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

471–480 of 549 posts

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

#471

Post by nradov »

theturtletalks wrote: post #348
mentalgear wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution to all of Big Tech's monopolies is actually pretty simple: Interoperability must become a law - this includes using custom algorithms or allowing other platforms (like your own app) to access YOUR data on whatever platform 'hosts' it. Cory Doctorow wrote a great article on it: "Interoperability Can Save the Open Web" https://spectrum.ieee.org/doctorow-interoperability > While the dominance of Internet pl…

We can’t depend on these platforms to offer interoperability or even laws to force them to do so. The DMA forced Apple to allow 3rd party app stores in Europe and they still hampered it so rarely anyone uses it. We need platforms to offer that interoperability and simply connect to these “marketplaces.” Take Shopify for example, sellers use that platform to list on Amazon, Google Shopping, TikTok shop, etc. We need o…

How will it happen? Writing open source code is one thing, maybe enough people will volunteer their work. But running an operational marketplace or social media platform is something else entirely. You need a real revenue stream to pay for hardware, connectivity, operations staff, regulatory compliance, etc. That stuff isn't cheap.

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

#472

Post by adriand »

sfmike wrote: post #457
rankdiff wrote: post #365

Why this site doesn't let me enter? Why temporarily restricted? This stop-bot thing can be annoying at times.

its gone too far half of browsing now gets blocked as a normal user

I found myself trying to fill out a captcha the other day whose letters were so skewed and crazy I really had no idea what they were. It took me four tries!

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

#473

Post by nradov »

pegasus wrote: post #385
theturtletalks wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can’t depend on these platforms to offer interoperability or even laws to force them to do so. The DMA forced Apple to allow 3rd party app stores in Europe and they still hampered it so rarely anyone uses it. We need platforms to offer that interoperability and simply connect to these “marketplaces.” Take Shopify for example, sellers use that platform to list on Amazon, Google Shopping, TikTok shop, etc. We need o…

> For Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, each person having their own website where they post and that post being pushed to these platforms is also another way to force interoperability on them or be left behind. There's an acronym for this: POSSE (Publish [on your] Own Site, Syndicate Elsewhere). Part of the IndieWeb movement, for those who want to explore this worthwhile idea further.

Sure, you can do that. But then the syndicated content usually ends up looking like low-effort slop and doesn't get much traction. Each publishing platform has it's own features, limitations, and cultural norms. If you want to have any impact then you can't just copy content around: you have to tailor the message to the medium.

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

#474

Post by nradov »

spl757 wrote: post #429
mentalgear wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution to all of Big Tech's monopolies is actually pretty simple: Interoperability must become a law - this includes using custom algorithms or allowing other platforms (like your own app) to access YOUR data on whatever platform 'hosts' it. Cory Doctorow wrote a great article on it: "Interoperability Can Save the Open Web" https://spectrum.ieee.org/doctorow-interoperability > While the dominance of Internet pl…

Breaking up these monopolies would be a good start. We aren't supposed to have those. There used to be something we called "regulations" but they got rid of that part I think. Elections have consequences.

Regardless of current administration policies, which of those companies actually meets the legal definition of a monopoly?

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

#475

Post by keybored »

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.

Why is it that these philosophical ideas about supposed personal freedom again and again make an appearance when it’s about the freedom of corporations? It’s always that. Either that or with the Free User pushed infront of them like a shield.

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

#476

Post by turtlesdown11 »

jimmyjazz14 wrote: post #425

Coming from someone who hate social media (and has kids) this might seems like a good thing on the surface, but I worry it will be another case used to allow the government to limit speech on the internet for adults.

This is a civil trial between a regular person and corporations about product liability. It has nothing to do with the government.

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

#477

Post by keybored »

randycupertino wrote: post #182
Barbing wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>[There are] legions of highly educated adults [at Meta] trying to increase [child] engagement Why is this not only OK but the best way for Mark to spend every waking moment of his life? Money thing? But often would he think about his bank account versus his products, maybe it’s pure drive?

I just wish for once one of these egomaniacal billionaires would actually put all their efforts and resources into solving climate change or ending world hunger. Even his medical initiative Chan-Zuckerberg biohub is a self-congratulatory shell game. I worked in the same building as them for years, literally all they did was have parties, conferences, networking events and self-congratulatory schmooze things and never…

> I just wish for once one of these egomaniacal billionaires would actually put all their efforts and resources into solving climate change or ending world hunger.

I don’t. That presupposes that they have anything to contribute to begin with.

Their wealth beyond some millions (edit: being generous) is built on exploitation. That’s not necessarily a transferrable... skill.

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

#478

Post by bigyabai »

turtlesdown11 wrote: post #476
jimmyjazz14 wrote: post #425

Coming from someone who hate social media (and has kids) this might seems like a good thing on the surface, but I worry it will be another case used to allow the government to limit speech on the internet for adults.

This is a civil trial between a regular person and corporations about product liability. It has nothing to do with the government.

Liability and free speech are conjoined at the hip in the United States, courtesy of Section 230.

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

#479

Post by tencentshill »

bogdanoff_2 wrote: post #290

The 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…

The only solution is to outlaw all recommendation algorithms. Accounts should only have access to a chronological feed they choose to follow. The host can promote whatever they want, but it has to be the same promotions for everybody.

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

#480

Post by keybored »

slibhb wrote: post #187
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…

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.

Yeah. The difference is that I have managed to quit nicotine.

Clearly those two things are not the same.

Post reply on HN