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

271–280 of 549 posts

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

#271

Post by nkrisc »

Hobadee wrote: post #267

Is the addictiveness of social media great? No. But the blame shouldn't be placed squarely on the companies either. What happened to personal responsibility? I was addicted to Facebook, I realized it, and I disconnected from it. I had withdrawals for a while (pulling out my phone and trying to open the app I had deleted without really thinking about what I was doing) but I quit. I know I am addicted to YouTube shorts…

Yes, personal responsibility is important. That doesn't mean we need to allow companies to attempt to addict as many people as they can.

The question we should be asking: are these technologies a net-positive to society?

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

#272

Post by pearlsontheroad »

Hobadee wrote: post #267

Is the addictiveness of social media great? No. But the blame shouldn't be placed squarely on the companies either. What happened to personal responsibility? I was addicted to Facebook, I realized it, and I disconnected from it. I had withdrawals for a while (pulling out my phone and trying to open the app I had deleted without really thinking about what I was doing) but I quit. I know I am addicted to YouTube shorts…

Everyone should at least be a conscientious junkie.

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

#273

Post by imiric »

Hobadee wrote: post #267

Is the addictiveness of social media great? No. But the blame shouldn't be placed squarely on the companies either. What happened to personal responsibility? I was addicted to Facebook, I realized it, and I disconnected from it. I had withdrawals for a while (pulling out my phone and trying to open the app I had deleted without really thinking about what I was doing) but I quit. I know I am addicted to YouTube shorts…

On one hand: sure.

On the other, it's very different when companies explicitly design their products to be as addictive as possible.

We've been through this with Big Tobacco already. Nicotine and other tobacco substances are addictive on their own, but tobacco companies were prosecuted for deliberately making cigarettes as addictive as possible, besides also marketing to children. The parallels with Big Tech and social media are undeniable.

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

#274

Post by ddoolin »

Hobadee wrote: post #267

Is the addictiveness of social media great? No. But the blame shouldn't be placed squarely on the companies either. What happened to personal responsibility? I was addicted to Facebook, I realized it, and I disconnected from it. I had withdrawals for a while (pulling out my phone and trying to open the app I had deleted without really thinking about what I was doing) but I quit. I know I am addicted to YouTube shorts…

Maybe this applies more towards adults, but I don't think the correct answer for kids is only "just have self-control," something kids are notorious for not having. Certainly there's a lot of parental responsibility here but we can simultaneously hold companies responsible for their part too.

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

#275

Post by card_zero »

everdrive wrote: post #253
steve-atx-7600 wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How’s this different than tv that a kid might see that has ads and programming targeting kids? I watched 80s horror movies when I was in elementary school and had nightmares for years. Should I sue now? How about parents be held responsible for how they care for their kids or not? Maybe a culture that judged parents more strongly for how they let their kids spend their time would be an improvement.

Being able to find some basis for comparison between two things does not render them equivalent, and this is an extremely frequent fallacy I see with regard to technology discussion on HN.

Right, like social media and addictive drugs for instance.

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

#276

Post by aaomidi »

ramon156 wrote: post #260
sampullman wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's a little more nuance than that, but it seems roughly correct. Wouldn't it be better if apps/websites targeting kids didn't use A/B testing to be more addictive?

They'd find another method. Why are we allowing this in the first place? I don't have an answer to fix this whole mess, but it starts with our attitude towards addiction. We've built a system that rewards addiction in all sorts of places. Granted, every addiction is different, and I'm of the opinion that it's not (drug = bad), it's how you use it and react to it. We can control the latter, but we choose to ignore it…

In the span of how long it takes for law to catch up to what’s going on, YouTube and Facebook has been around for a tiny amount of time.

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

#277

Post by parpfish »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #241

How is any app/website that 1) appeals to kids, 2) sells attention, 3) does A/B testing and/or has a self-learning distribution algorithm NOT guilty of this?

A/B testing is one way to make things “addictive” but you can also make addictive products without it.

A really good designer could make a highly engaging app or an editor can write clickbait headlines all with without testing.

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

#280

Post by pearlsontheroad »

ddoolin wrote: post #270
paulkon wrote: post #259

Just needs a health warning label, like on alcohol or cigarettes. Then onto the high sugar products, and a quarter of the grocery store

If we want to compare it to alcohol/cigarettes, then kids shouldn't be allowed to use this either.

and the government should tax it accordingly
Post reply on HN