Some reporters are starting to compare the big social media giants to the old tobacco firms.
We know that some of the engagement algorithms in use are exploitative. We know that people are susceptible to them. It's quite typical that children get protected against exploitation before adults are.
I just hope non-harmful media don't get tarred with the same brush.
I'd be curious as to how one would define this "non-harmful" media? Seems like the linchpin to our future.
Look at mastodon. Absolutely nobody and nothing influences what you see except you. The only things you see are posts from people you follow, in chronological order. Emphasis on people, as opposed to AI generated celebrities selling boner pills to kids or whatever the hell is going on these days
Non-harmful means whatever the government wants it to mean.