[TameAntelope]

I think you missed the word "directly" in what you quoted from me. If Facebook directly made money off of engagement, people would pay for the Facebook service. The extra step of "sell ad space to advertisers" makes engagement an indirect money maker.

Philip Morris doesn't make money every drag someone takes, that's exactly my point. It's different.

Also, cigarettes are bad for you in any quantity. Social media is not obviously bad for you in any quantity, it's the knock on effects of being constantly aware of what your peer group is achieving and how you react to that which creates problems (among other indirect issues ultimately caused by your decisions related to social media, not the social media itself).

[prancer_or_vix]

> Philip Morris doesn't make money every drag someone takes, that's exactly my point. It's different.

I see. You're right that it was an imperfect comparison.

Philip Morris makes _more_ money by addicting its users. Facebook makes _more_ money by addicting its users.

I think social media being bad for you is a nebulous concept. I would argue that, since I stopped using Facebook and Reddit (and only use HN on work-breaks), I've been able to maintain my environment and thereby my well-being on an order that I was not previously able to.

Eating a peanut M&M isn't _bad_ for me, but if they were addicting, it would be a lot harder to consume a non-harmful number of them.

Stab wounds aren't inherently lethal, but enough of them will be.