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

91–100 of 549 posts

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

#91

Post by cyanydeez »

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.

Social media is addictive the same way anorexia is. If you think Anorexia isn't a form of addiction, then sure, you got your 'safety'.

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

#92

Post by ses1984 »

twoodfin wrote: post #75
jwardbond wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not a neuroscientist, but I thought the actual physiological cause of addiction was similar in both nicotine and gambling: you crave the predictable release of dopamine. If that is the (heavily simplified) case, is there a distinction for you between a chemically-induced dopamine release from smoking and, say, and a button you can press that magically releases dopamine in your brain?

I don’t gamble, but if I did, I am fairly certain it would release little to no dopamine for me, win or lose. I don’t smoke, but if I did, I’m also fairly certain I would find it hard to stop.

And yet, some people find themselves compelled to continue gambling long after they’re drowning in debt.

If you don’t want to call that addiction, fine, but you can’t deny that it happens.

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

#93

Post by timdev2 »

jmyeet wrote: post #28

I believe social media is on a collision course with an iceberg called Section 230. Broadly speaking, Section 230 differentiates between publishers and platforms . A platform is like Geocities (back in the day) where the platform provider isn't liable for the content as long as they staisfy certain requirements about havaing processes for taking down content when required. A bit like the Cox decision today, you're br…

Why do you believe that "Section 230 differentiates between publishers and platforms"?

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

#94

Post by JKCalhoun »

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 hope we’d be exceedingly careful in what we label “addictive”…"

To be sure. But still an obviously dumb thing for a CEO to say though.

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

#95

Post by macintux »

dmitrygr wrote: post #80
psychoslave wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So is the judicial system that is not making this illegal or don't enforce laws to prevent people targeting kids to create early dependence on drugs.

That is a fair point, I did not attempt to make a complete list, of course, but you are right, there are more layers that could be named. All valid. The point I was making is that parents are also responsible. eg: I grew up in a very nasty place. My neighborhood had a few pregnant 13 year old girls and a lot of drunks and smokers, including kids in their early teens. My parents kept me away from it all, while also bo…

I agree it's the job of a parent, but two parents (and with only a single job each) is sadly not the norm in many challenging environments.

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

#96

Post by iamnothere »

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.

To me this statement reads as both inaccurate and ignorant of human nature. Social media was actually better when it was about individual ego (Myspace/LiveJournal); as obnoxious as that can be, today everything is worse because of petty tribalism. Most conflicts on social media are inter-tribal, whether it’s racial, political, national, or feuding “stan” culture groups. The worst problems come from groups who organize on platforms like Discord or Kiwi Farms to direct harassment campaigns against perceived enemies (or random “lolcow” victims).

Simple observation of the present world and history will tell you that a platform focused on “collective improvement” will only appeal to a small subset of potential users. Of course such a platform would not be a bad thing. Places like this (such as The WELL) used to be common when the internet was dominated by academics, futurists, and tech enthusiasts. But average people are not interested in this kind of platform, and will not participate in good faith in such an environment.

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

#97

Post by intended »

dlcarrier wrote: post #48

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.

Meta is not pushing for mandatory age verification laws.They are pushing for age verification burdens to be pushed to the OS / App Store layer.

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

#98

Post by intended »

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.

I dont think parents going up against psychologists, data scientists, product managers and software engineers with the best pay in the world is any kind of fair fight.

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

#99

Post by Papazsazsa »

hash872 wrote: post #29

At least even money that an appellate court throws this verdict out entirely. Reminder that the US is the only developed country that uses juries for civil trials- everywhere else, complex issues of business litigation are generally left to a panel of judges. It's not that hard to rile up a bunch of randomly impaneled jurors against Big Bad Corporation. The US is kind of infamous for its very large, very unpredictabl…

[dead]

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

#100

Post by easytiger »

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…

Why not make personal responsibility illegal whilst we are at it. It is egregious that an individual can be held accountable for their own behaviours.
Post reply on HN