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

381–390 of 464 posts

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

#381

Post by an0malous »

halestock wrote: post #206
an0malous wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should all buttons require a confirmation dialog to prevent people from making decisions too hastily? Should we ensure all interactions have at least 100ms of latency so users don’t get mesmerized by a smooth experience? Maybe we should set a max color saturation so nothing looks too enticing. We also don’t really need box shadows or gradients, they’re clearly meant to mesmerize users into making bad decisions. What…

Is your argument that unless we can make a law that is perfect and covers every conceivable use case of coercive design, then we shouldn't bother to make a law that covers any of them?

No my point is that none of these are by themselves even coercive design, there’s no distinction between a smooth or pleasant UX experience and a coercive design without context.

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

#382

Post by dudefeliciano »

iamnothere wrote: post #350
dudefeliciano wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You still are missing the point which is: how does infinite scroll relate to freedom of speech? It just doesn't.

How does choosing your book’s font and margins apply to freedom of speech? Why should you get to choose that as an author/publisher?

> How does choosing your book’s font and margins apply to freedom of speech?

The fonts and margins dont communicate anything by themselves. There is a book that communicates ideas/opinions and that is what's protected by the first amendment. If someone found a font that exploits the brains reward mechanism and causes all sorts of mental health problems perhaps that should be regulated too.

Infinite scroll doesn't communicate anything by itself, it is purely a revenue maximizing feature that, as it turns out, has negative effects for people. There is no underlying idea or opinion here that Meta is communicating that should be protected by free speech.

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

#383

Post by victorbjorklund »

fitzroy wrote: post #129
ticulatedspline wrote: post #4

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…

> 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…

You can do permanent urls with infinite scrolling. Nothing that prevents you from putting the page number in the url

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

#384

Post by inigyou »

ahnick wrote: post #369
xg15 wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can just not use things you don't like. The entire point of talking about addiction (or even harmless things like FOMO, network effect, etc) is that this is not true.

This societal view that you are a powerless NPC slave to ones desires/addictions is highly toxic. It is not in fact binary for most people and people do have free will to make different choices. To absolve the individual of accountability is to undermine the very fabric of society. The way individuals typically overcome addiction is through reliance on close family & friends. Those family & friends can "take the phon…

This is sparingly. The government basically let the tech industry run amok for 20 years and only acted when the problems it was causing were serious and undeniable.

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

#385

Post by inigyou »

consumer451 wrote: post #364
tencentshill wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook really didn't like that apple made device IDs optional, it's strange that they quieted down about that. They must have found an alternative fingerprinting method.

I believe it's why they went all-in on Metaverse/VR. They want to own the next platform so that could never happen to them again. IIRC, Zuck has stated the latter openly.

Reminds me this is the same reason Valve went half-in on Linux. I guess this force can be used for good or evil.

Valve started supporting Linux and making their own Linux gaming hardware because Microsoft briefly tried to lock down Windows so that games could only be installed from the Microsoft Store.

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

#386

Post by inigyou »

petterroea wrote: post #264

I've heard a lot of negative talk about Californian politicians, but compared to how the discussion is going on in Norway about the same issue, this is great. It's very refreshing to see politicians actually understand the problem at hand instead of just throwing age checks at it. For reference, in Norway, you basically have 3 camps: * Age verification is a detriment to democracy if implemented at a large scale as a…

The California solution to age verification was a really good alternative. Instead of actually verifying anything, it just asks you when you buy the device. Presumably adults buy devices for their kids, and by the time you're old enough to buy your own, you're old enough to be in the grey area where it doesn't really matter if you lie.

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

#387

Post by inigyou »

ndriscoll wrote: post #377

Worries about particulars like infinite scroll miss the point: fundamentally, the advertising business model is a market distorting one that companies use to provide goods and services below cost. It is paid advertising that should be banned. Doing so would eliminate the incentive to create addictive products in the first place since increased usage would no longer drive increased revenue.

If advertising was banned I suspect the entire capitalism would collapse.

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

#388

Post by inigyou »

steve1977 wrote: post #269
osmukka wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it removing choice if you had no alternatives to begin with?

It's removing choice on the side of the publisher.

Which is... fine? Builders no longer have the choice to build things out of asbestos, either

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

#389

Post by inigyou »

silexia wrote: post #218
pinkmuffinere wrote: post #56

As somebody with not-enough self control, I would love this for myself. Self-locks help, but the temptation is always there.

Yes, I need this too. I'd pay 20x if I could keep the usefulness of my phone and its apps but get rid of the addictive stuff.

I've heard people claim tiny-screen phones (like the Unihertz Jelly) help them not be addicted.

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

#390

Post by inigyou »

iamnothere wrote: post #345
dudefeliciano wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly is unconstitutional about regulating infinite scroll? Did your founding fathers fight for indipendence from GDPR?

Regulating the format and presentation of displayed information, on some kind of online publication, is almost certainly regulation of speech. 1A violation.

It's as much of a 1A violation as regulating that you can't preach the gospel with a megaphone in the middle of Times Square.
Post reply on HN