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

EU Commission: addictive design Instagram and Facebook in breach of the DSA

ec.europa.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 204 posts

Re: EU Commission: addictive design Instagram and Facebook in breach of the DSA

#71

Post by mc32 »

littlecranky67 wrote: post #19
amelius wrote: post #4

And what about the addictive design of advertisements that keeps us hooked on consuming more and more stuff? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382310867_Methods_o...

Online advertisements should be forbidden as a whole. The attention-stealing and engagement-maximising internet with all it horribly effects only exist, due to advertising. And we know that the world without online ads is perfectly possible and livable, since we all lived through 1996.

True but the whole “influencer” and “creative” industry would collapse overnight. A few large ones would survive on their patreon income, most would collapse and have to get a real job, if those are still around.

Re: EU Commission: addictive design Instagram and Facebook in breach of the DSA

#73

Post by YurgenJurgensen »

d4ng wrote: post #66
EPWN3D wrote: post #63

The addictive design is in service of ads. Instead of regulating software, tax ad revenue to disincentivize building a business model around user profiling and tracking.

Tax ad revenue. Increase advertising prices. Advertisers pay more to sell their wares. Consumers pay more to consume their wares.

Vendors won’t see RoI on their ad spend and will stop buying. Simples.

Re: EU Commission: addictive design Instagram and Facebook in breach of the DSA

#74

Post by Hikikomori »

pembrook wrote: post #33

This is the same EU commission pushing chat control and VPN bans and passports to access the internet. Which people on HN hate. Yet, when they couch authoritarian action under the premise of a popular moral panic, suddenly the reaction here is “tie us up and tell us what we’re allowed to see daddy.” I really don’t get it. Do you not see how cheering on this social media moral panic and inflating the idea of a big tec…

Maybe you missed it but the commission and parliament consists of a lot of people and groups that are all pushing for different things. While we have chat control being actively pushed by some groups actively funded by Facebook we have other groups like this working against Facebook.

If social media was just your family, friends and acquaintances sharing stuff like it used to be you may have a point. But with the algorithm feed its turned into a der sturmer like propaganda pipeline.

Re: EU Commission: addictive design Instagram and Facebook in breach of the DSA

#75

Post by Telaneo »

jameshart wrote: post #68
PxldLtd wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally think the answer should be mandating user controls of said algorithms. If you have a large social media site that suggests results or provides a feed then you must allow users to configure said feed. The default should be simple, something like time-ordered of followed only with opt in for recommendations. Ideally I'd love to be able to swap algorithms for something open source but setting a standard the…

The entire advertising industry is predicated on the principle of preempting personal preferences with paid placements. (Sorry, didn’t start out that sentence expecting to alliterate it all but it just came out like that). Literally every ad you see is a business deciding ‘instead of showing you what you came here to see, here’s something else, which I am showing you only to benefit my business.’ I’m not sure what li…

> I’m not sure what limiting principle you can apply to limit the ability of businesses to show users other things the user might be interested in that wouldn’t also basically ban advertising too.

That's a baby I'm happy to lose along with its bathwater.

Re: EU Commission: addictive design Instagram and Facebook in breach of the DSA

#76

Post by YurgenJurgensen »

mc32 wrote: post #71
littlecranky67 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Online advertisements should be forbidden as a whole. The attention-stealing and engagement-maximising internet with all it horribly effects only exist, due to advertising. And we know that the world without online ads is perfectly possible and livable, since we all lived through 1996.

True but the whole “influencer” and “creative” industry would collapse overnight. A few large ones would survive on their patreon income, most would collapse and have to get a real job, if those are still around.

…and nothing of value would be lost.

Re: EU Commission: addictive design Instagram and Facebook in breach of the DSA

#77

Post by YurgenJurgensen »

amelius wrote: post #21
littlecranky67 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Online advertisements should be forbidden as a whole. The attention-stealing and engagement-maximising internet with all it horribly effects only exist, due to advertising. And we know that the world without online ads is perfectly possible and livable, since we all lived through 1996.

Yeah, but why don't we ever hear any MEPs talk about it like that?

They buy ads too. It’d adversely affect their campaign budgets. (Sure, it would adversely affect their competitors’ too, but second-order effects are usually too complex for politicians to understand.)

Re: EU Commission: addictive design Instagram and Facebook in breach of the DSA

#78

Post by piva00 »

carlosjobim wrote: post #28
piva00 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't follow, the argument is against the addictive design of the feed algorithms, not the information being shared per se. Nothing in this is geared towards curtailing platforms like social media to exist, it's trying to curtail the design of psychological manipulation for "engagement". Ragebait is the most common case, it makes people interact with content if it enrages them; another common case is to feed kids w…

> Ragebait Tell me exactly what you mean by "ragebait". Shouldn't things that make people angry be reported on? Should they be swept under the rug? I'm kind of tired of hearing this word being used, without a good explanation. Regarding kids, they shouldn't have uncontrolled access to the Internet, and that's a parenting problem. Just like a parent letting their kid drive their car or drink his whiskey. > I can't see…

> Tell me exactly what you mean by "ragebait". Shouldn't things that make people angry be reported on? Should they be swept under the rug? I'm kind of tired of hearing this word being used, without a good explanation.

Ragebait = fanning flames through misinformation or disinformation. Why do you immediately jump to the conclusion that anything inciting rage is true? I constantly get fed content on Instagram and YouTube with outright lies about my country (verifiable lies, not something I judged as lies) which are intended to cause rage and engagement. That's ragebait.

Other kinds of ragebait: creating a whole profile dedicated only to take the most extreme view on issues (on both sides), only to make people angry so they comment or like/interact with the content.

> Some of their practices are good, some are bad. People addicted to TV have existed for decades. It's been a trope forever, the old lady spending her day glued to the TV. Hundreds of millions of people live like this even currently. And just like most people today are a little bit addicted to social media, everybody was a little bit addicted to TV. The evening news broadcast was a very important part of their day.

When it gets to a device that you are carrying with you 100% of the time it's a whole other level and degree of an issue. You verge into the false equivalency territory, something before was addictive so now that we have something even more addictive it's ok just from precedence? Different levels and degrees demand different solutions.

> So yes, I think the reason why the people in power are more interested in throttling social media than traditional media - even though they both share the same addiction problem - is because the people in power have much less control over it than they did with traditional media.

That's absolutely cynical and a thought-terminating cliché since it's impossible to contradict you. I understand it's your opinion but it verges into conspiratorial thinking which I don't think anyone can de-escalate you from except for yourself.

> As for ulterior motives, this is Hacker News, so I fully expect you to believe that I'm secretly a Russian spy, Iranian drone operator, AI bot, Mark Zuckerberg, neo-nazi, scientologist, jew, Elon Musk and bio-lab operator.

Not really but you constantly rehash similar arguments in topics surrounding the EU so I'm trying to figure out what exactly is behind that. Ulterior motives don't need to be that drastic, it can simply be "I don't support the EU as a project" since you never state that but consistently take that side of the argument.

Re: EU Commission: addictive design Instagram and Facebook in breach of the DSA

#79

Post by mc32 »

YurgenJurgensen wrote: post #76
mc32 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True but the whole “influencer” and “creative” industry would collapse overnight. A few large ones would survive on their patreon income, most would collapse and have to get a real job, if those are still around.

…and nothing of value would be lost.

Mostly true but there are a few good channels with very practical information for picking up new skills (gardening, woodwork, playing an instrument, etc) as well as looking up troubleshooting information.

Those too would be lost.

Sure some drag out three minutes into fifteen, but whatever…

Re: EU Commission: addictive design Instagram and Facebook in breach of the DSA

#80

Post by aaron695 »

jampekka wrote: post #65
pembrook wrote: post #33

This is the same EU commission pushing chat control and VPN bans and passports to access the internet. Which people on HN hate. Yet, when they couch authoritarian action under the premise of a popular moral panic, suddenly the reaction here is “tie us up and tell us what we’re allowed to see daddy.” I really don’t get it. Do you not see how cheering on this social media moral panic and inflating the idea of a big tec…

Many, including me, don't see e.g. personal privacy and freedom as the same case as regulating commercial activities. In fact, large business interests are well capable of authoritarian power themselves.

[dead]
Post reply on HN