Wow, so does this pave the way for massive class action lawsuits? Not familiar with how precedents like this play out long term.
Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case
111–120 of 549 posts
Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case
#112This 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.
Not only that, in my opinion the many positive reactions to this decision are a sign of a decline of personal responsibility and a desire of people to be managed by the government and treated like cattle. Blaming everyone else but themselves for personal problems and failures has become the default for many people.
Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case
#113So... should we all sue Youtube and Meta now? This is a semi-serious, follow this precedent to its logical conclusion, question.
Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seem to be differentiating between physical and psychological addiction, and saying that only physical addiction meets the technical definition of addiction?
I’m saying society should tread extremely carefully in attempting to regulate citizens’ potentially psychologically addictive behaviors.
Ah OK. Yes I agree, there can be a blurry line between something a person does compulsively/addictively and something that he just enjoys doing. And it's different for different people.
Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case
#115Earlier 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.
You’re being downvoted, but there’s an interesting point you’re trying to make. Dopamine-chasing is truly selective in the behavior and chemical sense.
There is a particular hard drug that I could be easily addicted to if it were cheaper and more accessible. Nothing else like it gives me irresistible craving for more. Not nicotine, ADHD meds or speed, benzos, and not even opioids have the same effect. So after I discovered this about myself, I went on a little journey to self test myself other possible addictions.
Social media? Nope. Video games and tv? yes. Gambling, hoarding, shopping: No. Sex: yes. Exercise: yes
I can’t rationalize any of it.
Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case
#116There 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…
If people feel that smoking causes lung cancer why do they keep smoking?
Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case
#117Apps like instagram and YouTube should be required at least to give an option to disable reels and shorts
Perhaps we need more social activism (remember that?) to stop people falling into this kind of addiction. I remember anti-drugs campaigning , they were everywhere. Phone addictions are not taken nearly as seriously.
Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case
#118In before someone says ‘blame the parents’ and not the multi-billion dollar companies who’ve spent decades targeting children for lifelong addiction, ignoring the negative effects on their mental health.
The thing is, it should be both. Parents often give too little fucks for long term welfare of their children, often also guilty of same vices. Issue is, these addictions are way more destructive to young forming mind than to adults. Nobody having small kids now had fb or instagram access when they were 5, did they. Maybe you don't do this. Certainly I don't. But when looking around, its much less rosy and... lets say…
Consider that the insane growth in the cost of living - especially childcare - combined with wage stagnation means that now the vast majority of families have 2 parents with full-time jobs, keeping them away for their families for much longer than before. Consider that childcare is much, much harder to even get into now than in decades past. Consider also that "EdTech" means that nearly every child needs to be on an internet equipped-device at all times.
But sure, "Parents often give too little fucks for long term welfare of their children", that's definitely it. Parents just hate their kids! What a useful perspective you've brought to the discussion.
Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case
#119This is ultimately about the inherently pernicious nature of unregulated capitalism. Businesses want money. They get that by manipulating you, the consumer, to consume their services. They are "ethically" bound by (given an excuse by) fiduciary duty to pursue profit callously.
The result, in these corner cases where eating people is profitable? Shelob.
Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case
#120There 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 also hope the reasons are obvious.
Based on the fact that many people here disagree about fundamental things, as well as the fact that “liberal” is a highly overloaded term, I think it should be obvious that it’s not obvious what you mean.