Responding to the point "it's [only] litigated on substack", things like government bans are relevant counter-examples

The bans might be unfounded or well founded, you might agree with them or not, but clearly the idea that social media might be bad has spread beyond substack

▲

Lerc 2 days ago | parent [-]

At no point did I have your inserted [only] in my mind when I wrote that.

I certainly do think the idea that social media might be bad has spread far and wide. What I would like to see is experts in the field reaching a consensus on to what extent that idea is true, and what should be done about it.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00902-2#ref-CR6

It should be noted a lot of ideas have spread in recent years. We would do well to not believe all of them, no matter how comforting it is to externalize blame.

	▲	procaryote 16 hours ago \| parent [-]
		My apologies for misreading you then. I didn't expect you to object specifically to it being debated on substack in addition to by scientists, regulators etc. How is that a signal the case against social media is weak?