A The key whistleblower in the tobacco industry’s landmark trials of the 1990s is closely watching big tech’s recent court battles. Jeffrey Stephen Wiegand, a biochemist who helped expose tobacco companies targeted children And by hiding how addicted he is to cigarettes, he felt a sense of belonging. Last week, a major social media trial ruled that Meta and YouTube knowingly designed addictive products. strengthened comparisons For legal action against big tobacco. Wigand sees this too. His first thought when he learned about the lawsuit in California was that social media companies were trying to get kids addicted to drugs through their ads – just like the tobacco industry did.
A Los Angeles jury last week found Meta and YouTube negligent. The plaintiffs’ attorneys relied heavily on internal documents and correspondence to demonstrate that company leadership dismissed concerns about how harmful social media features could be. Meta was also found liable in a separate lawsuit in New Mexico, alleging it failed to prevent child sexual abuse. These verdicts are the first time Meta has been found liable for how its products affect young people – after years of criticism, much of it from angry parents who feel social media has harmed their children’s mental health.
Whistleblowers, such as former Meta employee Arturo Bazar, have played an important role in social media cases. Over the years, he has provided important internal documents about the inner workings of tech giants, strengthening the argument that these companies did not do enough to protect children.
Wigand played a similar role in the 90s in relation to the tobacco industry. He was hired by the tobacco company Brown & Williamson (B&W) in 1989 to develop safer cigarettes. As vice president of research at a tobacco company, he raised concerns about carcinogens in cigarettes, which he says were dismissed by leadership. Ultimately he was fired from his job and the program to create safer cigarettes was canceled. after wigand’s boss told Congress Believing that cigarettes were not addictive, Wigand publicly declared that the industry was a “nicotine distribution business” and helped the federal government investigate it.
The Guardian spoke to Wiegand about the similarities he saw between tobacco and social media trials and his advice for tech workers thinking about becoming a whistleblower.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Take me back to the 90s; What did it mean to you? announce publicly Did the tobacco industry know and hide the harmful effects of smoking? After all these years, would you have done anything differently?
No, I felt uncomfortable knowing that I was participating in the addiction of children. And I decided I needed to do something. I read a report from the National Toxicology Program that one of the additives in cigarettes – coumarin – has carcinogenic properties. I wrote a letter to the CEO of B&W warning him that this substance and our products could cause cancer. They asked me to find an alternative to coumarin but ultimately decided that taking it out of cigarettes would make the product less palatable – and we would lose consumers. They had filled the entire place with people following the company’s mantra, and I kept my distance from them.
So let’s come to the present. What was your first thought when you started following these high-profile social media trials?
The first thought was of addiction.
What made you so confident?
I looked at these social media companies and how they target their ads. They are for teenagers. This was clearly in their own documents.
The tobacco industry – similar to social media companies – deliberately gets people addicted to it, especially children, so they can use them as cash flow. When you start to become addicted, you need more and more of the chemical that gets you high. They knowingly and knowingly develop programs that attack the weaknesses of our children.
It seems as if you are saying that tobacco and social media have the same result.
Yes.
Can you elaborate on that? Big tech critics have called the social media decision a “big tobacco moment.” What are some key similarities and differences?
It’s definitely different. Tobacco is something that is burned and consumed. What they see on the screen is an electronic broadcast.
Social media companies knew it was addictive. They knew they had to create a base that was easy to manipulate. They chose children just like the tobacco companies.
What is it about children that makes them so vulnerable?
brain development. The brains of children – especially young ones – are very malleable. It is easy to enter. In addiction, you build up a tolerance: you need more and more to keep getting the same feeling.
In the tobacco case, were the allegations of harm focused on young people?
Most of the cases focused on children. Do you think Joe the Camel was for a 25 year old adult? They used psychologists to develop the packaging. They had symbols that acted on a child’s mind. They are an easy target. If you look at some old industry documents, it’s the kids they want. Why is there a cartoon advertising cigarettes?
How did we see the tobacco industry recover immediately after legal action, and what can it tell us about the road ahead for social media companies?
There are safety measures and guardrails that can be put in place with regard to age and material. It’s similar to tobacco: We can try to raise the age at which young people have access to social media. The tobacco industry is in a much better position today than it was in 1996. (Many social media platforms set the minimum age for an account at 13, but have been criticized for not doing enough to ensure that young children are not on their platforms.)
As a child, it is hard to understand what is harmful. They think: If it’s fun and feels good, why shouldn’t I do it? That’s the problem with addiction. This locks you into a pattern of behavior where you have to constantly seek out the substance that makes you feel good.
Some observers have said that they are happy to see big tech being held accountable, but they worry that it could ultimately lead to increased limits on social media, which infringes on freedom of speech. What do you think?
This is always an issue when you have corrective action. I don’t use Facebook or YouTube. I don’t like this. I have no problem using Google or AI chat when I’m looking for specific information. Although I never allowed my children to join social media. I always felt bad about it.
Is there anything you would like to add about equality in the industry ignoring internal research about harm to health?
I had intimate knowledge of how B&W used lawyers to seize documents that could have been incriminating. The company edited the documents to remove anything that might indicate harm. What really sank the ship were their internal documents explaining how to get users addicted.
Now, how far is social media going to go? I think they can take some logical steps that will restrict children’s access. That’s a huge chunk of change they’ll have to give up.
This opens the door to even higher payouts, right?
I don’t think this is the final point. Social media knew what he was doing and hoped he would get away with it.
In both these cases, we have whistleblowers like you who have come forward against the companies they worked for. What challenges do people face when they decide to become whistleblowers?
I have ex-Secret Service agents protecting me and my family 24/7. They opened my mail because I had received death threats. My family also did the same. My children could not ride their bicycles wherever they wanted.
I didn’t earn anything from this. I gained nothing from the agreement except the belief that I had now fulfilled my moral duty. Once I learned all the intricacies of the tobacco industry, the more uncomfortable and really dirty I felt. I was directly involved in causing harm and death. And it bothered me a lot. At the end of the day, I helped the Justice Department hold the cigarette industry accountable: $365bn worth. Now, has this changed completely? No, the tobacco industry has a new way of doing it. Now they have nicotine pouches and easy-puffs and other tricks they have to continue to deliver what they know is the essence of the business: nicotine.
What message would you have for people inside tech companies who are considering becoming a whistleblower?
You have to balance: what your career is worth, versus what your soul or character is worth. I was raised in the Christian faith. That’s my core, part of my DNA. My message to other people who see what the industry is doing is to step up. The greatest thing you can do is save other people’s lives. I would say if you’re thinking about becoming a whistleblower, think carefully and deeply. Because your life will never be the same and you have to be prepared for it financially, emotionally, psychologically. This is a difficult decision because most whistleblowers put themselves at risk to benefit someone else. And feel good about it. I have also done what I feel is right.
He is very powerful. Is there anything I didn’t ask you?
People should consider their role in causing harm. Do they feel that this has a negative impact on them as a programmer or project manager? They have to consider what they are doing. When I went to B&W I never thought I would cause harm. I went there to develop a safer cigarette. This is what he asked me to do. They took my two decades of medical experience and applied it to a product that, when used for its intended purpose, can not only kill its user, but also harm innocent bystanders. That was never my intention.
