Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fear and denial in Silicon Valley over social media addiction trial

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 247 posts

Re: Fear and denial in Silicon Valley over social media addiction trial

#41

Post by twoodfin »

maxaw wrote: post #34
twoodfin wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what sense do you mean Instagram is “addictive” to a neurotypical adult?

I don’t know a single person who after exposure to short form video has not had to exert special effort to regulate their consumption.

Really? I watch a lot of long-form YouTube while doing the dishes, and occasionally poke at the Shorts. Some funny, mostly dumb and I move on.

Maybe a generational thing, but for most of the latter half of the 20th Century most folks had to “exert special effort to regulate their consumption” of network television. Should there have been lawsuits and regulation of couch potatoes?

Re: Fear and denial in Silicon Valley over social media addiction trial

#42

Post by megaman821 »

conk wrote: post #23
aprilthird2021 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But so is cable television designed to be addictive. So are most restaurants and ice cream parlors and grocery stores designed to get you to spend more. Most loyalty programs are designed to be addictive to get you to come back, etc. etc. I just worry we left no levers for the public to regulate these entities and this is the worst option of very few options. Who isn't liable under this kind of logic?

Show me one ice cream parlor that has license psychologists on the payroll for “persuasive design” or GTFO with your bad faith argument.

Yes, ice cream palors are famous for only using shades of gray and never adorning their products with things like sprinkles.

Re: Fear and denial in Silicon Valley over social media addiction trial

#43

Post by jen20 »

slopinthebag wrote: post #26
aprilthird2021 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But so is cable television designed to be addictive. So are most restaurants and ice cream parlors and grocery stores designed to get you to spend more. Most loyalty programs are designed to be addictive to get you to come back, etc. etc. I just worry we left no levers for the public to regulate these entities and this is the worst option of very few options. Who isn't liable under this kind of logic?

I don't think that is really true though. People aren't becoming addicted to grocery stores, ice cream parlours and restaurants, or even cable television to nearly (any?) degree. None of those are engineered to addict you in nearly the same degree or magnitude.

> or even cable television to nearly (any?) degree

24-hour commercial cable news (in the US) is the original sin of addictive media.

Re: Fear and denial in Silicon Valley over social media addiction trial

#44

Post by webdoodle »

Not in that order: first denial, because like nicotine industry, they KNEW IT WAS ADDICTIVE but got everyone hooked anyway. The Fear is only because it might (but probably won't) get regulated heavily. They are predators, and the only way to fix this is to give them hard, long jail time. Fines won't do shit.

Re: Fear and denial in Silicon Valley over social media addiction trial

#45

Post by InvertedRhodium »

megaman821 wrote: post #35
maxaw wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Screens on their own aren’t “uniquely and magically addictive”, but infinitely scrollable short form video delivered through that screen is, because a few companies spent billions on the smartest minds in the world to make it so.

So you would support banning any form of entertainment that people spend more time on than TikTok since it would be above the threshold of addiction?

More or less, yeah. There might be some nuance about the threshold for maladaptive behaviour, but if it’s all or nothing I’ll take all.

Re: Fear and denial in Silicon Valley over social media addiction trial

#46

Post by buttersicle »

wheelerwj wrote: post #38
buttersicle wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but this is also how these companies make money. You need to actually pass a law that prohibits this before you fine the companies that do it. Letting juries rob them just because the jury doesn't like it is nothing more than fascism.

Theres already laws that protect kids. Thats why they just lost in court.

Please provide a link.

Re: Fear and denial in Silicon Valley over social media addiction trial

#47

Post by broof »

goodluckchuck wrote: post #24
mmaunder wrote: post #5

We all know they're addictive, they're designed to be addictive, and they're very, very harmful, to both adults and children. The individuals who are profiting from the harm are clearly identifiable. And that harm directly targets children. That this is allowed to continue is a symptom of a sick society.

I keep seeing the phrase “the harm” as if we’re all supposed to know exactly what that means. What is it?

My attention span is greatly reduced for example. I have a much harder time reading physical books than I did as a kid. It should be the opposite as you age

Re: Fear and denial in Silicon Valley over social media addiction trial

#48

Post by maxaw »

megaman821 wrote: post #35
maxaw wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Screens on their own aren’t “uniquely and magically addictive”, but infinitely scrollable short form video delivered through that screen is, because a few companies spent billions on the smartest minds in the world to make it so.

So you would support banning any form of entertainment that people spend more time on than TikTok since it would be above the threshold of addiction?

I didn’t mention time? From Cambridge dictionary: ‘addiction: an inability to stop doing or using something, especially something harmful.’ I am in support of regulating things which are harmful and which people have trouble not doing

Re: Fear and denial in Silicon Valley over social media addiction trial

#49

Post by next_xibalba »

I am convinced that social media is addictive for some, and likely a negative influence for many. But this is just shoddy journalism:

> "The verdict has forced those inside the companies to grapple with the fact that many outsiders do not view them as favourably as they have come to view themselves."

They quote one unnamed insider for this characterization. I recall from my stats 101 class that n=1 is not a strong basis from which to make broad claims about a population of 10s of thousands.

Re: Fear and denial in Silicon Valley over social media addiction trial

#50

Post by hattmall »

goodluckchuck wrote: post #24
mmaunder wrote: post #5

We all know they're addictive, they're designed to be addictive, and they're very, very harmful, to both adults and children. The individuals who are profiting from the harm are clearly identifiable. And that harm directly targets children. That this is allowed to continue is a symptom of a sick society.

I keep seeing the phrase “the harm” as if we’re all supposed to know exactly what that means. What is it?

Depression, anxiety, suicide, wasted time, irritability.
Post reply on HN