8 points by pseudolus 6 hours ago | 2 comments
[–] jauntywundrkind 3 hours ago
Actual public service. This guy is such a tosser, exploiting the public's weakness to Fear Uncertainty and Doubt. An annoying brash "hide your children" conservativism, preaching the fear, regardless of facts. 'Let not the realities hinder your FUD-making' nonsense.
His writings keep getting taken to the woodchipper, the researchers he cite saying that's not what they said, and his response is always that the story is still true and he stands by it. A fundamentally un-serious dangerous politics of fear loser (like much of the disloyal conservatism. Which no longer is much about conserving anyhow and is now about some mythical return, by way of a process of massive great destruction & ruin.)
Haidt is just another low grade fiend.
https://www.readtpa.com/p/a-conversation-with-siva-vaidhyana... https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00902-2 https://www.reddit.com/r/IfBooksCouldKill/comments/1dv4t3z/t...
Litigation discovery is perhaps the best source of truth regarding so-called "tech" companies
"Minutes from a meeting on 8 March 2023 mention "Curtiss", an apparent reference to Meta's then vice-president of research, Curtiss Cobb. It states: "Curtiss's goal for this work: how do we get the academic community to disavow Haidt. Can't co-opt them, so how do we enrage them ... so the media finds him not credible."
"It suggests getting someone called "Gellman" to write "a takedown piece".
"Gelman said he had received money from Mark Zuckerberg's company in the past on a "no-strings" basis but had never been asked by Meta to look at social media's impact on teenagers' health."