Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Social networking platforms are among the most effective tools for mass influence, second only to religion. There is no evidence for this belief. Really for either religion or for "social networking platforms". You could maybe make the claim that this is true in terms of reach, but the implication here is that "these mediums can be used deliberately to influence people in a chosen direction", and this is just kind…
I don't recall legacy media spreading tourettes-like tics... https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9553600/
The idea of social networking (or other broadcast or widely disseminated media) being able to influence beliefs or behavior is kind of inarguable. In specific cases there might be causal confusion - whether the media was effective because of existing trends or piggybacked on other phenomena vs. creating the effect directly. But this is a far cry from claiming that it can be deliberately weaponized, or that it is more effective for this purpose than other means of information dissemination.
[1] Social contagion, a phenomenon that long predates the internet