I'm getting a 502 error trying to access the original content. It doesn't appear to be a scientific study, but rather a testimony from a Facebook executive talking about how they disregarded user safety in the development of algorithms that increased engagement. That's not quite what I'm looking for, though. I'd like to see something examining the effects of those behaviors on the population.

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.

> I'd like to see something examining the effects of those behaviors on the population.

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...

Still no science though. One exec's views in a large company doesn't equal science.

If exec's views are science/truth. Then I bet you would have found execs in tobacco companies who thought they were doing good.

True, it's not science. It is however the intention.

> Allowing for misinformation, conspiracy theories, and fake news to flourish...

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?

Is it possible for the people to do research and avoid junk food, smoking and alcohol? (Also, to understand the danger of the climate change.)