Technology

Cigarettes are healthy!

I've heard ferociously burning coal and oil is actually good for the climate, AND that smoking meth will give you the ability to make the perfect pizza.

Meta also wants you to believe it doesn't enable dictators too.

If it not addictive then why is it addictive?

I have had no problem leaving their platforms and never looking back. Leaving reddit was harder for me. I still go back sometimes when I need advice in niche communities. Lemmy is like the Non-Alcoholic Beer for reddit.

Ahem. I'm just going to leave this here.

https://techoversight.org/2026/01/25/top-report-mdl-jan-25/

They want you to believe that it isn’t a thing but they also know it is a thing and definitely have internal documents and conversations talking about how to get more people addicted.

Fucking hope they die.

Deleted all socials years ago. Taken a very long time to get my brain to balance back out. Well worth it though. Save your images if you want then delete them all.

The leaks confirming that they

1. made their algorithms as addictive as possible on purpose and
2. they knew that it increases teen depression and suicide rate,

they don't count?

I think they have no problem with regulatory capture being added to cement their dominance under the guise of protecting kids...

History doesn't repeat but it often rhymes....

https://senate.ucsf.edu/tobacco-ceo-statement-to-congress

I can't really think of a more obvious headline. Why would anyone even click on this?

On December 15, 1953, led by Paul Hahn, the head of American Tobacco, the six major tobacco companies (American Tobacco Co., R. J. Reynolds, Philip Morris, Benson & Hedges, U.S. Tobacco Co., and Brown & Williamson) met with public relations company Hill & Knowlton in New York City to create an advertisement that would assuage the public's fears and create a false sense of security in order to regain the public's confidence in the tobacco industry.[12] Hill and Knowlton's president, John W. Hill, realized that simply denying the health risks would not be enough to convince the public. Instead, a more effective method would be to create a major scientific controversy in which the scientifically established link between smoking tobacco and lung cancer would appear not to be conclusively known.[13]

The tobacco companies fought against the emerging science by producing their own science, which suggested that existing science was incomplete and that the industry was not motivated by self-interest.[11] With the creation of the Tobacco Industry Research Committee, headed by accomplished scientist C.C. Little, the tobacco companies manufactured doubt and turned scientific findings into a topic of debate. The recruitment of credentialed scientists like Little who were skeptics was a crucial aspect of the tobacco companies' social engineering plan to establish credibility against anti-smoking reports. By amplifying the voices of a few skeptical scientists, the industry created an illusion that the larger scientific community had not reached a conclusive agreement on the link between smoking and cancer.[11]

Internal documents released through whistleblowers and litigation, such as the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, reveal that while advertisements like A Frank Statement made tobacco companies appear to be responsible and concerned for the health of their consumers, in reality, they were deceiving the public into believing that smoking did not have health risks. The whole project was aimed at protecting the tobacco companies' images of glamour and all-American individualism at the cost of the public's health.[14]

A Frank Statement