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

The EU moves to kill infinite scrolling

politico.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 979 posts

Re: The EU moves to kill infinite scrolling

#271

Post by Manuel_D »

jamestest2e4p6x wrote: post #117
spwa4 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't worry about that. You're ignoring politics, and what this actually is. If the EU had a real problem with addictive designs and social media the time to move against it was of course 10+ years ago. They do not intend, not even remotely, to sabotage the profit machines that those companies are, they just want political weapons against the companies. The intention here is not to cure addiction, destroy profit…

One of the best replies on hackernews in years. Hear. Hear. The EU realized they can extort the US big tech. The EU will now just focus on laws and taxing (the war in Ukraine isn't their problem). And frankly, we should just ignore EU laws in the US.

Companies that exist in the US don't have to obey EU laws. For instance the UK tried to tell 4chan that it needs to obey the UK Online Safety Act, and 4chan replied with, essentially, "fuck off".

Companies that try to do business in the EU have to follow EU laws because the EU has something that can be used as leverage to make them comply. But if a US company doesn't have any EU presence, there's no need to obey EU laws.

Re: The EU moves to kill infinite scrolling

#272

Post by coldtea »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #244
layer8 wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are legal definitions of advertising, I’m sure the courts will be able to figure it out.

The "legal definition of advertising" is the thing you have to write into the law you want to enact. If you can't answer the question as the proponent of the proposal then how is a judge expected to do it?

What the parent is getting at is it's not a mystery, such definitions already exist in all kinds of jurisdictions.

In any case it's trivial to come up with such a definition that covers most cases. Doesn't matter if it doesn't cover some gray areas or 100% of it. Laws can be supplemented and ammended.

We don't have an all-encompassing definition of porn either, but we have legal definitions, and we have legal frameworks regarding it.

Re: The EU moves to kill infinite scrolling

#273

Post by sophrosyne42 »

idiotsecant wrote: post #183
ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What it does is allow for selective enforcement, making it possible to go after any company at will. When rules are vague enough you can pretty much always find a rule someone is 'breaking' depending on how you argue it. It's why countries don't just have a single law that says "don't be evil".

No, that's what case law is for. Modelling the zillion little details. One party claims something breaks a law another claims it doesn't, and then we decide which is true. The only alternative is an infinitely detailed law.

No, case law is when the interpretation of the law is ambiguous in specific cases where the law as written intends for a specific meaning.

This is different, it is intentionally ambiguous precisely so bureaucrats get to choose winners and losers instead of consumers.

Re: The EU moves to kill infinite scrolling

#274

Post by MBCook »

tokyobreakfast wrote: post #239
gchamonlive wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Infrastructure costs money. There's no way around it. I'm all up for banning ads. But there should be another viable business model to replace it.

HTTP Error 402: Payment Required was created for a reason. Maybe we need to rethink micropayments.

There’s nothing wrong with macro payments either.

Five dollars a month to subscribe or whatever. If people get the value out of it, you can get them to pay it.

Re: The EU moves to kill infinite scrolling

#275

Post by benbristow »

tokyobreakfast wrote: post #78
ahhhhnoooo wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just stop using heroin. Just stop eating fast food. Just stop going to the casino. Just don't smoke anymore. We know plenty of things are quite bad for us, and yet we find them difficult to stop. Somewhat famously difficult to stop. I think telling people, "just don't..." trivializes how difficult that is.

It's a phone. Put it in the trash. You will not go through physiological withdrawal symptoms. The amount of people in here right now clamoring for legislation to keep them away from electronics which they themselves purchased is mind-bogglingly insane.

I think it's really bigger than that. I'm hooked myself scrolling reels, but I go to the pub after work and see retired or 50-70 year old men (barely know how to work a phone) scrolling through them as well. That's when you know they're addicting as anything. Can't go anywhere nowadays in public without hearing someone scrolling through reels who don't know how to behave themselves in public by turning down the volume or wearing earphones.

Re: The EU moves to kill infinite scrolling

#276

Post by coldtea »

initramfs2 wrote: post #247
mrob wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need to ban advertising, you just need to ban paying for advertising. That doesn't harm free speech. When there's no money to be made the problem will sort itself out.

That's gonna probably just create a bunch of loopholes or hacks like paying with favors instead of cash

That's the same in every domain when there's a profit. Doesn't mean laws and bans don't reduce the related activity dramatically.

Re: The EU moves to kill infinite scrolling

#277

Post by MBCook »

Xelbair wrote: post #201
thesmtsolver2 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How will you ban that without infringing on free speech. That is a thing in the US and a lot of countries outside the EU.

True, you can't separate ads vs sponsored content quite easily. but you can help this by banning all forms of active tracking. Static ads only, no click tracking, and complete ban on profiling clients and especially on adjusting prices based on client/possible client behavior patterns.

Magazines made it work for decades.

Websites can too.

If you know the kind of articles your readers like, you can find ads that your readers will like.

Re: The EU moves to kill infinite scrolling

#278

Post by buzzerbetrayed »

norman784 wrote: post #23
rpdillon wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having worked at multiple companies and talked to multiple legal teams about this, they tend to be very conservative. So the guidance I've gotten is that if we store any information at all on the person's computer, even to know whether they've visited the site before, we still need a cookie banner. Basically, the law created enough fear among the lawyers that software developers are being advised to include the cooki…

But it should not be obnoxious, look at steam how is a small banner with two simple actions, vs all other cookie banners.

You literally just described something obnoxious

Re: The EU moves to kill infinite scrolling

#279

Post by tomnipotent »

coldtea wrote: post #264
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm kind of curious how people think a new business should make its existence known to prospective customers.

It's 2026. We can have word of mouth, genuine, in forums and social media. We can have reviews, genuine, in websites. We can have websites which present new products and business, not as paid sponsorships. We can search on our own initiative and go to their website. We can have online catalogs. And tons of other ways.

And not a single one of these is tenable, even when combined. How do the people that post reviews, or spread something over word-of-mouth, discover the thing in the first place? Try your hand at starting a business and trying to sell goods or services using these methods and see how well it works.

Re: The EU moves to kill infinite scrolling

#280

Post by gchamonlive »

ahallock wrote: post #240
gchamonlive wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Infrastructure costs money. There's no way around it. I'm all up for banning ads. But there should be another viable business model to replace it.

Banning ads? That's just so authoritarian and absurd. I hope you never become king

Regulation is freedom. Think of ads powering the web as current day's lead in gas.
Post reply on HN