EU opens child safety probes of Facebook and Instagram, citing addictive design • Hacker News Board

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

#41

Post by b800h » Thu, May 16, 2024, 12:58 PM UTC

bozey07 wrote: post #34

CJefferson wrote: post #24

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.

Do you want your child to be the social pariah in the class?

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

#42

Post by hunter-gatherer » Thu, May 16, 2024, 12:58 PM UTC

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! I

I can't believe you chose sugar as an example. As a healthy lifestyle minority I would love to see some regation on cane sugar and syrups. One idea would be to tax it by volume and make it as expensive as premium honey or maple syrup. Of course, if something like this happened I think people would be mind blown at the effect of food prices as they'd immediately realize just how much of this bullshit is in everything.

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

#43

Post by mtmail » Thu, May 16, 2024, 12:59 PM UTC

pietervdvn wrote: post #18

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.

"Sugar-sweetened beverage taxes in the WHO European Region" "Taxes were in place in Belgium, Finland, France, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Monaco, Norway, Portugal and the United Kingdom" "The taxes were implemented in the context of health policy commitments to prevent NCDs, which present a major health burden." (NCD = Non-communicable disease)

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

#44

Post by anal_reactor » Thu, May 16, 2024, 1:01 PM UTC

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 wish things worked like that with cocaine

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

#45

Post by throwaway598 » Thu, May 16, 2024, 1:03 PM UTC

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…

The child doesn't choose their parents.

The parents can be mistaken.

If enforcing the good habits of good parenting is not a problem, then 'apps' wouldn't have a problem with it. But they do. Because they're doing the equivalent of promoting cigarettes as a health elixr, something many on HN are complicit in through 'educational' branding of gamified (addictive) social media and even NFTs.

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

#46

Post by Tainnor » Thu, May 16, 2024, 1:06 PM UTC

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…

I don't think I would agree with banning addictive social media platforms, but I would like to see them heavily regulated, meaning:

* Opt-in to "engagement algorithms". By default, people should only be seeing things that they're explicitly following and in some sort of neutral way (e.g. sorted by date).

* "Engagement algorithms" need to be transparent. It should be clear why I'm seeing what I'm seeing. This implies accountability of the platforms themselves. If the Facebook algorithm ends up promoting genocidal violence, they shouldn't be able to hide behind "it was the algorithm".

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

#47

Post by jbjbjbjb » Thu, May 16, 2024, 1:07 PM UTC

renegat0x0 wrote: post #10

I suspect that they will find solution. Digital identity, and requirements to show ID, or biometrics to verify your age.

I cant help thinking that they had the solution in digital identity and then went out to look for politically acceptable problems.

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

#48

Post by red_admiral » Thu, May 16, 2024, 1:07 PM UTC

EMIRELADERO wrote: post #5

red_admiral wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Note that Haidt's work is... disputed, to say the least. https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-coddling-of-the-american-p...

In principle, the truth could be either of

  a. social media is strongly positive for kids, and Haidt is at best cherry-picking evidence and at worst being actively dishonest.
  b. social media is strongly negative for kids, but there's lots of money involved and so people are trying to shut down anyone who says otherwise, just like the tobacco industry kept yelling "it's disputed! it's not proven!"

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

#49

Post by ceejayoz » Thu, May 16, 2024, 1:11 PM UTC

bozey07 wrote: post #34

CJefferson wrote: post #24

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.

> no, you can't install Instagram

They go to the website. They turn off wifi to evade the home filter. They get a buddy from school to show them how to set up a VPN or use a proxy. They use their (required!) school computer you don't have admin rights on. They log in at a friend's house.

Now they can enjoy the "why and how you should kill yourself" content barrage in peace. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-04-20/tiktok-ef... / https://archive.is/SO98F

It is remarkably tough to keep a smart kid off a social network they're interested in.

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

#50

Post by sandworm101 » Thu, May 16, 2024, 1:11 PM UTC

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.

Wrong. Sugar is very regulated, specifically in regards to foods marketed towards children. Has been for decades.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2016-11-01/pdf/2016-2...

>> In addition, FNS is correcting the breakfast cereal sugar limit. The final rule provided a sugar limit of no more than 6 grams of sugar per dry ounce (no more than 21 grams sucrose and other sugars per 100 grams of dry cereal). The intent of that limit was to be consistent with the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Woman, Infants, and Children (WIC). However, due to rounding, the breakfast cereal sugar limit in the final rule that appears in 7 CFR 210.10(o)(3)(ii), 210.10(o)(4)(ii), 210.10(p)(2), 220.8(o)(2), 226.20(a)(4)(ii), 226.20(b)(5), and 226.20(c)(1) through 226.20(c)(3) is inconsistent with WIC’s breakfast cereal sugar limit of no more 21.2 grams of sucrose and other sugars per 100 grams of dry cereal. This correction amends the breakfast cereal sugar limit to align with WIC’s breakfast cereal sugar limit and corrects the other errors described above. Note that the Special Milk Program regulations at 7 CFR part 215 were amended in the final rule, but no technical corrections are necessary in this amendment.

https://news.sky.com/story/kelloggs-loses-legal-challenge-ag...