Just read the comments in your second link tearing apart the study.
Given the replication crisis in psychology, the authors make bad choices in the experiment design that are not justifiable in 2022.
I will say that the lengths the executive goes to to compare social media with tobacco degrade the quality of the argument in my opinion; science tends to ask the question and then seek the answer. Arguments like this seem to start with the answer (it's like Big Tobacco) and then construct the argument accordingly.
In the testimony, they explain it:
We took a page from Big Tobacco’s playbook, working to make our offering addictive at the outset.
Allowing for misinformation, conspiracy theories, and fake news to flourish were like Big Tobacco’s bronchodilators, which allowed the cigarette smoke to cover more surface area of the lungs.
https://web.archive.org/web/20210318063530/https://energycom...
If exec's views are science/truth. Then I bet you would have found execs in tobacco companies who thought they were doing good.
I don't understand why people are so against this? Isn't it possible that people do research to determine the validity of what they read online?
Facebook knows Instagram is toxic for teen girls, company documents show (wsj.com)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28523688
Facebook proven to negatively impact mental health (tau.ac.il)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32938622
Testimony to House committee by former Facebook executive Tim Kendall (house.gov)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24579498