On 2016 Sep 30, Clive Bates commented:

There is nothing at all in these findings to justify the conclusion. In fact, the findings are more likely to support the opposite - that such social media activity is helpful in reducing smoking. If vaping companies are "enticing consumers" it is almost always to stop smoking and to vape instead. So if these tweets were actually affecting behaviour, it is likely that it would be in a way that reduces smoking and is beneficial to public health.

The authors cannot know if these tweets do actually cause changes in smoking or vaping status. However, it seems likely (by which I mean 'obvious') that vaping-related tweets would be seen by almost exclusively people who already vape. The key design feature of twitter is that users opt into the content they wish to see by choosing to follow other users. Non-vapers are unlikely to follow a vaping company or vaping review feed. Equally, advertising is targeted at users algorithmically to reach users and potential users )i.e. smokers). So the likelihood is that, if these tweets have any impact at all, it will be in shaping preferences among those already vaping for particular flavours, brand or retailers or advertising an alternative to smoking, albeit one that the authors appear to disapprove of.

The authors seem concerned that only 3% mention vaping as a way of quitting smoking. Why should that matter at all? If people are attracted to vaping for different reasons but give up smoking as a result, what's the problem? Furthermore, The Vaper points claims about quitting smoking are usually banned or deemed irresponsible Kavuluru R, 2016. Other authors have managed to be worried about the finding the opposite van der Tempel J, 2016.

There is no justification for doing this work in the first place, no case to publish such flawed interpretation of the findings, and no need to spend any time or money following its self-evidently false conclusion and inappropriate policy recommendation.

Disclosure: I am a longstanding advocate for 'harm reduction' approaches to public health. I was director of Action on Smoking and Health UK from 1997-2003. I have no competing interests with respect to any of the relevant industries.

On 2016 Sep 30, Clive Bates commented:

There is nothing at all in these findings to justify the conclusion. In fact, the findings are more likely to support the opposite - that such social media activity is helpful in reducing smoking. If vaping companies are "enticing consumers" it is almost always to stop smoking and to vape instead. So if these tweets were actually affecting behaviour, it is likely that it would be in a way that reduces smoking and is beneficial to public health.

The authors cannot know if these tweets do actually cause changes in smoking or vaping status. However, it seems likely (by which I mean 'obvious') that vaping-related tweets would be seen by almost exclusively people who already vape. The key design feature of twitter is that users opt into the content they wish to see by choosing to follow other users. Non-vapers are unlikely to follow a vaping company or vaping review feed. Equally, advertising is targeted at users algorithmically to reach users and potential users )i.e. smokers). So the likelihood is that, if these tweets have any impact at all, it will be in shaping preferences among those already vaping for particular flavours, brand or retailers or advertising an alternative to smoking, albeit one that the authors appear to disapprove of.

The authors seem concerned that only 3% mention vaping as a way of quitting smoking. Why should that matter at all? If people are attracted to vaping for different reasons but give up smoking as a result, what's the problem? Furthermore, The Vaper points claims about quitting smoking are usually banned or deemed irresponsible Kavuluru R, 2016. Other authors have managed to be worried about the finding the opposite van der Tempel J, 2016.

There is no justification for doing this work in the first place, no case to publish such flawed interpretation of the findings, and no need to spend any time or money following its self-evidently false conclusion and inappropriate policy recommendation.

Disclosure: I am a longstanding advocate for 'harm reduction' approaches to public health. I was director of Action on Smoking and Health UK from 1997-2003. I have no competing interests with respect to any of the relevant industries.