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.

  • hansolo@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    12 hours ago

    It’s been a topic of conferences, books, podcasts, and new laws for almost a decade. They have it all in plain sight. Lol, made it up.

    Curtis Yarvin has his Butterfly Revolution, which Thiel is all in about. Therefore Musk as well. Of the five pillars of Yarvin’s guide to authoritarianism, the EO about forcing university accreditation to heel is the last one needed to hit them all. Well documented, and the Nerd Reich had a post recently about how Yarvin is mad at how incompetent Trump and Musk are because they’re literally not gasing people to death by now.

    A guy named Balaji wrote a book called the Network State that outlines the government that should replace democraticly electing people. Also a podcast, also conferences with folks like the creator of Etherium backing it. He’s been pushing countries to recognize DAOs as legal entities. Wyoming is on board, and Palau and the Marshall Islands have also been receptive as nation level test cases. Network city-states are in the mix as well.

    This is the stuff that makes Project 2025 look like quaint kids’ games. However, where they both agree is the idea of repealing the social gains of the 20th century. Civil rights, women’s rights, gone. The goal is techno-fascist fifedoms built around crypto and AI, like Thiel’s investment in Praxis, where broligarchs don’t just have money, they control the force and violence of the state, which is something that money can’t just buy.

    • untakenusername@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      I think in some cases DAOs kinda make sense to be legal entities (in some contexts), like a public company is somewhat controlled by its investors, and if you want to create some sort of crypto-related product - im thinking of something like polymarket or opensea here - you could get investment by auctioning off special voting tokens for the DAO that controls it (so if the majority of token holders wanted to, they could for example, change the background of the site, or introduce a new feature). I imagine getting legal recognition of such a company would make this a ton easier.

      Of course, replacing/creating governments with this sorta thing would be insane, but on a lower level, like for companies, it doesn’t seem that bad