| As always, the poison is in the dose, and the environment matters a lot. It's a very similar pattern to other engineered addictive substances (introduction/harm/recognition/regulation.) Tobacco has been around forever in the Americas. Were Native Americans sprawled out on the forest floor, unable to function because of tobacco? Of course not. The mild high and self-limiting supply of tobacco was no problem in their environment. Then came the industrialization of tobacco. Cigarettes came in convenient dosages, and were cheap and ubiquitous. You could get cigarettes anywhere, and you could smoke them almost anywhere. They were given out for free to soldiers. Movies made smoking look glamorous. And smoking does help keep you slim. But then people started living longer, and the health problems of tobacco addiction (even to people just in proximity to tobacco smoke) became clear. So we no longer let tobacco companies advertise to children, and attractive actors (mostly) no longer smoke in movies. We tax the hell out of tobacco, and restrict smoking areas more and more. We also forced the tobacco companies to clearly label their product, and there are widespread education campaigns. Eventually tobacco use dropped. But it wasn't primarily because the addicts all suddenly found self-discipline. The social media companies, just like tobacco, will never see the problem until they are forced. And I am afraid, given the sums of money involved, we will end up with the equivalent of social-media "vaping" (that has to go through the full cycle of introduction/harm/recognition/regulation again...) |