Oh, I don't think that value is believable (hence the 'somehow'), but, I don't know how you'd get that value so I'm basically saying 'anything is possible apparently'.
Caffeine isn't addictive. Your body acclimates to long term usage, and you will experience some withdrawal symptoms but this is classified as a dependency and not an addiction as it does not trigger the reward mechanisms like weed and or methamphetamine does. It's an important distinction and is why coffee and tea are often served at [Addiction] Anonymous meetings.
Do you also think the husband isn't being abusive because the battered wife let the food get cold? 'It is not abusive because he gets a hot meal out of it'. That's what you sound like.
Do you also not see how a Tyrant boss that screams and belittles their employees is being abusive? The employees are free to quit and find work elsewhere right? Oh wait, freedom to avoid abusive behaviour doesn't make that behaviour non-abusive!
I'll also add that Youtube's ads aren't the only way you 'pay' for the service. They gobble up all the data they can glean from your interactions with them. So much data most people don't even really understand how much they're giving away. This data is sold sure, but it is also used to inform the algorithm on how to make the service more addictive to the users. That is to say, some of the abuse is insidious. Are drug dealers paragons of virtue when they offer free samples?
No other service advertises as obtrusively as Youtube does. Twitch comes close. The reasons they get away with this are:
the service is designed to be addictive, and
they have an effective monopoly. No other free service (and paid for that matter) comes close.
Appeals to fallacies, but refuses to consider the most reasonable form of the argument and instead assumes 'everyone' doesn't mean 'enough people that the rest don't matter'.
Developers would also be able to build their own features and set their own content moderation policies and standards for their respective servers. Meta bills this new capability as a way to protect people
So Meta is keenly aware of this and totally won't use it as a way to attract and funnel users onto their servers until one day they decide to take everyone and leave.
In that respect it's mostly wrong. We were far more social for one. Spent most of our time talking on the phone or in person instead of typing. Friends came over and spent most of your time together instead of staying home and playing MP online. Stuck on the bus for 40 mins? Made a new friend. We didn't get hit by cars crossing streets nearly as often, planned and internalized our trips instead of mindlessly following electronic instructions. Cooked full meals following realtime instructions given by mom instead of ordering takeout via app and so on.
A lot of the 'culture' nowadays is centred on what I think of as the 'shortening attention span economy' and I agree that smartphones are the predominant cause of that.
Almost anything can be carcinogenic with a high enough exposure. You can pump a rat full of water until it dies and declare that water kills people. But, that doesn’t prove anything or serve a point.
This is how science is done friend. You make no assumptions. You have reason to believe a theory predicts a testable outcome? You test it. Not everything causes cancer. Pure air doesn't... Clean water doesn't... The research shows us Aspartame does indeed have carcinogenic effects in rats. Now we know this, and the result can be used to support applications for more costly research using subjects much more similar to our anatomy because if it is carcinogenic in one mammal, it probably is carcinogenic in others.
You call the study flawed when it looks perfectly fine to me for the purpose it was designed for. It shows it is carcinogenic in the mammal it was tested on at dosage levels that translate to non-'massive', quite reasonable consumption rates for humans. As such, it warrants concern and all these claims by the European and US Food Agencies saying 'we did 100s of studies decades ago and it is fine trust me bro' is not enough. I'm not arguing this one study proves Aspartame causes cancer in humans. I'm saying your particular criticisms of it are unfounded as is your confidence that Aspartame is non-carcinogenic. You cite FDA claims 'Aspartame is safe' but show no research that supports this conclusion. Looking at the provided links I noticed things like "don't feed to pregnant mothers because phenylalanine", "methanol is a metabolite - nothing concerning there", and 'we plan on doing a systemic revaluation of aspartame as the research is over a decade old (the whole time with the biggest corporations in the world breathing down our necks)' https://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/corporate_publications/files/factsheetaspartame.pdf
Looks to me like somebody did more research and found contradictory results otherwise why would WHO say they are going to do this?
I disagree with the 'massive' exposure 'needed' to observe these effects exaggeration. First, the point of the study was to show it can be carcinogenic, not to parse at exactly what level in humans. Second, effects are seen at the 400ppm level which equates to 20mg/kg. This is 1600mg/day or 8 cans of Diet Coke (@200mg/can) for an 80kg male. That is NOT an impossible level of daily consumption for many.
I suspect further research was done to confirm your linked studies and refine exactly at what minimum levels of daily consumption elicit carcinogenic effects. That will likely be in the full report once released. Until then, you sound like you don't want it to be true, rather than an impartial evaluator of the research.
I don't speak Ukrainian, but I'm happy to help where I can.