←back to thread

Addiction Markets

(www.thebignewsletter.com)
383 points toomuchtodo | 3 comments | 31 Oct 25 17:42 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
Karrot_Kream ◴[31 Oct 25 20:58 UTC] No.45776618[source]▶
On a somewhat related note, there seems to be a huge interest in vice policing on social media. Gambling, sex, drugs, these are some of humanity's oldest vices. Why has it become so popular on social media to highlight these, along with a narrative of social or cultural decline?
replies(7): >>45777392 #>>45777731 #>>45778058 #>>45778535 #>>45778933 #>>45778956 #>>45784874 #
1. hshdhdhehd ◴[01 Nov 25 00:04 UTC] No.45778058[source]▶
Think of it in terms of public health not morality. Heart disease is one of humanities oldest killers but we still want to fix it. We also dont want to ban deep friers as we value freedom. Similar for gambling. We do want to discuss what to do when vice becomes no longer nice.
replies(1): >>45778670 #
2. Karrot_Kream ◴[01 Nov 25 02:00 UTC] No.45778670[source]▶
This is actually a good example of what I mean. Heart disease is meticulously studied. Its incidence is tracked tracked. It has longitudinal studies. Its mechanisms are explored. It has peer reviewed studies discussing interventions. Doctors talk all the time about the tradeoffs their patients can make to decrease their chances of getting heart disease.

What it has a lot less of is random public policy influencers writing polemics about it. There's some, sure, and that's exactly where RFK and the MAHA coalition come from. But professionals don't treat MAHA and their blogs as coda. So why do we do the same for anything related to money?

replies(1): >>45784364 #
3. daseiner1 ◴[01 Nov 25 19:04 UTC] No.45784364[source]▶
vice != money. meticulous study lags behind facts on the ground. perhaps vice is super-charged today, and policy influencers are more akin to journalists.

(giving extreme benefit of the doubt, here)