EvilBit@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Color screen and the fact that Onyx, the makers of Boox, flagrantly violate GPL terms.

But it was the Boox Palma getting publicity that made me aware of the form factor and start digging. I’m super happy with the Bigme Hibreak, but I don’t have a SIM card in it. I mostly use it in airplane mode as a dumb e-reader and don’t even install any apps besides the minimum needed to do that.

[–] Waphles@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Ah ok, so do you carry a smartphone as well? I wonder what it would be like to completely rely on the bigme

[–] EvilBit@lemmy.world 3 points 5 hours ago

I do. It’s not ideal but it still gives me something better to do than social media.

I’ve heard it’s quirky and kinda mid as a phone, but not unusable.

[–] Tregetour 5 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

People tend to interact with technology on a default permit basis, which is partly why they have weather-vane attention spans and obliterated focusing capacity. They're like Pavlov's dog, responding to every notification and ping and service update; and social media is treated as the default use state until something else yells for their attention.

I have notifications denied by default. Notifications are lame and a known privacy threat. No one needs to be bothered because someone responded in a group chat or a new post surfaced on a Lemmy comm or a 'deal alert' got pushed by some marketing dipshit on the other side of the planet. That they exist at all for email is ludicrous. Email is an asychronous protocol - delayed responses are a feature.

Stop giving this stuff attention on demand and start allocating attention windows where it will get seen to. Email that gets in front of your eyes is 99 per cent transaction stubs if you're doing it right; there is no more reason to pay it any attention outside 7pm for 10 or 15 minutes (say). Similar treatment should apply to most messaging to be honest.

[–] TriflingToad@sh.itjust.works 6 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

ok but like if I don't have music and noise cancelling earbuds I will explode

[–] lightsblinken@lemmy.world 3 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

pretty sure they are options

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 1 points 5 hours ago

I would like wired earphones to make a comeback, though that wouldn't stop certain assholes from watching stuff/listening to music without them on the bus with max volume

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Linktank@lemmy.today 68 points 1 day ago (6 children)

Except, you know, tobacco companies are modern day tobacco companies. They were never defeated.

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 69 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (6 children)

it's an analogy; the author is drawing parallels between them. Obviously Tobacco companies were not "defeated" but they were regulated to hell, and I'm sure the author would say that's what we need to do with social media too.

[–] SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org 11 points 5 hours 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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Sixtyforce@sh.itjust.works 21 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (2 children)

Muted in the English world. I argue junk food commercials draw a lot of parallels with cigarette commercials of the past. For some reason obesity isn't worth prevention so the advertisements are pretty gross.

Soft drinks. Coca Cola especially really loves to tie emotions and sports/holidays to sugar water.

[–] Broken@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 hour 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).

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TacticalCheddar@lemm.ee 11 points 23 hours ago (5 children)

They were never defeated.

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] rando@lemmy.ml 17 points 19 hours ago

I've been telling this to family and friends, apparently they didn't want to agree. At least there is article now. I do think current social media will be looked at in future like tobacco/smoking is currently looked at.

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 5 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

I think that, in 10-20 years, the research around social media addiction will bear out this way, yes. It's wild to me how every time the discussion around regulating social media comes up, most people just kind of ignore its effects on kids' mental health.

[–] conicalscientist@lemmy.world 3 points 9 hours ago

It's not very wild when you realize you're talking to addicts. The whole world is addicted.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] NerdyPopRocks@lemmy.world 7 points 18 hours ago

Wait till you find out we still have tobacco companies, and they’ve been getting into the vape and weed game this whole time

[–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 10 points 20 hours ago

Wow. I don't know why I've never made the parallel before, but yes, this is a good way to explain to people the woes of these companies that can be overlooked in the moment but are painfully clear in hindsight.

[–] credics@sh.itjust.works 15 points 22 hours ago

Even though I knew about most of this, I never realized how striking the parallels are.

[–] hansolo@lemm.ee 9 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (3 children)

Y'all, one of the far-reaching Broligarchy ideas they're hoping emerges from the ashes of the United States is the DAO, decentralized autonomous organization.

Every action in the block chain. They facilitate, and are predicated on, the idea of treating every aspect of life as a social network. Everything you do is recorded. So daily life ends up incentived toward constant, persistent, corralled engagement. The Network State is the term.

The difference is that you can't build a society on the mechanics of the tobacco industry. But you can on a human reaction industry.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee -1 points 11 hours ago

i wouldnt go as far calling them that, more like big box stores like walmart,,,,etc.

load more comments
view more: next ›