It's now official, tech is the new tobacco

The central argument is that social-media companies are using tactics once associated with tobacco and fossil-fuel companies to influence research and delay scrutiny of potentially harmful products. Establishing whether social-media use causes harm to young people’s mental health is difficult, making independent science especially important in lawsuits and debates over regulation. The writer points to earlier research by their collaborators suggesting that tech companies shape the research landscape, and an analysis finding that at least half of prominent social-media studies had ties to tech firms, many undisclosed. The piece also describes criticism of that work, including objections from academics with industry connections who say the comparison to tobacco is unfair or overly polemical.

Newly disclosed internal Meta documents, released through litigation, are presented as evidence that the company sought to steer scientific inquiry. They describe plans to discredit psychologist Jonathan Haidt, while internal researchers complained that lawyers blocked studies of youth mental health and wondered whether research focused only on positive outcomes would be approved. Meta also discussed working with the National Academies to gain credit for proposing an assessment and shape its questions, or turning to another organization if it could not influence the process sufficiently. In that alternative, the company wanted product-feature evaluations excluded; internal discussions also considered which study questions might benefit Meta. The writer argues these records echo industry interference previously exposed in tobacco and fossil-fuel cases, and urges further release of documents.