[dead]
Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case
231–240 of 549 posts
Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case
#232Apps like instagram and YouTube should be required at least to give an option to disable reels and shorts
There should be a law to require the ability to disable algorithmic customization of content. If these apps are so compelling it shouldn't take a Spark cluster riffing on my private viewing habits to come up with content for me. I don't recall a lot of complaints about Facebook or Instagram when it was actually your friends' content. But now it's force-feeding everybody their own "guilty pleasure" viewing material 24…
> disable algorithmic customization of content.
What does that even mean?
Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Look, I am in this category too, and all that high cost and parents far applies for me too. I live in Switzerland, country of many wonderful things in society but state helping young parents ain't one of the strong points, in contrary. Both me (cca senior banking position in IT) and my wife (doctor) have intense time consuming jobs. All family is very far and can rarely help.
Still, given all that, I don't do cheap excuses like that. Its pathetic and weak and simply untrue. Things are harder but thats it, not impossible like your side of argument wants to conveniently claim. Quality time well spent with kids is highly proportional to outcome of raising efforts. No way to hide from that simple fact, and nowhere to hide from results of parenting, everybody can see them in plain sight.
But if you setup your life so that pathetic things like career are your upmost importance and you have no time nor energy for anything else, those are your choices and thats fine. Just not getting why folks then have kids, just to skip on actually raising them and then whine how unruly they are, raised by toxic groups with no role models. Having and raising kids is not some fucking checkbox to tick and move on, its 20+ years full commitment and biggest achievement in one's life, or biggest failure. Worth some proper effort, no?
Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
There should be a law to require the ability to disable algorithmic customization of content. If these apps are so compelling it shouldn't take a Spark cluster riffing on my private viewing habits to come up with content for me. I don't recall a lot of complaints about Facebook or Instagram when it was actually your friends' content. But now it's force-feeding everybody their own "guilty pleasure" viewing material 24…
> disable algorithmic customization of content. What does that even mean?
I assume they mean a similar experience to browsing /r/popular on Reddit. You're getting a feed that isn't tailored to your browsing history, likes or preferences. It's less addicting and the company doesn't need to know anything about you to provide the experience.
Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case
#235I’ve been thinking about this a lot while building Murmel (https://murmel.social). One thing we wanted to avoid from day one was the “infinite engagement machine” model, so instead of pushing algorithmic slop, we just surface links that are already being shared by people you follow on Bluesky and Mastodon.
It ends up feeling much closer to “what’s interesting in my corner of the web right now?” and much less like a system trying to keep you trapped inside it.
Small scope, obviously, but I think more social tools should feel like utilities, not casinos.
Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case
#236Earlier 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.
> How much personal responsibility should we expect children to have? This is what parents are for.
This is what the whole society is for, why singling out this aspect of behavior?
Education? Safety? Environment? Justice? Is this not also, then, what parents are for?
Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case
#237this has to be the first of many right? fingers crossed this leads to some meaningful change.
Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that you're comparing nicotine to Facebook really throws into sharp relief just how far from reality this whole "social media made me depressed" stuff has strayed.
Do you use Facebook regularly?
I use Facebook marketplace and I'm part of a running group that's organized on Facebook.
Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case
#239this has to be the first of many right? fingers crossed this leads to some meaningful change.
It's a huge deal because it was the bellwether case for over 1,000 other similar cases.
Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case
#240this has to be the first of many right? fingers crossed this leads to some meaningful change.
It's a huge deal because it was the bellwether case for over 1,000 other similar cases.
ah yup:
> It comes on the heels of a Delaware court decision clearing Meta’s insurers of responsibility for damages incurred from “several thousand lawsuits regarding the harm its platforms allegedly cause children” — a ruling that could leave it and other tech titans on the hook for untold future millions.