Earlier quoted context omitted.
so you draw the line at smell-o-vision?
I draw the line at physical compulsion, but everyone is different.
[dead]
Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco
41–50 of 323 posts
Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco
#42This seems really messy. We regulate gambling because it's a specific thing, but how do you differentiate a non-addictive platform vs an addictive platform? (aside from this specific company... I mean in general). How do you "test" whether or not they're inherently addictive? At least in this specific instance, they can look at the blast radius and make a determination. But this feels legally unsatisfying in the gene…
“Do you use personal / behavioral data / usage to shape the user experience and recommendations, creating a reinforcing loop?” Roughly that.
So why leave out food industry which has provably caused health harm and killed people.
Leaving out the modern food industry but going after social media shows that this is just politics as the food industry wets the beak and greases the plan generously on both sides of the aisle.
Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Do you use personal / behavioral data / usage to shape the user experience and recommendations, creating a reinforcing loop?” Roughly that.
What product does not listen to how users use the product to design the first or later version of a product?
Most products don't spy on you?
Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco
#44This seems really messy. We regulate gambling because it's a specific thing, but how do you differentiate a non-addictive platform vs an addictive platform? (aside from this specific company... I mean in general). How do you "test" whether or not they're inherently addictive? At least in this specific instance, they can look at the blast radius and make a determination. But this feels legally unsatisfying in the gene…
It's hard to answer in general, but does it have to be answered in general? I could imagine supporting a policy that infinite scroll in particular is addictive and app developers can't use it without strong warning labels and time alerts.
> It's hard to answer in general, but does it have to be answered in general?
Maybe not? Maybe if enough minors experience harm from a platform, that's enough to restrict it for minors.
Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's not necessarily addictive though because you can stop talking with the chatbot at any time. You can also stop taking drugs at any time. Or stop drinking. Or stop smoking. Or stop doomscrolling.
What I meant to say was, the standard for when we call something addictive is more hazy than that. In general, text based interfaces don't light up the brain in the same way. Psychologically it's a lot easier to walk away from a chatbot vs an infinite feed of short form video... potentially that difference could help find some kind of standard to determine addictiveness Edit: I wonder if a hypothetical digital experi…
> What I meant to say was, the standard for when we call something addictive is more hazy than that.
If you as a person engage with a product to a degree where it causes demonstrable, measurable harm to yourself or your life, you are addicted.
Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Do you use personal / behavioral data / usage to shape the user experience and recommendations, creating a reinforcing loop?” Roughly that.
So why leave out food industry which has provably caused health harm and killed people. Leaving out the modern food industry but going after social media shows that this is just politics as the food industry wets the beak and greases the plan generously on both sides of the aisle.
Unlike big tech, which would never do that.
Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fundamentally different yet with practical outcomes that are close enough. Wildly impressive what we as a species achieved. The headline talks about parallels. A closer example is gambling if you are concerned with physical properties of a system. Light and sound.
No one is breaking into cars to pay for Facebook, but they absolutely are with regards to heroin.
They're also not doing that to pay for tobacco. Come on. Heroin is justifiably illegal for good reason already; you're stretching the analogy past breaking point.
Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco
#48This seems really messy. We regulate gambling because it's a specific thing, but how do you differentiate a non-addictive platform vs an addictive platform? (aside from this specific company... I mean in general). How do you "test" whether or not they're inherently addictive? At least in this specific instance, they can look at the blast radius and make a determination. But this feels legally unsatisfying in the gene…
You can just be explicit. We already do this with controlled substances, maintain a defined regulatory schedule, and give a designated regulatory body a legally prescribed process for adding to it, removing them, or changing their classification.
Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Do you use personal / behavioral data / usage to shape the user experience and recommendations, creating a reinforcing loop?” Roughly that.
Okay but suppose you have an AI chatbot which takes in context from previous chats on what your interests are. So people just keep talking with the chatbot more and more as it gains more context. This would meet the criteria. It's not necessarily addictive though because you can stop talking with the chatbot at any time. Maybe it's something to do with the text-based interface vs short form video. Short form video is…
You’ve not already noticed that the end of every consumer-facing LLM chat always includes an invitation for just one more turn to keep the loop going?
Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco
#50I do wonder what’s going to happen in the future to addictive social media algorithms. Feels like one of those things that’s so powerful, but skirts by because it doesn’t feel like it should be (like targeted advertising).
With the amount of money behind them, I regret to say I don’t think they’ll get legislated away. My best guess is that social shaming slowly dwindles their usage. It’s actively shameful to scroll at dinner among Gen Z, for example. The problem becomes using the apps alone at home.