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

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

sfgate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 464 posts

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

#351

Post by dghlsakjg »

tqi wrote: post #220
dghlsakjg wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody has ever been guided down an extremist rabbit hole ending in a misogynist shooting because of yogurt. At least, not to my knowledge. There is a very real harm to allowing an engagement optimizing algorithm (which, if programmed effectively, almost always ends up a negative emotion firehose). I don't know if this is the right solution, but I don't see that an extensive yogurt selection is the same thing as what…

Yeah there were no shootings before the internet

Just because we can’t eliminate all harms doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try to minimize them.

Online radicalization is a documented issue. Engagement optimizing algorithms pushing extreme and polarizing content is also well documented. Even the excess screen time on algorithmic feeds is well documented as harmful in young populations even if the radical content issues are ignored.

So while we did have shootings before, we did not have incels, groypers, ISIS sleepers and other weird people encouraging and glorifying them. If we can stop one at the cost of eliminating endless scrolling on Facebook, I think it’s a fair trade.

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

#353

Post by htek »

iamnothere wrote: post #117
Greenpants wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way I see it, it's the incessant stimuli you get through these apps. There's just no point where the screen stays quiet, stimulus free. Moving elements capture our attention naturally, especially when the entire screen keeps moving. The endless scroll element just makes sure that the stimulus keeps getting renewed the moment you're done with it. Instead, a scroll should give you a break before heading into the ne…

Hello, what right do you have to regulate the presentation of speech ? If you regulate this format because it’s now considered harmful, what stops El Presidente from moving to ban “zines” because the format is “harmful to young minds” and used by “antifa”? What stops CA from moving to ban forums because threaded formats are suddenly considered “too addicting”? Maybe we should ban VR or first person shooter video game…

First they came for the infinite scroll, and I said nothing...

That was a little hyperbolic. The government already can regulate "speech" to some extent in limited, targeted ways, as this is. For example: they can (and increasingly will) require ADA accessibility standards on web and mobile sites and apps-- even private sector-- that deal with the public.

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

#354

Post by ndriscoll »

iamnothere wrote: post #239
coldbrewed wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it fascinating that the people making the most extensive use of infinite feeds and A/B testing for maximum user engagement are also the massive platforms with dominating network effects and captive audiences? It's like _specifically regulating large social media conglomerates with outsized impact, capacity for harm, and demonstrated propensity to maximize user addiction might provide an ideal balance of societa…

Sophistry. The question is not whether or not regulation is authoritarian, it’s whether or not it’s constitutional. As in, whether or not the government is even allowed to make such a law. A law doesn’t just get a constitutional bypass because it’s addressing known harms or “anti-social” behavior or whatever. This is not the UK. Illuminated signs exist in the real, physical world. They can beam bright light into your…

Not that I think this significantly alters the point, but it's pretty common in the US to regulate or ban signage. e.g. billboards are illegal in my city and there are specific regulations about what kind of elements can be present on buildings to signal business names. I'm pretty certain illuminated signs beaming into people's homes would be illegal here. Actually I don't think light-up signs are allowed at all; I believe they have to be lit via projected light pointed at the building the're on.

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

#355

Post by grayhatter »

iamnothere wrote: post #344
grayhatter wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

coke cola used to have cocaine in it, it doesn't anymore, people in taste tests prefer the taste of Pepsi... Coke is still the leader in sales. Infinite scroll doesn't have a positive UX. If it takes an infinite amount of time to use your product, your product is shit. Unless your product is content, in which case endless scroll encourages thoughtless consumption behavior. That's not a good thing. We as engineers sho…

Rapid iteration on political issues is how you end up with oppression and legal terrorism. The brakes are there for a reason. But so is the valid process for changing the fundamental system (amendments).

I don't think rapid iteration causes legal terrorism. Do you have an example, or just vibes?

I meant rapid as in rapid for the legislative context too. I don't mind slow (expected) speed, or laws that have a delay before they take effect. I do have a problem with how political points can and are won not by finding solutions, but exclusively by obstructing the process. I don't mind an imperfect solution that moves the needle into a new better local maximum.

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

#357

Post by peder »

dudefeliciano wrote: post #343
iamnothere wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn’t aware that there was a public health exemption to the first amendment, and I’m having trouble finding it. Can you show me where to find it?

ony if you explain how infinite scroll is necessary for freedom of speech and of the press

should we check with you every time we want to do anything or...?

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

#358

Post by stonogo »

ethin wrote: post #292
iamnothere wrote: post #245

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…

> 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 50 countries.

Why not link to those instead of a youtube video?

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

#359

Post by iamnothere »

grayhatter wrote: post #355
iamnothere wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rapid iteration on political issues is how you end up with oppression and legal terrorism. The brakes are there for a reason. But so is the valid process for changing the fundamental system (amendments).

I don't think rapid iteration causes legal terrorism. Do you have an example, or just vibes? I meant rapid as in rapid for the legislative context too. I don't mind slow (expected) speed, or laws that have a delay before they take effect. I do have a problem with how political points can and are won not by finding solutions, but exclusively by obstructing the process. I don't mind an imperfect solution that moves the…

Perhaps I should clarify, I am using “legal terrorism” as a term of art for legislative terror, such as that inflicted during the French Revolution or the reign of Oliver Cromwell, or Germany’s Enabling Act. Without strong checks, which slow down the process, legislative bodies can get caught up in a frenzy of passing laws in order to address “urgent” problems.

Our problem is that a majority of legislators want to pass laws that they aren’t allowed to pass, although at cross purposes from each other, but they don’t want to go through the process for changing what they’re allowed to do. (Which may simply be evidence that the system is working as expected.)

We also have a problem with general legislative gridlock, entirely due to self-imposed rules that Congress isn’t willing to change. (Interestingly enough, however, the people could force a change through an amendment here too.)

Post reply on HN