Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
I don't think that you can practically expect to tax speech.
Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case
391–400 of 549 posts
Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case
#392Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Because some hostile entity might rat fuck the a slightly better system, And make it a worse system, is what you happened to leave off. >Do you understand that this is all literally made up You mean the existing system that evolved from billions and billions of interactions? Explain what is 'made up' about it. The thing is if you start 'making up' random ass laws that piss people off, they will run screaming back to…
Being afraid to do things because they might possibly, but never proven, be worse is just the political machinations of enforcing the status quo where our corporate overlords get to dictate how technology shapes our lives. I'm sorry but that's deeply undemocratic, todays generation should have a direct say in how new things effect their lives. Failure to do this might literally condemn our species to extinction, and…
>The previous world order of US imperialism is going to end
I don't disagree.
Of course Chinese imperialism probably won't be much better.
Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case
#393Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case
#394Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why are we allowing this in the first place? Exactly what I keep coming back to. For me, it feels like you could cut this problem down substantially by eliminating section 230 protection on any algorithmically elevated content. Everywhere. Full stop. If you write or have an algorithm created that pushes content to users, in ANY fashion, that is endorsement. You want that content to be seen, for whatever odd reason,…
Eliminating section 230 protections would heavily disfavor any kind of intellectually stimulating content, because it's hard for a platform to scalably verify that nobody's making defamatory claims. But pointless clickbait, heavily filtered Instagram models, etc. don't really have liability concerns on a video-by-video level. To me it seems like this makes the problem worse.
It’s not eliminating section 230 entirely, it’s eliminating it for algorithmically promoted content. If you have a site that has user content and you present that content in a neutral fashion, section 230 applies. If you pick and choose what content to present to users (manually or by algorithm), you’re no longer a neutral platform, and shouldn’t be getting the benefit of 230.
Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case
#395Just give people the option to turn off algos. "I do not consent to suggested content"
Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case
#396Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
When it comes down to it, I’m not sure how you differentiate an “addictive” product from a well-made product that I choose to keep using. When people say that Tetris and Civilization are “addictive” they aren’t implying anything malicious about the development, it’s more of a compliment about the game (and maybe a little lament about staying up too late). But the addictive nature of social media feels different and I…
Tetris and civilization are also harmfully addictive, but the scope of the behavior they can hijack is lower. "One more turn" at 2am is harmful. Just not as harmful as something that knows about and interacts with every aspect of your social life and your view of the real world around you like social/media apps do today.
A really well built hammer doesn't make you want to spend all your time using a hammer, it's just good when you need a hammer. That's a well-made product that you choose to keep using.
Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case
#397Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand what you’re saying, I personally don’t like or use social media, but I don’t agree that these companies are at fault after reading this article and others. I’d rather be wrong and learn something than think I’m right, so I welcome further criticism.
They strategically use patterns that directly trigger the release of dopamine into the brain. They've created algorithms that use slot machine like experiences that keep kids hooked to the screen. These algorithms feeds users barely moderated content that feeds their worst instincts. With almost surgical precision when wanting to illicit engagement. Then when research shows them the harm their causing they bury it, h…
It's not just kids. My parents have spiraled in this way too. Why interact with each other when reels are more exciting? Why pursue friendships if you can experience it parasocially? This has been incredibly depressing, and it's a reason I make sure to value the people in my life. I have a lot of disgust for Meta and Google seeing what they've done to society broadly. All for money
Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case
#398Earlier 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.
Parents ought to be held held responsible for how they care for their kids. This isn't just true of their use of social media and devices, but also when it comes to teaching them to look both ways when crossing the street; making sure they understand the concept of private parts, consent and personal space; making them understand the dangers of alcohol, and many other things. Does any of that obviate the need for saf…
> Parents ought to be held held responsible for how they care for their kids.
If YouTube detects that a child is watching 5 hours of video a day, should Google alert child protective services?
Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case
#399[dead]
Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case
#400The solution to this would be a law forcing these sites to allow third-party suggestion algorithms, so that you can choose who and how content is being suggested to you. It could be perhaps as simple as allowing third-party websites and apps for watching Youtube on your phone. And it's okay if this would be a premium paid feature, so there's no counter argument that "it costs them money to host videos". This is not a…
> Before Spotify became popular, people would integrate Last.FM into their media players
I still scrobble to Last.fm from Spotify (and other media players). I rarely use it for discovery anymore, but it's occasionally interesting to look at my historical listening trends.