Chamath Palihapitiya

And so agree that there's too much litigation.

And if we don't want people to make noise, then we shouldn't put it out there.

But if you as a corporation know it's dangerous, and then you lean into that, if you know, as is the case with Facebook, that this is super addicting, super damaging to young girls, and then you lean into making it more addictive, and you don't put safeguards in place, and you can prove that, like RJR,

like asbestos, like many of these other compounds.

Second, after age, which is what we're really talking about with kids, and Jonathan Haidt would agree that they shouldn't be using this until they're 16, so I think that's a perfect analogy.

age gating, and then labeling.

And then if they know of something that's really damaging, releasing that.

So there was a whole thing about alcohol in pregnancy, and they covered up in the alcohol industry or didn't disclose exactly how damaging it was to drink alcohol on a fetus or a developing fetus.

And then remember all those signs went up in bars in the 70s and 80s?

That was directly because of that.

So labeling, information, and age gating would be the logical things to do for social media.

And that's what's happened the past.

So that's the answer to your question.

Sax, jump in here.

Personal freedom and personal responsibility versus, hey, corporations may be knowingly doing things.

Parental responsibility in there as well.

Yeah.

What do you think, Sax?

The consensus, Chamath, is kids who use this two or three hours a day, this has been across many research studies, is that it's massively correlated with depression and anxiety and eating disorders, specifically in young girls.

If you get to two or three hours a day of this, so that correlations, I think pretty well established, you pretty famously said, Hey, and you worked at Facebook, so you saw this coming.