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

EU opens child safety probes of Facebook and Instagram, citing addictive design

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 103 posts

Re: EU opens child safety probes of Facebook and Instagram, citing addictive design

#11

Post by cuu508 »

red_admiral wrote: post #4
dathinab wrote: post #3

I wonder if we at as a society at some point will decide that any "flow which which constantly provides short feedback loop high and lows with no substantial user interaction between" should be treated like gambling. I I mean AFIK they do affect the brain in similar ways as gambling and seem to have the potential to do quite a bit of damage for the development of young children, and at least in case of Ticktock in co…

Jonathan Haidt has a book out (The Anxious Generation) arguing for a causal link between children having smartphones with social media, and the massive increases in depression, suicidality, anxiety and other negative effects in teenagers and young adults over the last decade or so (I believe 2012 is roughly when Haidt claims it all started). It may well be that Tiktok and the like turn out to have worse second-order…

He talked about the book in a recent Conversations with Tyler podcast episode: https://conversationswithtyler.com/episodes/jonathan-haidt-a...

It's an untypical episode, usually Tyler just rapid-fires questions, but here he takes the opposite view (on the balance, social networks are a good thing for teens) and debates quite a bit.

Re: EU opens child safety probes of Facebook and Instagram, citing addictive design

#14

Post by can16358p »

I don't get how exactly this is measured though. For many app projects, keeping the user in the app is obviously one of the most important metrics, especially for free apps (hence more ads to show and more money to make).

Many UX patterns are fine tuned to keep people in more, which is perfectly understandable as the primary goal is to keep the user in.

Now, who defines "addictive" using which aspect? And even if it is defined, how are they going to outlaw "addictive design"? Blocking UX patterns? Imposing a limit on how quick a user can swipe to next content (which would do more harm than good in general)? Limiting displayed relevant recommended content at the end of content (again, more harm than good in general)?

Don't want to play devil's advocate here but it's not the apps'/platforms' fault here, but parents' fault.

Sugar is addictive. Do we ban sugar, or regulate its consumption? No! Instead we educate parents to limit their childrens' sugar intake.

Parents need to be educated the same way about addictiveness of social platforms and limit their children's usage, but they are probably perfectly okay with status quo as giving a tablet to a kid "snoozes" them for hours so the parent can do whatever they want without interacting with their children, which is wrong in the first place.

I do not work for any big social media platform nor benefit from them, but stop blaming successful social media platforms that have mastered UX optimization, for stupid parents' actions that cause their children to get addicted.

Educate the parents instead to spend more right time with their children.

Re: EU opens child safety probes of Facebook and Instagram, citing addictive design

#15

Post by pelario »

perihelions wrote: post #7
dathinab wrote: post #3

I wonder if we at as a society at some point will decide that any "flow which which constantly provides short feedback loop high and lows with no substantial user interaction between" should be treated like gambling. I I mean AFIK they do affect the brain in similar ways as gambling and seem to have the potential to do quite a bit of damage for the development of young children, and at least in case of Ticktock in co…

- "clear strong net positive for society," This has been debated to death for centuries already: of course it's a clear net positive, in the same sense that prohibiting alcohol, cannabis, regulating video games, legislating sex, putting ankle monitors on fat people to monitor their activity levels—all these things are "obvious" social improvements: in practice, not at all. These isn't a novel debate. It's a revisited…

Of course there are tons of open questions, yet you made a huge false dichotomy.

I would bet that most people agree with banning sales of alcohol, cigarettes and opioid to kids.

Re: EU opens child safety probes of Facebook and Instagram, citing addictive design

#16

Post by the_af »

perihelions wrote: post #7
dathinab wrote: post #3

I wonder if we at as a society at some point will decide that any "flow which which constantly provides short feedback loop high and lows with no substantial user interaction between" should be treated like gambling. I I mean AFIK they do affect the brain in similar ways as gambling and seem to have the potential to do quite a bit of damage for the development of young children, and at least in case of Ticktock in co…

- "clear strong net positive for society," This has been debated to death for centuries already: of course it's a clear net positive, in the same sense that prohibiting alcohol, cannabis, regulating video games, legislating sex, putting ankle monitors on fat people to monitor their activity levels—all these things are "obvious" social improvements: in practice, not at all. These isn't a novel debate. It's a revisited…

I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I'd say this thing with attention grabbing/addictive feedback loops seems to be qualitatively different. Are you truly a "free" citizen if corporations have hacked your brain?

This wouldn't be a ban on consumption either. It's not penalizing the person who drinks alcohol or uses cannabis or pays for sex. It's going after the providers, who are not small-time like hookers, but huge businesses like Facebook and YouTube. And it'd not be banning the content itself (so it's not Thought Police) but regulating the ways to provide such content; it's going after the hack-your-brain marketing tactic.

I don't know if it's feasible but it seems fundamentally different to your other examples, and doesn't seem an example of Nanny State either. An addict doesn't really have "free choice".

Re: EU opens child safety probes of Facebook and Instagram, citing addictive design

#17

Post by the_af »

can16358p wrote: post #14

I don't get how exactly this is measured though. For many app projects, keeping the user in the app is obviously one of the most important metrics, especially for free apps (hence more ads to show and more money to make). Many UX patterns are fine tuned to keep people in more, which is perfectly understandable as the primary goal is to keep the user in. Now, who defines "addictive" using which aspect? And even if it…

> Sugar is addictive. Do we ban sugar, or regulate its consumption? No! Instead we educate parents to limit their childrens' sugar intake.

I don't find it totally unlikely to think of a future where sugar is more strongly regulated, since it's linked to real dangers that used to be disregarded, and children are particularly targeted by sugary food.

More importantly, how can parents protect children if the same brain-hacking, attention grabbing mechanisms target them? "Honey, don't be on your mobile constantly, while daddy is busy using his mobile all day long".

> Don't want to play devil's advocate here but it's not the apps'/platforms' fault here, but parents' fault.

I think it's both, with most of the blame with apps/platforms. And parents are as much prey as their children. It's like a "socially acceptable" addiction; maybe we shouldn't make it so acceptable, like smoking isn't anymore?

(Hello, my name is the_af and I'm an addict...)

Re: EU opens child safety probes of Facebook and Instagram, citing addictive design

#18

Post by pietervdvn »

can16358p wrote: post #14

I don't get how exactly this is measured though. For many app projects, keeping the user in the app is obviously one of the most important metrics, especially for free apps (hence more ads to show and more money to make). Many UX patterns are fine tuned to keep people in more, which is perfectly understandable as the primary goal is to keep the user in. Now, who defines "addictive" using which aspect? And even if it…

> Do we ban sugar, or regulate its consumption?

Actually, yes: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/making-sense/how-taxing...

One attempt to reduce sugar consumption was by taxing it. I don't know how effective it is though, but it was at least attempted.

Re: EU opens child safety probes of Facebook and Instagram, citing addictive design

#20

Post by robertlagrant »

the_af wrote: post #17
can16358p wrote: post #14

I don't get how exactly this is measured though. For many app projects, keeping the user in the app is obviously one of the most important metrics, especially for free apps (hence more ads to show and more money to make). Many UX patterns are fine tuned to keep people in more, which is perfectly understandable as the primary goal is to keep the user in. Now, who defines "addictive" using which aspect? And even if it…

> Sugar is addictive. Do we ban sugar, or regulate its consumption? No! Instead we educate parents to limit their childrens' sugar intake. I don't find it totally unlikely to think of a future where sugar is more strongly regulated, since it's linked to real dangers that used to be disregarded, and children are particularly targeted by sugary food. More importantly, how can parents protect children if the same brain-…

How can parents teach their kids not to eat sugar if they're constantly eating sugar?

You might be right about regulations of sugar, but regulations shouldn't just target companies individually. They should figure out the actual problem and try and regulate that.

Post reply on HN