[krapp]

> Anyone with common sense knows that social media have many negative effects, attention span, negative beliefs and ideas, addiction, etc.

This is common sense.

> Just like inhaling smoke into your lungs can't be healthy right?

You're asserting that social media is as dangerous and deadly and smoking. That isn't common sense.

> But then comes so called scientist who say well since we thought the the universe was Euclidean but now we see it is non-Euclidean what is common sense is not common sense, there is no common sense.

Now you're trying to discredit any scientist who disagrees with your premise with a ridiculous straw argument that doesn't at all describe any claim being made. This is what's called "motte and bailey." You started with an actually uncontroversial premise but then started arguing for something far more controversial, drawing the false equivalence between the two.

You keep saying "common sense" and even try to imply that "common sense" should take precedence over science, and that is exactly the issue.

[AmbroseBierce]

Why is a risk supposed to be taken by all society instead of a controlled environment? If you really believe in science you wouldn't believe in experiments done to uncontrolled amounts of population, just like the FDA doesn't just let everyone release all possible drugs and only after that start investigating them to check which ones are the harmful ones then why you believe that is the scientific approach to social media? It makes absolutely no sense even from the scientific standpoint that you supposedly believe in.