Live data from Hacker News

Mark Zuckerberg's biggest legal nightmare yet could cost Meta $1.4T

the-independent.com

1–10 of 194 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's biggest legal nightmare yet could cost Meta $1.4T

#2
I feel like everyone implicitly knows the algorithm is designed to be addictive.

Its like smoking. At some point were going to look back and wonder why we let kids do that.

Its more insidious than smoking though because it has arguably positive benefits.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's biggest legal nightmare yet could cost Meta $1.4T

#6

I feel like everyone implicitly knows the algorithm is designed to be addictive. Its like smoking. At some point were going to look back and wonder why we let kids do that. Its more insidious than smoking though because it has arguably positive benefits.

> Its more insidious than smoking though because it has arguably positive benefits.

So does smoking, depending on who you listen to: relaxation, pleasure, socialising, "feeling free" etc.

But this is just to emphasise your point that we change our thinking as a society on the importance of both harms and benefits.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's biggest legal nightmare yet could cost Meta $1.4T

#7

this site has some popup that hijacks the page and tries to trick you into installing an antivirus with fake infection reports. Closing that popup sends you to walmart.com

...probably with a referral string that results in them getting paid, too.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's biggest legal nightmare yet could cost Meta $1.4T

#9

I feel like everyone implicitly knows the algorithm is designed to be addictive. Its like smoking. At some point were going to look back and wonder why we let kids do that. Its more insidious than smoking though because it has arguably positive benefits.

Alcohol consumption would be another good example of a culture we’ve accepted despite the deaths and limited positive benefits.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's biggest legal nightmare yet could cost Meta $1.4T

#10

Question is not whether they were designed to be addictive (of course it was - that’s the product), but whether it can be proven.

If you know it, and I know it, and everybody knows it, why the hell are we paying huge amounts to mince words over the proof?
Post reply on HN