Aren’t some things just inherent with the product though. These are unhealthy products, they should be allowed to exist for what they are instead of trying to make them something they’re not.

And I say this as a very light social media user, I never enjoyed it and it always felt unhealthy so I just kept off it. As I’ve watch it all unfold, was in college during facebooks college only explosion and now people are on tiktok. It’s clear, people want to be addicted to social media just as bad as zuck wants them addicted to social media. And an instagram without filters is like porn without nudity.

Yeah but if he listened to a single wellness expert they'd probably tell him to shut down most or all of social media, so what's the point of articles like these. Unless it's unlawful and they get fined nothing changes.

But on this specific topic I'm curious what the wellness experts think about make-up, or even worse purely cosmetic plastic surgery. If digital filters are wrong, surgery should get the death penalty in comparison.

So you're saying we should implement age restrictions until the person is deemed mature enough to understand what the implications of their decisions are?

Not all bartenders would serve alcohol to anyone at at all times. But Z would, I'm sure.

Alcohol is a cultural universal where it is not outlawed and has been for thousands of years. It has the benefit of precedent social media does not have and it’s banned for children. Terrible point.

> bartenders who'd be against stopping alcohol sales

I think you'll find quite a few bartenders would be pro stopping alcohol sales. Something about having to deal with the damage alcohol causes on a daily basis...

It's the people really profiting from alcohol (and alcohol addiction) you want to keep your eye on (i.e. the owners and investors in the bars/breweries/distileries/etc)

> Voters overrule countless well-being experts to keep alcohol available everywhere.

Not completely true. Some states in India have complete bans on alcohol, and even some parts of the US prohibit its sale.

Ah, but did you know almost all the rich Nazis got off silently without any fanfare?

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/may/18/nazi-billionai...

I suggest we crowdfund a campaign to gift each employee this.

It was a good read though nothing too surprising after following this saga from the McNamee Zucked to the Wylie /. Cambridge Analytica case.

Wylies Mindfuck is another great one.

Careless People is very good. However, I'm currently reading "Character Limit" about the acquisition of Twitter by Musk which I think is even more interesting.

Does anyone have any recommendations for more books like these?

Would you be equally sceptical if the heading of a similar lay article referred to "computer experts"? That's also a made-up title and there's no such a degree.

“wellbeing” used as if it were the label of a discipline is almost invariably used for grifts that are intended to be viewed by the audience targeted as being in either (or straddling both) the physical or psychological health spaces, but where the grifter wants to avoid explicitly claiming to be operating in either of those spaces for liability or other reasons.

Same with asbestos, I mean what could go wrong in 20 years?

The main discussion here about offering this for kids. So, no! "if it's harming your mental health, stop using it" is not appropriate.

Not everything that's legal is good. One presumes that if it's found to be bad and Congress isn't extremely corrupt (as if) it'll become illegal.

And just stop buying those cigarettes. This is where cultural differences matter, the US has much less concern about the negative societal impact of products than many countries, particularly its erstwhile allies. It's also precisely why it's imperative other countries decouple from US owned social media unless they want to import US values.

I mean, you realise that legal over the counter heroin used to be a thing, right? Cigarettes are still legal. There is a gap between “obviously harmful thing is legal” and “it is ethical to make great piles of money out of selling the obviously harmful thing (to children, at that)”. The CEO of Phillip Morris, say, isn’t doing anything illegal, but they are a _bad person_ who is knowingly harming society. Same for Zuckerberg.

What is a "moral" law as opposed to a "legal" one? If he is actively promoting a harmful product, I think that would fall into many people's definition of 'morally wrong'.

(I'm basing this on the headline because the article is paywalled)

It's unlikely that Zuckerberg is more of an expert on any topic, though, except perhaps BJJ. His educational background is literally just "briefly attended Harvard College."