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

171–180 of 549 posts

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

#171

Post by underlipton »

timmg wrote: post #124
nkrisc wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keep in mind that this case is about about a minor, not an adult. I don't think it's fair to ask children to resist social media through sheer willpower when there are legions of highly educated adults on the other side trying to increase engagement. It should be no surprise that children can be manipulated by highly intelligent adults.

> Keep in mind that this case is about about a minor, not an adult. This obviously means that tech is going to have no choice but to do "age verification". And I don't think there's much of a way to do that that wouldn't be uncomfortable for a lot of us.

I would prefer Meta make their products less addictive for children, with the side-effect that they're perhaps less stimulating for adults, than for Meta to keep their products the way they are, gatekept behind a system that allows them access to even more of my personal data.

I understand why they would want the opposite. They can f*ck right off.

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

#172

Post by underlipton »

twoodfin wrote: post #139
ses1984 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Right: They’re gambling addicts. That’s a distinct fact from, “Gambling is a physiologically addictive behavior for typical humans.”

It's predictably addictive under common circumstances (a lack of socioeconomic support and a lack of alternative means to occupy one's time). If those circumstances are becoming more and more widespread in a society (which they are in this one), it behooves experts to consider that "typical" and "this particular cohort" might become harder and harder to distinguish, to the point where what would have been targeted interventions need to become general.

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

#173

Post by inetknght »

bsimpson wrote: post #148
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…

The shotgun approach (suing FB, TikTok, Snapchat, and Google simultaneously) makes this sound as ridiculous as the punchline "woman sues McDonalds for coffee being too hot" (distinct from that actual case, which was less ridiculous than the headline). Suing Facebook for systematically behaving badly is one thing, if you can prove it and prove it harmed you. Suing _everybody_ is one random person getting rich for… bei…

> Suing _everybody_ is one random person getting rich for… being mad at the world she was born into?

Nothing wrong with getting mad at the world when the world is complete and utter garbage to you.

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

#174

Post by array_key_first »

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.

Specifically when it comes to children, we need to show more restraint in giving them the liberty to partake in potentially addictive substances.

It's one thing if an adult smokes and gambles, it's another thing if a child does. It seems to me that stuff you do in youth tends to stick around for life.

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

#175

Post by cindyllm »

array_key_first wrote: post #174
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.

Specifically when it comes to children, we need to show more restraint in giving them the liberty to partake in potentially addictive substances. It's one thing if an adult smokes and gambles, it's another thing if a child does. It seems to me that stuff you do in youth tends to stick around for life.

[dead]

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

#176

Post by dymk »

seydor wrote: post #117
pow_ext wrote: post #71

Apps 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.

Using the war on drugs as an example as a successful social movement is kinda hilarious

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

#177

Post by janalsncm »

easytiger wrote: post #163
janalsncm wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much personal responsibility should we expect children to have? Genuine question. Because there was a time where some people believed that it was ok for kids to drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children

That doesn’t answer the question.

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

#178

Post by Quarrelsome »

pow_ext wrote: post #71

Apps like instagram and YouTube should be required at least to give an option to disable reels and shorts

We need a return to consent. I want to be able to say "no". Not "see fewer shorts", see NO shorts. Not "maybe later", actually fucking "no".

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

#179

Post by Quarrelsome »

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…

> I'm really not sure what companies should do about it

disassemble the intentionally addictive properties they built into their platforms to maximise engagement and revenue at the cost of the mental health of their users.

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

#180

Post by parsimo2010 »

lokar wrote: post #160
parsimo2010 wrote: post #128

I don’t feel good about this case- on the one hand, I’m all for sticking it to big corporations. On the other hand, nobody has claimed that Meta and YouTube were doing anything illegal, so this case is different from civil suits brought after a criminal case finds someone guilty. This is a case where the jury decided they don’t like how two corporations acted, and are just giving money to one person. Why does this pl…

The case was brought under product liability law. If I sell you gizmo, and I know, or should know, that using the gizmo could seriously harm you, and I don't tell you or do anything about it, I am liable for damages you incur.

I’m not sure the plaintiff’s mental harm was caused by Meta and YouTube. You can be just as depressed without social media and online videos. And even if they were, other cases that are kind of similar to this have not found the corporation responsible. The parents of Sandy Hook didn’t get any money out of Remington, and their product is much more directly linked to harming people than an app. McDonald’s was not held liable in 2002 for making people fat. I am pretty sure the food at McDonald’s is more easily linked to our health outcomes than the link in this case.

Should Apple or Samsung be held liable for making the phone that the plaintiff probably used to use these apps? How much responsibility do they bear?

Further, Facebook/Instagram and YouTube are free products from the perspective of the plaintiff. These corporations didn’t sell anything to the plaintiff, so can they even be held liable? They did sell the plaintiff’s data to advertisers, which I think you might be able to hold them responsible if they misused that data, but this isn’t what the case was about.

I’m not rooting for depression or suicidal thoughts or anything, but this doesn’t feel like the right direction we need to be moving in as society. We can’t simultaneously argue for free speech and freedom of choice and also claim that we aren’t capable of making our own choices to live our lives responsibly.

Post reply on HN