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

Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 483 posts

Re: Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

#251

Post by NegativeK »

cheriot wrote: post #176

> with features like “infinite scroll” and persistent alerts used to hook young users > Meta has harnessed powerful and unprecedented technologies Are we talking about infinite scroll or heroine? It would make more sense to sue Kelloggs over Lucky Charms commercials, but we're all use to them so there's no outrage. It's politically popular to sue big tech and especially Meta. That's the whole story. To be clear, the…

Why does the solution have to be one-sided?

Why can't we educate parents about controls and stop Meta from intentionally making their software addictive? Heck, we could even fine Meta and have the money go to efforts to reduce the behaviors they've worked so hard to create.

Re: Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

#252

Post by manuelabeledo »

tsunamifury wrote: post #247
manuelabeledo wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that a bit like tobacco companies "optimizing for engagement", but knowing that the same ingredients cause cancer?

In all seriousness, no, and for obvious reasons. The toxicity is created by the participants, freely and of their own volition. Is it Facebooks responsibility to police that, shut it down, censor it? Honestly... And where who and when? According to what laws in what regions. Also how do we know Facebook created it, or if it is simply making visible the toxicity that everyone knows is middle school and highschool. I h…

> Either way its different than tobacco which was created by the company itself.

One could argue that Meta willingly boosted toxic engagement themselves.

This didn't happen in a vacuum. When a controversial post or comment suddenly pops up in your feed, out of nowhere, participants may be responsible for the responses to it, but Meta is very clearly seeking, targeting, and amplifying that toxic behaviour for profit.

Re: Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

#253

Post by throwaway237289 »

yodsanklai wrote: post #245

I'm impressed by the strong negative reactions on this thread. Maybe because this is a US-centric forum, or because I don't have kids, but I fail to see the big deal with Meta. Facebook is mostly groups with little engagements. Nowadays, people really fight on Twitter which has less moderation. Then Instagram, I thought kids were on Tik Tok? Well, I can see how some people might be negatively impacted by this sites b…

There's an amazing subtlety here, which is that Governments are slow to function and rarely regulate well. That they're targeting Meta instead of what kids actually use (TikTok) highlights this fact.

So not only will they fail to achieve their goal, they're not even going after the right player.

But hey the cultural movement of Americans these days are to hate on big tech, and Facebook in particular. So here we go.

Re: Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

#254

Post by spookie »

Zufriedenheit wrote: post #204
glimshe wrote: post #129

Irrespective of the incidental value "Meta" provides, let's keep in mind that no business has a right to exist independently from its standing in the system of laws and the health of its users - especially children. Social media companies argue that they can't monitor every post and do appropriate age verification online because it would be "impossible to scale". Well, tough luck. Not being able to scale is YOUR prob…

But what about all the small, independent forums in the internet? For them it would really be impossible to comply with monitoring every post. Often they are hobby projects.

There needs to be a line drawn from those who service a large number of people, and those who don't. Either way, only those who are big enough can be actively monitored and accounted for.

Before the obvious argument "where do you draw the line?", I may add that only a select and obvious number of social platforms reach the level of Meta's.

Re: Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

#255

Post by sneak »

huytersd wrote: post #248

Good. For once I’ll agree with the governance in Utah and say we should ban social media for kids until they are 18.

Why is it okay for a 19 year old but not a 17 year old?

If they’re bad, they’re bad for adults, too?

If they’re not inherently bad, then they can be safely used by responsible 16 year olds as well as responsible 18/19 year olds?

We let 16 year olds operate deadly machinery traveling at many meters per second. Social media is at least less potentially harmful than automobiles.

Re: Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

#257

Post by dymk »

sneak wrote: post #255
huytersd wrote: post #248

Good. For once I’ll agree with the governance in Utah and say we should ban social media for kids until they are 18.

Why is it okay for a 19 year old but not a 17 year old? If they’re bad, they’re bad for adults, too? If they’re not inherently bad, then they can be safely used by responsible 16 year olds as well as responsible 18/19 year olds? We let 16 year olds operate deadly machinery traveling at many meters per second. Social media is at least less potentially harmful than automobiles.

Because at some point you decide that some threshold is useful to have, and stop sealioning on the internet about it

Re: Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

#258

Post by millzlane »

sneak wrote: post #255
huytersd wrote: post #248

Good. For once I’ll agree with the governance in Utah and say we should ban social media for kids until they are 18.

Why is it okay for a 19 year old but not a 17 year old? If they’re bad, they’re bad for adults, too? If they’re not inherently bad, then they can be safely used by responsible 16 year olds as well as responsible 18/19 year olds? We let 16 year olds operate deadly machinery traveling at many meters per second. Social media is at least less potentially harmful than automobiles.

How many 16 year olds learned to steal cars from social media?

Re: Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

#259

Post by [deleted] »

throwaway237289 wrote: post #253
yodsanklai wrote: post #245

I'm impressed by the strong negative reactions on this thread. Maybe because this is a US-centric forum, or because I don't have kids, but I fail to see the big deal with Meta. Facebook is mostly groups with little engagements. Nowadays, people really fight on Twitter which has less moderation. Then Instagram, I thought kids were on Tik Tok? Well, I can see how some people might be negatively impacted by this sites b…

There's an amazing subtlety here, which is that Governments are slow to function and rarely regulate well. That they're targeting Meta instead of what kids actually use (TikTok) highlights this fact. So not only will they fail to achieve their goal, they're not even going after the right player. But hey the cultural movement of Americans these days are to hate on big tech, and Facebook in particular. So here we go.

[deleted]

Re: Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

#260

Post by mcpackieh »

Spivak wrote: post #225
mcpackieh wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We know the downsides already In the sense that the downsides are documented in the relevant scientific literature, sure. But popular perception of those downsides is very different. A whole lot of people think those downsides are a pack of lies: that cannabis isn't habit forming, that it doesn't make the average user lazy and complacent, that it doesn't increase the risk of schizophrenia, that driving under the in…

You started down a path that was sane then took a sharp turn. People recognize that cannabis is habit forming, it's just not as physically addictive as the things we label "dangerous addictive drugs." Most people are addicted to caffeine and we generally accept that it's fine. In the same way that moderate drinking for almost everyone doesn't turn into alcoholism it's the same for cannabis. In contrast everyone who s…

> People recognize that cannabis is habit forming

You say that, but there's a lot of people who flat out deny it. You're saying that everybody knows this, but that isn't true. Same thing with the driving under the influence thing. A lot of people have told me that they drive safer when high because it heightens their senses and slows their roll and makes them paranoid and therefore careful, and a whole lot of cope like that invented to excuse themselves for doing it.

The downsides of cannabis that you claim everybody understands and recognizes are in fact flat out denied by many people.

Post reply on HN