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

Meta loses bid to dismiss US states' claims that FB, Instagram addict children

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 84 posts

Re: Meta loses bid to dismiss US states' claims that FB, Instagram addict children

#61

Post by mikae1 »

datsci_est_2015 wrote: post #41
Zigurd wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government regulates plenty of complex products and markets. Software isn't that special.

The trick is to cut away at the user-hostile foundations of the product. In theory, a product like Facebook or Instagram would have no need to be regulated, but the sale of user data, the engineered addictiveness (looking at you “Data Scientists”), etc. are all worthy of being regulated.

What's funny is that I don't find fediverse apps like Mastodon to be less addictive. It could be because they (and the ActivityPub protocol) was modelled after commercial counterparts or that information foraging in an endless forest of data in itself is attractive to the human psyche.

Re: Meta loses bid to dismiss US states' claims that FB, Instagram addict children

#62

Post by josefritzishere »

whynotmaybe wrote: post #4
josefritzishere wrote: post #2

This is an area where we really could use case law to protect kids from the Zuckerberg's of the world. It's important for the future. We're not going to "self-regulate" our way out of this.

Is there a place where self-regulation ever works?

Very few. But it's the core of our current economic system... which explains a lot of the problems.

Re: Meta loses bid to dismiss US states' claims that FB, Instagram addict children

#63

Post by ipdashc »

mikae1 wrote: post #61
datsci_est_2015 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The trick is to cut away at the user-hostile foundations of the product. In theory, a product like Facebook or Instagram would have no need to be regulated, but the sale of user data, the engineered addictiveness (looking at you “Data Scientists”), etc. are all worthy of being regulated.

What's funny is that I don't find fediverse apps like Mastodon to be less addictive. It could be because they (and the ActivityPub protocol) was modelled after commercial counterparts or that information foraging in an endless forest of data in itself is attractive to the human psyche.

Yeah, this doesn't get brought up often enough. Honestly, while I don't necessarily disagree with it, I think a lot of the "social media is evil because it was engineered by psychologists to be addictive!" narrative is complete cope.

Cope, specifically, because we don't want to accept the fact that this kind of stuff is addictive on its own, that we are our own worst enemy; bot armies, evil corpos, and engagement algorithms don't help but they're not required. (That is, between your two theories, I think both contribute but it's more so the latter.)

I'm a pretty easily distracted person. I don't use social media at all. Yet I've been "addicted" on some level to this site, to news sites, to browsing Wikipedia, to traditional forums. So have plenty of others.

People don't want to face the fact that humans just really like having a giant source of stuff to entertain ourselves with, and are easily drawn into online arguments. Getting rid of the corporations and such would probably make a better Internet, sure, but it's not going to cure everyone's addiction.

Re: Meta loses bid to dismiss US states' claims that FB, Instagram addict children

#64

Post by consumer451 »

okuntilnow wrote: post #53
consumer451 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The entire age verification push in AUS was started by an advertising consulting company to distract from proposed online gambling regulation. Protecting children is a noble goal that I personally agree with, but it's also often used to sane-wash further erosion of privacy. As has been discussed here and elsewhere, age verification turns out to be the complete loss of Internet anonymity due to its implementation tech…

I've heard this so many times. That age gating in AUS was started by lobbying from an advertising firm is a gross simplification / distortion of the facts but a good example of how easily misinformation spreads on the internet. People love a conspiracy. No doubt that it will be good news to gambling advertisers, but the push for age verification was already underway in 2020, well before government recommended an end…

Well, here is the canonical source of the story:

https://www.crikey.com.au/2025/12/12/pro-teen-social-media-b...

I do know that many places in the world were worried about what TikTok and Insta were doing to their kids' minds, prior to that push. However, do you find fault in the Crikey story?

It appears that the AUS domino was the first to fall in the chain after FINCH's major push.

Re: Meta loses bid to dismiss US states' claims that FB, Instagram addict children

#65

Post by Zigurd »

ipdashc wrote: post #63
mikae1 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's funny is that I don't find fediverse apps like Mastodon to be less addictive. It could be because they (and the ActivityPub protocol) was modelled after commercial counterparts or that information foraging in an endless forest of data in itself is attractive to the human psyche.

Yeah, this doesn't get brought up often enough. Honestly, while I don't necessarily disagree with it, I think a lot of the "social media is evil because it was engineered by psychologists to be addictive!" narrative is complete cope. Cope, specifically, because we don't want to accept the fact that this kind of stuff is addictive on its own, that we are our own worst enemy; bot armies, evil corpos, and engagement alg…

This is exhibiting a lot of software guy detached from reality. The reality is the teen girls kill themselves for being "too fat" because bullying engagement makes money for big commercial social media sites. Somebody else on this thread claimed to be somewhere addicted to Mastodon sites.

In principle they're comparable. In the real world, no high school kids are going to harm themselves over an argument about Mint versus Ubuntu on a 100,000 subscriber ATmosphere site. It's like comparing the Dominican cigar shop selling hand rolled cigars with Philip Morris. Unedifying.

Re: Meta loses bid to dismiss US states' claims that FB, Instagram addict children

#66

Post by okuntilnow »

consumer451 wrote: post #64
okuntilnow wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard this so many times. That age gating in AUS was started by lobbying from an advertising firm is a gross simplification / distortion of the facts but a good example of how easily misinformation spreads on the internet. People love a conspiracy. No doubt that it will be good news to gambling advertisers, but the push for age verification was already underway in 2020, well before government recommended an end…

Well, here is the canonical source of the story: https://www.crikey.com.au/2025/12/12/pro-teen-social-media-b... I do know that many places in the world were worried about what TikTok and Insta were doing to their kids' minds, prior to that push. However, do you find fault in the Crikey story? It appears that the AUS domino was the first to fall in the chain after FINCH's major push.

I'm sure that it's right! I've no doubt gambling advertising firms will have been happy to see it over the line to get them off the hook. Hard to argue for a ban on gambling ads if kids (allegedly) can't see them anyway.

Re: Meta loses bid to dismiss US states' claims that FB, Instagram addict children

#67

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

Sometimes there are HN comment complaining about articles reporting on legal proceedings that fail to include URLs pointing to the documents referenced. No complaints in this thread so far

Here is the order denying Meta's motion to dismiss

https://ia803204.us.archive.org/15/items/gov.uscourts.cand.4...

Re: Meta loses bid to dismiss US states' claims that FB, Instagram addict children

#68

Post by thinkingtoilet »

everdrive wrote: post #45
thinkingtoilet wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Get used to reading books and going on walks. As someone who does both, it's quite lovely! You might even be happier doing that than whatever it is the modern internet has become.

Agreed. I'm working on the transition. I'm still a work in progress.

Aren't we all! Man, if I could recommend anything it's walks. I'm a little bias because I live in a beautiful rural area. However, going for walks, no head phones, no phone, no videos, no podcasts, no audio books, no anything, is something I feel has really changed my life for the better.

Re: Meta loses bid to dismiss US states' claims that FB, Instagram addict children

#69

Post by _doctor_love »

whynotmaybe wrote: post #4
josefritzishere wrote: post #2

This is an area where we really could use case law to protect kids from the Zuckerberg's of the world. It's important for the future. We're not going to "self-regulate" our way out of this.

Is there a place where self-regulation ever works?

The dive industry, when I got my PADI one of the instructors told me diving is mainly self-regulated.

Re: Meta loses bid to dismiss US states' claims that FB, Instagram addict children

#70

Post by watwut »

aspenmartin wrote: post #60
datsci_est_2015 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The trick is to cut away at the user-hostile foundations of the product. In theory, a product like Facebook or Instagram would have no need to be regulated, but the sale of user data, the engineered addictiveness (looking at you “Data Scientists”), etc. are all worthy of being regulated.

by your username I assume you are yourself one of the droids you're looking for lol. But also I think people forget: this is not cut and dried. This is not simple. This is not just "these companies are evil and should be stopped". It is: there is a market pressure to do these things. "I enjoy the product and use it a lot" and "I am addicted" is blurry and market pressure is not going to recognize that limit because i…

> This is not just "these companies are evil and should be stopped". It is: there is a market pressure to do these things.

They are evil tho, on top of there being market pressure. Their executives are incredibly comfortable with causing large scale harm, even when they are NOT forced at all.

> If you cap advertising dollars, you cap advertising effectiveness.

And that is OK. Not just ok, but actually good. Their effectivity and their evilness are closely related. Their effectivity and harm they cause are essentially the same thing.

> The impact of reducing advertising effectiveness is disproportionately concentrated on small business where cheap and effective advertising is so important.

Nice try, but no. Who benefited the most were the bad actors, conspiracy theories, weight loss programs specifically marketted to teens who posted about being insecured about their issues.

Marketing is just an arms race. It is ok to limit how manipulative and harmful it is and force companies to compete on something else.

Post reply on HN