31–40 of 103 posts
I am still hopeful that meta will remain true to their prior threats and leave the EU market in case of additional probes and regulations. Their platforms have done enough damage to our societies already.
[flagged]
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…
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…
I don’t think it is fair to pitch parents against multi-billion dollar international companies who have dedicated tens of thousands of staff to the job of getting children addicted to their sites, by any means they can get away with.
Because that's the crux of the issue; children should not have access to social media, and the solution is not to weave intricate legislation regulating the entire industry, or obliging me to hand over my ID, it is for parents to not give children access to social media.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
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…
More to the point, I don't think it's fair to call parents stupid. Even if parenting weren't hard (which it is) it is not fair to expect everyone to get a Bachelor's in Software Engineering to use the one device that's almost indispensable for daily life. Nor is it fair to expect parents to monitor their children 24/7.
I'd argue this is one of those problems that are so ubiquitous and so difficult to solve that we appoint people to deal with them as a full-time job in order to keep them from spiraling out of control. They usually solve it with regulation, which is exactly what the EU is doing here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think it is fair to pitch parents against multi-billion dollar international companies who have dedicated tens of thousands of staff to the job of getting children addicted to their sites, by any means they can get away with.
I think it is. What does Meta's annual revenue have to do with a parent's ability to say "no, you can't install Instagram"? Because that's the crux of the issue; children should not have access to social media, and the solution is not to weave intricate legislation regulating the entire industry, or obliging me to hand over my ID, it is for parents to not give children access to social media.
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…
It's a proven fact that the sugar producers have hidden the real dangers of overconsumption for decades to protect their precious money. Same thing with cigarettes, same with apps that use psychological and/or emotional manipulation to boost their "most important metric".
Here's a metric that might be more important than money to you: the teen suicide rate has increased by 62% since the advent of social media.
So, how much of the social media company's resources get spent increasing their most important metric vs educating parents and kids on the dangers of the technology they're trying to get them addicted to? If they do it responsibly, it's going to negatively impact their most important metric, and so they don't, and instead continue profiting from the negative externalities.
How many children ending their own lives is a 10% bump in your market cap worth? Perhaps that's a ratio that should be shown on an electronic display on the walls in these companies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Agreed on regulating the actual problem. But it seems the problem in practice is concentrated on a few big companies...
[0] https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/16/steel-sugar...