[fleddr]

Had any of this harm been physical, everybody would be cheering to combat it. But because it's mental, it's "not real", right?

Behavioral scientists can plot any metric against the last decade and it spectacularly deviates from what came before it, in a bad way. A seismic shift.

It's a problem. A massively complicated problem where regulation will be tricky. For the record, even Zuckerberg himself has practically begged for regulation in response to issues affecting teen girls specifically.

[LarryMullins]

> even Zuckerberg himself has practically begged for regulation in response to issues affecting teen girls specifically.

I recall this being criticized as Zuckerberg cynically trying to create an anti-competitive regulatory moat around Facebook. Seems plausible to me, I have a hard time believing that Zuck has a single sincere and benevolent bone in his body.

But even if he has cynical motivations for proposing it, that doesn't mean the idea itself is bad.

[fleddr]

With some (pending) regulation, there's indeed the risk that they require such advanced tech that only Big Tech can comply. I don't know if that is the case here.

I see Zuckerberg as a sociopath in a pressure cooker, a highly competitive environment where each decision has an outsized impact. For sure he morally has a piss poor track record, but I still don't think of people like him as villain.

I don't think he gets up in the morning and thinks "how can I ruin the mental health of teenage girls today"? It's possible that he wants to do the right thing, or a neutral thing, or really does want industry wide clarity on this matter.

The way I think of Zuckerberg, Bezos, and Musk is that it's a system issue. You can play evil billionaire whack-a-mole but new ones will pop up.