The infinite scroll may become endangered if controversial Calif. law passes

Post by inigyou » Tue, Jul 14, 2026, 12:32 AM UTC

AlexandrB wrote: post #55

ls612 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of this is states trying to figure out a way around the first amendment to regulate social media that the courts will wink and accept. That is why you see so many convoluted laws being drawn up by state legislatures about this.

What should be changed is the exemption algorithmically curated feeds still get under section 230. This has always seemed like a huge loophole. Once social media feeds are picking and choosing what to show users based on opaque criteria they are no longer neutral carriers of information but more like newspaper editors. They should be liable for what the users see.

Post by Noumenon72 » Tue, Jul 14, 2026, 12:34 AM UTC

elictronic wrote: post #54

dijksterhuis wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it doesn't remove any choice for users . users don't get a choice on the offending sites currently. they only get infinite scroll. so the eventual infinite scroll replacement will be just that, the replacement. on removing possible UI design choices for social media companies -- i have a very small violin on hand.

Any discussion on this topic within hacker news is pretty silly. To much financial incentive to keep the status quo, and to many bots pushing narratives. It’s like listening to the lawyers at a cigarette manufacturer, car manufacturers fight seat belts or gun manufacturers in kindergartens. The change is coming because real people are pissed.

Post by inigyou » Tue, Jul 14, 2026, 12:34 AM UTC

pillmillipedes wrote: post #28

note that this is going after "psychologically exploitative features intended to maximize engagement" of all kinds, not just infinite feeds. it also poses an ultimatum banning people under 16 from websites that provide such addictive features to anyone. personally I am against internet identification, and I think teenagers should be allowed on social media, so I have to ask: why only children? if these features are s…

Post by inigyou » Tue, Jul 14, 2026, 12:35 AM UTC

kasperni wrote: post #22

IAmBroom wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Removing choice is generally a bad thing, IMO.

We also removed choices to drive without a seat belt or sell lead paint. Was that a bad thing?

Post by socalgal2 » Tue, Jul 14, 2026, 12:36 AM UTC