“Don’t be the product” - a truth-inspired campaign for social media
Understanding the ways in which Big Tech is echoing the tactics once used by Big Tobacco.
As New Zealand and Australia look to introduce legislation to increase the age of access of social media to 16, we must think carefully about how we communicate these changes to young people. Poorly crafted messaging could trigger a backlash, with teens resisting the new rules and undermining the policy’s impact.
Public health history, especially the fight against tobacco, offers valuable lessons. To chart an effective path forward, we must understand the ways in which Big Tech is echoing the tactics once used by Big Tobacco.
Big Tech is mirroring Big Tobacco’s manipulation techniques
Social media and tobacco companies have made billions off an addictive product (or at the very least a product that is designed to be addictive). And they have both targeted this product to young people, while downplaying the harms in public. In short, they both followed the mantra: hook them young, keep them coming back, and downplay the risks.
But the similarities don’t end there.
Both industries have successfully undertaken corporate blame shifting endeavours. This has involved diverting the responsibility off the companies who are profiting, and onto the users. The tobacco industry famously worked to make parents and children responsible for smoking, rather than acknowledging the industry’s own role. And we are now seeing this with social media.
To reinforce the idea that harm is simply a matter of personal choice, both industries have promoted education campaigns that use strengths-based language to reframe this blame-shifting as “empowering” young people to make the right decisions. These programmes serve a dual purpose: they encourage teens to “take responsibility” (ignoring the addictive nature of the product) and allow companies to appear responsible, all while lobbying against meaningful regulation. This was Big Tobacco’s strategy in the 1990s, and it’s being repeated by social media platforms today.
Self-regulation is another tactic borrowed from the tobacco playbook. Tobacco companies introduced voluntary codes and youth programmes, not to protect young people, but to stave off government intervention. As one internal Phillip Morris memo from 1994 stated:
“An industry code will be written . . . so that it can be used as both a lobbying lever and an argument against introducing formal legislation”. [Philip Morris memo; 1994].1
Today, we see similar moves from social media companies, such as “Instagram Teen Accounts,” which are publicised as safety measures but were introduced just as countries were moving to introduce legislation to regulate social media platforms.
But perhaps most concerning is the way both industries seek to boost their credibility by partnering with academics and youth organisations. Tobacco companies did this to lend legitimacy to their efforts. Now, we’re seeing social media companies fund youth organisations in New Zealand and Australia, organisations that sometimes echo industry talking points, rather than advocating for the rights and wellbeing of children.
So, how did public health advocates successfully counter Big Tobacco’s tactics? And should we consider similar strategies to address the influence of Big Tech before new policy changes are implemented in New Zealand and Australia?
truth® for Social Media
Up until the late 90s, anti-tobacco campaigns had focussed on telling young teens what to do: “just say no”. Only, when told to say “no”, teens did anything but - I know, because I was a teen in the 90s and me and my friends (almost all of whom smoked) were recipients of this ineffective messaging.
Then, in 1998, an American campaign was introduced that revolutionised anti-smoking messaging for teens. Unlike previous, unsuccessful attempts to prevent smoking initiation in this age group, the truth campaign avoided telling adolescents what to do and instead focussed on exposing the manipulation tactics employed by tobacco companies to target young people. Then it stepped back and let teens decide what to do next.
And it worked. Between 2000 and 2004, its estimated that the campaign prevented around 450,000 adolescents from trying smoking in the states2. So, what made truth® so unique?
The success of truth® lay in its ability to leverage what we know about teen development and behaviour. Teens are allergic to coercion, and they value their independence. So, instead of telling teens what to do, the campaign exposed how tobacco companies were trying to control them. Ads showed internal tobacco industry documents, highlighted deceptive marketing practices, and invited teens to join a movement against corporate exploitation. This resulted in teens rebelling, but this time, instead of rebelling against parents and teachers, they rebelled against the corporations profiting from their vulnerability.
So, how could a truth-inspired campaign for social media empower this generation to reclaim their freedom from the relentless pull of these platforms?
What Would a Truth-Inspired Social Media Campaign Look Like?
The truth campaign succeeded where others before it had failed because it didn’t threaten the freedom of teens, rather it invited them to reclaim it.
When we perceive our sense of freedom to engage in an activity is being threatened, even if we agree that the activity is not good for us, psychological reactance can make us want to engage in that behaviour even more3. When designing messages for teens, we need to avoid activating their psychological reactance at all costs. To do this, we must steer clear of explicit directives.
This was the genius of truth®. Quitting smoking was framed as an act of independence. A campaign for teens around social media use could do the same: highlight how platforms exploit users, and frame opting out or using alternatives as an act of autonomy.
Such a campaign might expose the manipulation techniques used by tech companies to hook young users, centre the youth voice by having teens share their experiences of social media harms, invite teens to be counterculture, and offer young people safer and healthier alternatives that they can co-create, such as online and offline spaces that prioritise safety, privacy, and connection. Spaces shaped by teens, not engineered for corporate profit.
Young People Deserve the Truth
In New Zealand, there’s a movement to prioritise the youth voice when shaping social media policy. While it’s vital to listen to young people, we must also recognise that teens aren’t typically experts when it comes to the research or aware of the sophisticated manipulation tactics used by social media companies – particularly not younger teens and kids. Many are caught in the middle of a web which they can’t fully see.
Rather than simply asking teens what they want, maybe we should trust them with the truth, equip them with knowledge about how these platforms operate, and then invite them to be active partners in creating solutions.
As with tobacco, tackling social media harms will require bold, honest campaigns that respect young people, expose the realities behind the platforms, and empower healthier choices. A truth-inspired campaign alone won’t solve everything, nor will raising the age of access to 16. But together they could work synergistically to spark the kind of cultural shift we need in New Zealand and Australia.
Dr Sam Marsh is a Public Health Academic in the Department of General Practice and Primary Health Care, University of Auckland.
Coombs J, Bond L, Van V, Daube M. “Below the Line”: The tobacco industry and youth smoking. The Australasian medical journal 2011; 4(12): 655.
Farrelly MC, Nonnemaker J, Davis KC, Hussin A. The influence of the national truth® campaign on smoking initiation. American journal of preventive medicine 2009; 36(5): 379-84.
Fogarty JS. Reactance theory and patient noncompliance. Social Science & Medicine 1997; 45(8): 1277-88.
 | A guest post by
|