331–340 of 464 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Democracy is bound by the limits of the Constitution, outside of an amendment or a revolution. (Note that the latter is usually considered a Bad Thing; occasionally it works out for the better, but just as often for the worse.)
the EU doesn't have a constitution
Didn’t think so, and we didn’t ask for your opinion
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a feature that simply makes your product easier to use Except it doesn't. You lose context and are now drowning in an endless morass of lazy-loaded blocks and widgets, all hiding under invisible elements. Nothing has a permanent URL, so there is zero accountably if the user was shown something that they need to reference - unless it benefits the platform. And of course, it will eventually all force reload when the…
All Facebook posts have a permanent URL that you can copy.
When I worked at Meta there was a lot of employee pressure to implement a "deterministic feed", where scrolling back-and-forth would produce the same set of posts, but leadership constantly sandbagged the idea (nobody actually wants determinism, people prefer to be surprised/delighted, etc)
Curious as to where the line between “addictive feature” and "good UX" is. Is deliberate pagination actual impedance to use or merely an annoyance that's been weeded out with modern UX design? When does a feature that simply makes your product easier to use cross into a territory that it's illegal? What about media previews, in a platform like reddit if you can preview or expand media directly from the main list is t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fair enough, I just get bored of being the lone voice refuting these obvious talking points. To be honest I suspect much of the support for this bill here is inorganic, and I do feel extreme contempt for the people pushing it. In the end I’m not really trying to convince these posters—they have obviously made up their mind—but rather to entertain and educate the nonaligned audience.
Honestly this is the big reason I have stopped participating in threads like this. Infinite scroll is not itself addictive. Hell, there are studies that suggest that us calling it "addictive" could itself create the very problem we're trying to "solve". There are also studies that completely refute the "social media is harmful" narrative too, and I'm talking on the order of millions of participants across more than 5…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is basically the Californian Prop 65 compromise: put up a sign saying the building contains carcinogens, but not actually do anything about them.
So log off? If you think it's really that bad why are you anywhere near a screen at all?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The presentation of speech is regulated in many ways already. The idea that any type of regulation on speech whatsoever is unconstitutional is false. Also, how is a hypothetical regulation on infinite scroll unconstitutional, but “go after targeted ads” isn’t?
In any case this is much more likely to succeed than regulation of speech. Contrary to what you’ve just said, presentation of speech is not heavily regulated, especially for privately owned venues.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm trying to think of a small operator that absolutely needs inifinite scroll on their site for their product to "work" and nothing comes to mind.
This is irrelevant. It’s a question of rights and of creeping unconstitutional “regulation” that will begin to infect all aspects of software development and online publishing. The line has to be defended here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is very obviously intended to keep people on an app longer than they would otherwise use it. What are you, protoplasm with eyes? Exert some willpower and get a grip. I've never known such a wimpy whining generation as this one
"Exert some willpower!" People exert willpower through the democratically elected legislature "No not like that!"