Imagine that there's a popular brand of cherry bubblegum. There's nothing harmful in the formula, it's a perfectly normal candy treat, the company behaves ethically.
For some reason, you run the numbers, and this brand of gum very strongly correlates with suicide and self-harm.
There's no explanation why - the gum is not addictive or psychoactive, there's nothing in the advertising or marketing that would incite people to hurt themselves... nevertheless, the stats are clear.
What do you do?
@Tailsteak Where is the option for "research the correlation and find the cause, because it's probably not the gum"? Because in real life these scenarios are 90% not the gum and all these measures are time-wasters until research turns up the real cause?
poor/dangerous mh outcomes discussed as part of a thought experiment
@Tailsteak Liking the productive aspect of the tax as an immediate action, but I'd really want to look at the customer base, and how it self-selects.
Meaning a broad look at the culture surrounding the gum that is not advertising, marketing. What communities buy it? How do they describe it? Why do they buy the stuff, & are they aware of the correlation? Also known comorbidities or other markers that stand out in this group esp.
@Tailsteak Well. If there is no proven link it's just correlation. Though correlation implies causation. But given, that there is indeed no link other than correlation then Laissez faire. But if there is indeed a link (i.e. it is a statistical fact (sigma < 5% et. al.) then warning label given the precedence of smoking packages.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!