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

Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 549 posts

Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case

#41

Post by twoodfin »

strongpigeon wrote: post #12

There is a fairly low amount of details about the case in the article. This NPR article [0] has a bit more, but it's still fairly sparse. Though it's interesting how Zuckerberg thought it was a good idea to say: "If people feel like they're not having a good experience, why would they keep using the product?". Given that this is a case about addiction, that feels like a shockingly bad thing to say in defense of your…

As someone who values a liberal society, I hope we’d be exceedingly careful in what we label “addictive” in the same bucket as oxy or nicotine.

I also hope the reasons are obvious.

Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case

#42

Post by andai »

idle_zealot wrote: post #10
fraywing wrote: post #5

I'd hope the next iteration of social media tools humanity builds are less about reinforcing the individual ego and more about collective improvement, learning, and supporting the health of our species. Anecdote, but it does seem like a lot of younger folks I speak with are exhausted by the dark patterns and dopamine extraction that top-k social media platforms create. If agents/AI/bots inadvertently destroy the curr…

> I'd hope the next iteration of social media tools humanity builds are less about reinforcing the individual ego and more about collective improvement, learning, and supporting the health of our species Do you have a mechanism for this in mind, incentives-wise? I can't see this making money.

Well, another example comes to mind. Coordinated efforts to preserve the biosphere for all mankind are probably not going to be great for GDP.

We've tied our incentives to a structure which is not in alignment with continued survival. The real question is how can we incentivize ourselves to continue to exist?

The "the incentive structure says we should all destroy our brains" thing is just a small aspect of that.

Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case

#43

Post by anon84873628 »

twoodfin wrote: post #41
strongpigeon wrote: post #12

There is a fairly low amount of details about the case in the article. This NPR article [0] has a bit more, but it's still fairly sparse. Though it's interesting how Zuckerberg thought it was a good idea to say: "If people feel like they're not having a good experience, why would they keep using the product?". Given that this is a case about addiction, that feels like a shockingly bad thing to say in defense of your…

As someone who values a liberal society, I hope we’d be exceedingly careful in what we label “addictive” in the same bucket as oxy or nicotine. I also hope the reasons are obvious.

I don't think the reasons are obvious. Where do you put gambling on the spectrum?

Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case

#44

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

idle_zealot wrote: post #10
fraywing wrote: post #5

I'd hope the next iteration of social media tools humanity builds are less about reinforcing the individual ego and more about collective improvement, learning, and supporting the health of our species. Anecdote, but it does seem like a lot of younger folks I speak with are exhausted by the dark patterns and dopamine extraction that top-k social media platforms create. If agents/AI/bots inadvertently destroy the curr…

> I'd hope the next iteration of social media tools humanity builds are less about reinforcing the individual ego and more about collective improvement, learning, and supporting the health of our species Do you have a mechanism for this in mind, incentives-wise? I can't see this making money.

Ads were profitable before the outrage optimized flamebait internet era.

Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case

#45

Post by andai »

pixl97 wrote: post #18
benoau wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess the real question is whether a website where you communicate with friends and close ones needs to be a multi-trillion dollar company in the first place... historically most of them have not been worth very much at all.

The question then becomes how can you make a website with all your friend (and by association all their friends) make enough profit to run itself?

You mean, how can my friends and I fundraise my $3 VPS? It's going to be rough, but I think we'll find a way ;)

(If we hit the stretch goal, we can upgrade to a raspberry pi!)

Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case

#46

Post by bluedevil2k »

Handy-Man wrote: post #40

IMO, parents share just as much blame here, if not more. Giving your kids independence doesn't mean being oblivious to what they're doing online. Too many parents confuse hands-off parenting with not parenting at all.

Have you met kids? They’re devious, tech knowledgeable, and scheming and can find ways around any rule. Plus, no matter how good of a parent you are, you’re somewhat at the mercy of their friends’ parents as well. I can block TikTok from my daughter’s phone, but can’t block her from watching her friend’s phone while she’s out of the house.

Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case

#47

Post by dzink »

Read the book “Careless People” if you have a chance - according to the book, social media companies figured out they have real leverage with politicians since they can influence elections. As a result they are actively pushing for far right candidates to reduce their own taxation and regulation.

Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case

#48

Post by dlcarrier »

This is the kind of stuff that is causing them to push for mandatory identity verification laws. If they are being held liable for the the desires of their users, they're being forced micromanage the affairs of their customers, which preclude anonymous usage.

Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case

#49

Post by carabiner »

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #32

This just seems ripe for selective enforcement if not codified in law. I agree the algorithm they use can be addicting, but it's because it's simply good at providing content the user wants to consume. Besides a general 'don't be too good' I'm really not sure what companies should do about it. It just seems like it'll lead to some judges allowing rulings against companies they don't like. Television's goal was always…

Nukes are the same as knives, just different in magnitude. Should one have special rules?

Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case

#50

Post by tqi »

anon84873628 wrote: post #43
twoodfin wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who values a liberal society, I hope we’d be exceedingly careful in what we label “addictive” in the same bucket as oxy or nicotine. I also hope the reasons are obvious.

I don't think the reasons are obvious. Where do you put gambling on the spectrum?

Where would you put 24x7 political content?
Post reply on HN