I can’t argue all the data points you bring (not because I agree with them or think they’re true, but mostly because I don’t have the research capacity to challenge them) but I can say that the comparison to bicycles make little sense. Cycling technology exhibit NONE of the attributes that opponents to social media bring as their arguments. What’s your point? Just because it’s a technology that created panic that turned out to be exaggerated? So according to your logic, every technology in history is good because even if it creates concerns , we can always “bicycle” it. Why not guns? Why not drug technology? Hell, why not an atomic bomb. They will all pass your bicycle test. I’m not saying everything in social media is evil. Most serious people don’t think so. But understanding the business model that drives the social media objectives (which I’m sure you do) can’t output an ethical good in the world. It just can’t. And if occasionally it does, by some arbitrary temporary set of circumstances, I will take it as a “by product” at best.