Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Meta sued for social media addiction caused by its algorithm

protocol.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 119 posts

Re: Meta sued for social media addiction caused by its algorithm

#61

Post by thebean11 »

oblio wrote: post #56
thebean11 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Only a minority of people can withstand an onslaught... Is that true? Most people aren't addicted to anything let alone social media..I really don't buy the claim that people have literally no control over their actions. What's your solution? Ban sugar, alcohol and social media? Padding on the sidewalks?

> What's your solution? Ban sugar, alcohol and social media? Padding on the sidewalks? There isn't "one solution". And bans generally are not a solution. But we need to fight with the same weapons they're fighting, for example, let's take sugar and unhealthy foods. They're presenting their food as fun and glamorous, let's blow that up, like we did for tobacco. No more mass advertising for it, anywhere. Horrible label…

20 years ago the sugar lobby told everyone that sugar was good and fat was bad.

I'm all for banning specific ingredients and processes that are known poisonous (like BPAs for example are banned in many countries, deservedly) but unilaterally deciding what's healthy and having quotas for healthy foods is extreme. It will be the sugar vs fat thing all over and only the rich will benefit.

Just to make sure I understand what you’re proposing, taco trucks and ice cream shops would be illegal in your ideal world yeah?

Re: Meta sued for social media addiction caused by its algorithm

#62

Post by nl »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #32
behnamoh wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

easier to enforce such laws in a low populated country such as Australia than in places like the US.

Australians generally live in big dense cities. In fact, this is probably why the ban will work, they are also more into rule of law than the USA is. Also, vaping in Australia is illegal, making the ban even more impressive.

> Also, vaping in Australia is illegal,

I assure that it isn't. (I'm Australian)

Re: Meta sued for social media addiction caused by its algorithm

#63

Post by oblio »

thebean11 wrote: post #61
oblio wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's your solution? Ban sugar, alcohol and social media? Padding on the sidewalks? There isn't "one solution". And bans generally are not a solution. But we need to fight with the same weapons they're fighting, for example, let's take sugar and unhealthy foods. They're presenting their food as fun and glamorous, let's blow that up, like we did for tobacco. No more mass advertising for it, anywhere. Horrible label…

20 years ago the sugar lobby told everyone that sugar was good and fat was bad. I'm all for banning specific ingredients and processes that are known poisonous (like BPAs for example are banned in many countries, deservedly) but unilaterally deciding what's healthy and having quotas for healthy foods is extreme. It will be the sugar vs fat thing all over and only the rich will benefit. Just to make sure I understand…

> 20 years ago the sugar lobby told everyone that sugar was good and fat was bad.

And we're 20 years from that and now we know better. Which lobby is it this time, the healthy living one, that's lying to us? ...

> Just to make sure I understand what you’re proposing, taco trucks and ice cream shops would be illegal in your ideal world yeah?

Did I stutter? Did I propose bans anywhere?

And why is having quotas for healthy foods extreme? Sell 20% healthy foods out of your entire stock. How hard is that?

We have quotas for all sort of things > the time. The roof hasn't fallen.

Separate note: I guess this is the risk of arguing with libertarians :-) I'd venture you're one.

Re: Meta sued for social media addiction caused by its algorithm

#64

Post by bertil »

erellsworth wrote: post #53
bertil wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook algorithm hasn’t been optimised to maximise time spent on the site since 2014, and controversial topics have a well documented negative effect on both attention and engagement.

> controversial topics have a well documented negative effect on both attention and engagement. Citation needed.

If I call you a child-eating asshole, and every story is either about how much of a goat-fucking moron you are, or gruesome stories with graphic murders, will you want to stay on Hacker News?

Re: Meta sued for social media addiction caused by its algorithm

#65

Post by cronix »

hourago wrote: post #6

Many social media sites evolved from time sorted posts to algorithm sorted posts. The algorithms are data driven and designed to maximize engagement, as it improves revenue. This creates an incentive to push highly controversial topics over more casual content. - China is already regulating this: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/07/china-to-regulate-tech-giant... > Users must be able to opt out of having recommendation s…

sorting from newest first is also a data driven algorithm

Re: Meta sued for social media addiction caused by its algorithm

#66

Post by OGWhales »

xvector wrote: post #2

This is lame. Is an addictive algorithm an illegal substance of some sort? Is personal responsibility not a thing people care about anymore?

I used to think the same thing when it came to the obesity problem here in the US, but someone said something to me that made me rethink my position.

They said: if you have a few people that are obese, that’s an issue with them. If nearly half of society is obese, you have an issue with the society.

Macro issues need to be addressed at the macro level. Yes, an individual can choose to not participate and be better for it, but that still leaves us with the same macro issue and it’s likely worth addressing that issue.

Re: Meta sued for social media addiction caused by its algorithm

#67

Post by yamrzou »

bertil wrote: post #40
yamrzou wrote: post #4

The title is editorialized which breaks HN guidelines. But I hope you get away with it, because I'd like to see a discussion around this :)

Happy to explain what really happened with Facebook, but I typically don’t get a lot of positive feedback when I do.

Yes, please do. It will be constructive whether people agree with it or not.

Re: Meta sued for social media addiction caused by its algorithm

#68

Post by thatjoeoverthr »

cronix wrote: post #65
hourago wrote: post #6

Many social media sites evolved from time sorted posts to algorithm sorted posts. The algorithms are data driven and designed to maximize engagement, as it improves revenue. This creates an incentive to push highly controversial topics over more casual content. - China is already regulating this: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/07/china-to-regulate-tech-giant... > Users must be able to opt out of having recommendation s…

sorting from newest first is also a data driven algorithm

It’s also a transparent one with no ulterior motives and straightforward consequences.

Re: Meta sued for social media addiction caused by its algorithm

#70

Post by thebean11 »

oblio wrote: post #63
thebean11 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

20 years ago the sugar lobby told everyone that sugar was good and fat was bad. I'm all for banning specific ingredients and processes that are known poisonous (like BPAs for example are banned in many countries, deservedly) but unilaterally deciding what's healthy and having quotas for healthy foods is extreme. It will be the sugar vs fat thing all over and only the rich will benefit. Just to make sure I understand…

> 20 years ago the sugar lobby told everyone that sugar was good and fat was bad. And we're 20 years from that and now we know better. Which lobby is it this time, the healthy living one, that's lying to us? ... > Just to make sure I understand what you’re proposing, taco trucks and ice cream shops would be illegal in your ideal world yeah? Did I stutter? Did I propose bans anywhere? And why is having quotas for heal…

I’m not a libertarian at all, I think taxes should be pretty high and there should be universal healthcare. Pretty silly I need to say that, though, and bringing it up is a non sequitur. I’m curious, do you think most non libertarians would agree with what you’re proposing?

But yeah, if you think forcing an ice cream shops to sell sides of broccoli (that nobody will order) to comply with some silly 20% law, we probably won’t get anywhere discussing. It takes a pretty active imagination to picture something like that having a positive outcome.

Post reply on HN