341–350 of 483 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean no, they're specifically optimizing for engagement. It just turns out that toxicity fuels engagement.
Among Haugen’s allegations was a claim that the company was knowingly preying on vulnerable young people to boost profits. "Knowingly preying on vulnerable young people to boost profits" is different from blindly optimizing for engagement without understanding what works.
So if your app gets too "good" and users use it too much, then you have broken the law? Interesting logic to think through.
Growing up, I knew maybe two or three kids that had emotional problems. Now (as an adult with grown kids) I hardly know any families that don’t have such a person. I’m sure part of it is we’re more open, which is great, but I can’t attribute all of it to that. The rising generation is really struggling. My guess is social media, but maybe it’s environmental pollution or something similar. I live in the US for what it…
>My guess is social media, but maybe it’s environmental pollution or something similar There are plenty of other countries that have just as much social media usage as the US but don't have the same widespread emotional dysfunction, so wouldn't that suggest that social media isn't to blame?
This causes mental health issues to go unaddressed, but, ironically, it also helps in a way, because peer pressure certainly helps reinforce individual discipline to develop techniques to keep it together. Peer pressure is a very powerful motivator.
For example fat shaming is certainly bullying but it's also certainly effective at discouraging overeating
Growing up, I knew maybe two or three kids that had emotional problems. Now (as an adult with grown kids) I hardly know any families that don’t have such a person. I’m sure part of it is we’re more open, which is great, but I can’t attribute all of it to that. The rising generation is really struggling. My guess is social media, but maybe it’s environmental pollution or something similar. I live in the US for what it…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Now you want to exempt everyone apart from giant social media companies from that same rule?
This is getting a bit Kafkaesque.
My gut feeling is that nothing will change meaningfully as long as employee promotions are dependent on increasing engagement (either directly or indirectly). 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.
It is not even about employee promotion. You can't ban a communication tool. That is just absurd.
Research shows 100% of bullying is caused by humans and eliminating all human contact reduces bullying by 100%
Amazing!
When will social media finally be regulated like alcohol, nicotine, and every other addictive poison?
It's not just a question of addictiveness but also of potential level of harm.
I'm convinced that a decade or two from now we are going to look back on social media exactly like we see the tobacco industry today. The companies knew what they were selling, knew the harm, but put profit over public good.
Yea, all this cancer and burden on the healthcare system caused by social media. Just like tobacco.
Now do it for the food and candy companies