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

81–90 of 103 posts

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

#81

Post by stickfigure »

nurple wrote: post #39
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…

Obesity in the US is epidemic because of food producers using your same antisocial logic. "But if we don't add sugar, people won't keep choosing our brand over the sweeter ones, this is our most important metric." Sugar should absolutely be more regulated, it's killing people. It's a proven fact that the sugar producers have hidden the real dangers of overconsumption for decades to protect their precious money. Same…

I'm going to go out on a limb here and claim that obesity is an epidemic because of the misguided anti-fat crusade driven by well-meaning but naive people who (still!) believe that "eat fat get fat". You can walk down the ice cream isle and see countless sorbets advertising "fat free!" as if it's healthy.

We are at the tail of a huge shift to a carbohydrate-rich diet, and refined sugars are only part of the problem. Your body converts bread and starch to glucose almost as quickly.

The fearmongering about social media sounds a bit like the anti-fat crusade to me. The evidence is thin yet it makes people incredibly loud and angry. And remember one of the first rules of statistics, correlation is not causality. I don't need to quote the relevant xkcd number to this audience.

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

#82

Post by vixen99 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #54
robertlagrant wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone's work is disputed. What in particular do you want to say that you disagree with in Heidt's work, and what's your justification?

The article seems to lay that out fairly effectively. What in particular do you want to say that you disagree with in Masnick's work, and what's your justification?

You mean you can't summarize it in a sentence of two?

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

#83

Post by ceejayoz »

vixen99 wrote: post #82
ceejayoz wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article seems to lay that out fairly effectively. What in particular do you want to say that you disagree with in Masnick's work, and what's your justification?

You mean you can't summarize it in a sentence of two?

You mean like "Jonathan Haidt’s new book 'The Anxious Generation' blames youth mental health issues on social media in a way that’s easy, wrong, and dangerous."? (The subtitle of the article.)

The poster upthread is demanding specifics that are contained in the very article they're asking for specifics from.

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

#84

Post by braiamp »

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…

> Now, who defines "addictive" using which aspect?

Addictive is whatever that creates a dependence that doesn't allow you to function correctly and productively, because it produces a natural reward.

In this case, design patterns that promote and provoke addictions, like gamification, attention grabbing, etc. that kids don't have tools to be aware of, need to be regulated. In fact, sugar content regulation in foodstuff have shown to be very effective at reducing obesity on kids. It's not a "ban", it's a regulation.

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

#85

Post by robertlagrant »

ceejayoz wrote: post #83
vixen99 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean you can't summarize it in a sentence of two?

You mean like "Jonathan Haidt’s new book 'The Anxious Generation' blames youth mental health issues on social media in a way that’s easy, wrong, and dangerous."? (The subtitle of the article.) The poster upthread is demanding specifics that are contained in the very article they're asking for specifics from.

> in a way that’s easy, wrong, and dangerous

These aren't specifics. It sounds like "here're the conclusions you should memorise; if you can be bothered to read the article that'd be fine."

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

#86

Post by ceejayoz »

robertlagrant wrote: post #85
ceejayoz wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean like "Jonathan Haidt’s new book 'The Anxious Generation' blames youth mental health issues on social media in a way that’s easy, wrong, and dangerous."? (The subtitle of the article.) The poster upthread is demanding specifics that are contained in the very article they're asking for specifics from.

> in a way that’s easy, wrong, and dangerous These aren't specifics. It sounds like "here're the conclusions you should memorise; if you can be bothered to read the article that'd be fine."

You asked for specifics. The other guy asked for a one-sentence summary. The specifics you seek are in the article.

As an example:

> Looking at suicide rates (which are more indicative of actual depression rates, rather than self-reported data, given the decreasing stigma associated with admitting to dealing with mental health issues), the numbers show that in many countries it has remained flat or decreased over the past 20 years. Indeed, in countries like France, Ireland, Denmark, Spain, and New Zealand, you see a noticeable decline in youth suicide rates. If social media were inherently causing an increase in depression, that would be an unlikely result.

or:

> Specifically, they note new guidance in the U.S. under the Affordable Care Act in 2011 that increased screening of adolescent girls for depression (the rise in depression rates for adolescent girls being key to Haidt’s argument), and a second change in instructing clinicians to record suicidal ideation differently than in the past.

Do you disagree with these specific criticisms?

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

#87

Post by notaustinpowers »

stickfigure wrote: post #81
nurple wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obesity in the US is epidemic because of food producers using your same antisocial logic. "But if we don't add sugar, people won't keep choosing our brand over the sweeter ones, this is our most important metric." Sugar should absolutely be more regulated, it's killing people. It's a proven fact that the sugar producers have hidden the real dangers of overconsumption for decades to protect their precious money. Same…

I'm going to go out on a limb here and claim that obesity is an epidemic because of the misguided anti-fat crusade driven by well-meaning but naive people who (still!) believe that "eat fat get fat". You can walk down the ice cream isle and see countless sorbets advertising "fat free!" as if it's healthy. We are at the tail of a huge shift to a carbohydrate-rich diet, and refined sugars are only part of the problem.…

> ...obesity is an epidemic because of the misguided anti-fat crusade driven by well-meaning but naive people...

Except that whole thing was literally started by sugar companies paying scientists to point the blame towards fat so their profits wouldn't take a hit. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074...

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

#88

Post by Sammi »

mullingitover wrote: post #73
drooopy wrote: post #12

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.

It’s nice to think that the EU’s goal is actually the betterment of society, and not to simply replace Facebook, et al with their homegrown corporations.

I mean, that sounds like a rational thing to do from the EUs perspective. I expect a EU based social media that would replace it would at least not be worse for the consumer. One of the better things as a citizen in the EU is the stricter consumer protection.

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

#89

Post by robertlagrant »

ceejayoz wrote: post #86
robertlagrant wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in a way that’s easy, wrong, and dangerous These aren't specifics. It sounds like "here're the conclusions you should memorise; if you can be bothered to read the article that'd be fine."

You asked for specifics. The other guy asked for a one-sentence summary. The specifics you seek are in the article . As an example: > Looking at suicide rates (which are more indicative of actual depression rates, rather than self-reported data, given the decreasing stigma associated with admitting to dealing with mental health issues), the numbers show that in many countries it has remained flat or decreased over th…

No, not particularly, (although I would need to see more to know if the first claim is true) and what you just did is just a couple of sentences.

I just don't like it when people link to potentially-polemics to be waded through, rather than do what you did in your most recent comment. If you disagree with that, fair enough, but I didn't anticipate that that preference would be an emotive topic for you. Apologies for any upset caused in that regard.

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

#90

Post by ceejayoz »

robertlagrant wrote: post #89
ceejayoz wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You asked for specifics. The other guy asked for a one-sentence summary. The specifics you seek are in the article . As an example: > Looking at suicide rates (which are more indicative of actual depression rates, rather than self-reported data, given the decreasing stigma associated with admitting to dealing with mental health issues), the numbers show that in many countries it has remained flat or decreased over th…

No, not particularly, (although I would need to see more to know if the first claim is true) and what you just did is just a couple of sentences. I just don't like it when people link to potentially-polemics to be waded through, rather than do what you did in your most recent comment. If you disagree with that, fair enough, but I didn't anticipate that that preference would be an emotive topic for you. Apologies for…

I'm simply a bit baffled at someone meeting a comment saying essentially "this is disputed, here's a collection of specific critiques" would be met with "you didn't provide any specific critiques".

I found the article easy to skim, with well-linked sources throughout. Again, it already contained exactly what you were asking for.

Post reply on HN