Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gosh, if you say so...
Heh, it's funny watching people, like the one above you, say "This thing is addictive because it is a real object, but this digital object cannot be addictive at all". The argument is so illogical you begin to doubt you're talking to a real person.
Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case
511–520 of 549 posts
Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case
#512Earlier quoted context omitted.
I will never pay a subscription for the current clickbaity slop. I might if the algorithm were better, closer to YouTube of 10 years ago, when it would suggest lectures, artfully done film shorts, and overall more interesting, high quality content.
10 years ago the most popular 100 videos on YouTube were all pop music videos. Justin Bieber had 3 of the top 10. The youtube algorithm has been personalized for much more than 10 years and has never prioritized any kind of lectures or artful films over anything else it thinks a viewer will watch. You're asking for them to bring back an era that never existed. If you're not getting those sorts of recommendations it's…
Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case
#513Earlier quoted context omitted.
Parent poster has some… interesting views on addiction. Specifically, an extremely narrow view of what counts, that rules out things like gambling and porn addiction. https://hn.algolia.com/?query=superkuh%20addiction&type=comm...
You are watching astroturfing in real time.
https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/26/everyone-cheering-the-so... "Everyone Cheering The Social Media Addiction Verdicts Against Meta Should Understand What They’re Actually Cheering For"
The idea that "porn addiction" exists is entirely a social media concept with no support in the literature or medical standards. It's pushed by for-profit treatment groups just like "anti-gay" camps are. Gambling disorder, of course, is grandfathered in.
Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case
#514Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
#515Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
These platforms aren't monopolies. Being popular isn't being a monopoly.
Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case
#516Earlier 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…
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.
It really comes down to merit and how much value you can bring to the actual sellers in these marketplaces with the software. If enough sellers switch, marketplaces will follow.
0. https://github.com/openshiporg/marketplace
Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case
#517Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regardless of current administration policies, which of those companies actually meets the legal definition of a monopoly?
Just because you don't understaned why they are does not mean they are not. It just means you haven't done your research.
Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case
#518Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not only that, in my opinion the many positive reactions to this decision are a sign of a decline of personal responsibility and a desire of people to be managed by the government and treated like cattle. Blaming everyone else but themselves for personal problems and failures has become the default for many people.
Why is it bad to want the system to push people towards healthy behaviour but it's totally okay to want the system to push people towards unhealthy behaviour?
Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case
#519There 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…
Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case
#520Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are watching astroturfing in real time.
I'm watching a bunch of people with only a lay understanding of the word try to invoke the use of violent force because of ignorant memes based on outdated 1970s concepts. And it's really frustrating. I can assure you I'm the most human person of human persons with no corporate affiliations. I just happen to understand neurochemistry. https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/26/everyone-cheering-the-so... "Everyone Cheering…