271–280 of 483 posts
As someone who is very pro Free Speech and hates censorships in general, banning these toxic social media especially for Kids is a good idea and as a parent, I am all in for it. If you cannot smoke/drink till 21, you shouldn't be able to do Social media till then. It is that bad especially for children.
I believe that no single person sits down and says "let's make kids get addicted to our product," but they do run A/B tests or new features and keep the better performing variant. The end result of many of these cycles is the same.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many 16 year olds learned to steal cars from social media?
Is this the social media's error or the car manufacturer's error? Or maybe it's really law enforcement's error?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Again, you don't know that. That can be the result of, show what is engaged with more, and you end up with a rage-loop, that was in no way designed purposefully into the original system. You're on hacker news you should know these types of system design issues...
That may have been true fifteen years ago. There is now a decade worth of scientific literature on social network effects on human behaviour, and I think we can agree that this is hardly something not a single Meta executive know anything about.
> You're on hacker news you should know these types of system design issues...
What I'm suggesting is that this is not an issue for them, but a feature.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The comparison you're making is nonsensical. My home kitchen doesn't routinely serve strangers. The forum I host trough a server in my cupboard does. If you want to make a comparison, it's between a small family restaurant and a giant fast food chain. It may surprise you but food inspectors treat both in roughly the same way. Face it. Nothing meaningfully separates my forum from giant social media companies apart fro…
> My home kitchen doesn't routinely serve strangers. Most states have cottage food laws, with basic regulations for small-scale commercial production. E.g. you need to take a course on food safety, you need your water tested, and you can only sell up to $X per year, but you aren't subject to random inspections. There is no reason why the web shouldn't be regulated similarly, with different rules based on the size of…
If we have different rules depending on scale, how is it OK for the rules for large scale social media platforms to be impossible to comply with by large scale social media platforms?
As someone who is very pro Free Speech and hates censorships in general, banning these toxic social media especially for Kids is a good idea and as a parent, I am all in for it. If you cannot smoke/drink till 21, you shouldn't be able to do Social media till then. It is that bad especially for children.
That's really extreme. There are definitely better ways to manage it. Tiktok in Singapore has been very thoughtful in their approach which seems to be working.
Interesting logic to think through.
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.
Such as a bicycle. And not a car, in almost every country in the world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> stop Meta from intentionally making their software addictive By regulating the existence of a 'next page' button? Curious if you can think of user interface rules that are less absurd.
I've assumed that the suit is over the fact that Meta intentionally and algorithmically seeks to test what content gets you to stay on their site and feed you more of that.
I also don't remember the last time I saw a Next button on Instagram or Facebook. Maybe they have one for children? But if they're still proactively encouraging addictive behaviors, I'm not sure the specific UI element matters as much.
As someone who is very pro Free Speech and hates censorships in general, banning these toxic social media especially for Kids is a good idea and as a parent, I am all in for it. If you cannot smoke/drink till 21, you shouldn't be able to do Social media till then. It is that bad especially for children.
That's really extreme. There are definitely better ways to manage it. Tiktok in Singapore has been very thoughtful in their approach which seems to be working.