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

141–150 of 247 posts

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

#141

Post by twoodfin »

maxaw wrote: post #132
twoodfin wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, sorry, so using behavioral psychology to encourage an audience to stay on the couch watching TV for prolonged periods should be illegal? This is the Netflix business model, right now.

The difference is that the media is 30 seconds not 2 hours so the feedback loop is shorter and the content pool is far far far deeper because it is user submitted so the content recommendation algorithms become so effective , and the experience so compelling, that it becomes addictive. And as a wise man once said “a difference in scale is a difference in kind”

I’m actually strongly sympathetic to this argument, but I’d love to see some actual clinical research that suggests algorithmic short form video has mental and physiological effects that (say) video games do not.

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

#142

Post by fc417fc802 »

twoodfin wrote: post #123
fc417fc802 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a matter of degree. I don't impulsively drive to the store to purchase another bag immediately after finishing the one I have whereas (for example) many people exhibit such behavior when it comes to tobacco. In the case of social media the feed is intentionally designed to be difficult to walk away from and it is endless (or close enough as makes no practical difference). Even if it weren't endless, refreshing a…

How would you contrast social media with Netflix in this regard?

An amusing question. Episodes are much longer and most shows only have one or a few seasons. I don't get the sense that streaming services optimize for difficulty to walk away and do something else any more or less than a good book does.

Maybe autoplay and immediately popping up a grid of recommendations should both be legally forbidden as tactics that blatantly prey on a well established psychological vulnerability. I'd likely support such legislation provided that it could be structured in such a way as to avoid scope creep and thus erosion of personal liberties.

In short I think Netflix is closer to a bag of Lays and modern social media closer to the cigarette industry of yore.

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

#143

Post by fc417fc802 »

twoodfin wrote: post #134
fc417fc802 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends. Was the product intentionally designed to be that way? The addition of caffeine to soda is the closest example that immediately comes to mind but in that case many individuals are specifically seeking the additive. There are many physical products that are today designed to minimize harm and misuse after facing liability historically. So I suppose the direct answer to your question would be "yes, absolutely,…

What do you mean by “be this way”? There’s somebody out there who’s harmfully addicted to just about anything, from ultramarathons to World of Warcraft. What’s the limiting principle on liability?

Are you intentionally being obtuse? It means whether or not the product was intentionally designed to be addictive. What was the intent behind the design? Why were the decisions made? Was there a reasonable alternative that was otherwise functionally equivalent?

The limiting principle on liability is quite complicated. You'd have to go ask a lawyer. At least in the US (and I believe most of the western world) it has to do with manufacturer intent, manufacturer awareness, viable alternatives, and material harm among other things.

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

#144

Post by jimmyjazz14 »

shoobiedoo wrote: post #110
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.

Reminds me of soda. Why the hell liquid poison is allowed to exist turns my stomach. You could fill libraries with data linking it to a myriad illnesses and causes of death. Yet they are even allowed to juke it with caffeine for no other reason than to up the addiction level. Like... what are we doing here.

its called freedom, do we really need the government to protect us from everything they deem bad or unhealthy?

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

#145

Post by jimmyjazz14 »

czhu12 wrote: post #84

What would be an actually good faith way of regulating this short of banning it for children (which I’d think is fine). How do you define what is too addictive? At any given time it seems like whatever is defined as the most addictive is just the one with most market share? For me personally I think most addictive is actually hacker news (god bless you all)

I really don't think there is a good faith way to regulate it without either violating free speech and/or removing online privacy/anonymity. I strongly believe it should not be regulated, though I would support better educational programs on the dangers of social media usage and other dark patterns (and somewhat related, I would remove most screens from (public) schools).

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

#146

Post by twoodfin »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #143
twoodfin wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by “be this way”? There’s somebody out there who’s harmfully addicted to just about anything, from ultramarathons to World of Warcraft. What’s the limiting principle on liability?

Are you intentionally being obtuse? It means whether or not the product was intentionally designed to be addictive. What was the intent behind the design? Why were the decisions made? Was there a reasonable alternative that was otherwise functionally equivalent? The limiting principle on liability is quite complicated. You'd have to go ask a lawyer. At least in the US (and I believe most of the western world) it has…

This is begging the question.

Doritos are designed to taste good and encourage you to eat them to your satisfaction.

The latest Mario game is designed to be playable & fun for as long as you have time and energy to play it.

My Instagram feed is designed to engage me with interesting and relevant content for as long as I have time to scroll.

All three can be used in unhealthy ways, and would be less likely to be so used if they were designed less well to their goals.

Which is “designed to be addictive”?

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

#147

Post by jimmyjazz14 »

im3w1l wrote: post #115

I think the issue people are not acknowledging is that social media and apps and phones are addictive because they are fun . People are addicted to having fun, and to outlaw the addiction is to literally make fun illegal. Let me take half a step backward from that provocative stance. Of course we don't need to outlaw all fun, but we perhaps we really do need to outlaw some fun, to prevent people from overindulgence.…

or hear me out, we could just let people have the freedom to make their own choices and take self-responsibility for their choices in life.

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

#148

Post by maxaw »

troad wrote: post #75
jimmyjazz14 wrote: post #64

I have no love for social media, but I also really don't like the idea of the government regulating how apps are designed, or trying to circumnavigate online privacy to "protect children" which where I see this whole thing going. On another note, personally I'm not sure I buy the "addictive" argument with social media, maybe its just me but I find social media pretty boring, but I think for a lot of younger people it…

It's wild to me how many people are willing to throw basic civil liberties overboard because they don't like the other guys. Today's media circus is about addictive social media. Before that it was video games and rock music and D&D clubs. Before that it the Satanic panic of the 80s, gay 'recruitment', Soviet spies. Much before that it was witches and heretics. And so on and so on, forever. If you have a choice, mayb…

The big difference is that in many cases the people who support this are the same ones that are addicted. You’re telling addicts to stop their moral panic over their own addiction

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

#149

Post by jimmyjazz14 »

martythemaniak wrote: post #73

I propose a Neotemperance movement. The original Progressives of the late 19th and early 20th century were not just against alcohol but all sorts of social ills, including gambling. The Neotemperance movement would be anti engineered addiction, anti gambling, anti misinformation, anti ads, and anti corruption.

ah the good ole nanny state, yes that will work out fine I'm sure.

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

#150

Post by Paradigm2020 »

buttersicle wrote: post #86
mocheeze wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://nmlegis.gov/Sessions/99%20Regular/FinalVersions/SB013...

You're linking to new mexico state law? If you're going to pick a law from one of the smallest states in the union, the least you could do is quote the relevant excerpts. This is a pathetic rebuttal.

Meta is also reeling from a separate $375m verdict delivered on Tuesday.

New Mexico prosecutors convinced a jury the company enabled child exploitation on its platforms.

Post reply on HN