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

Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 323 posts

Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco

#61

Post by fwipsy »

matrix87 wrote: post #33
meowkit wrote: post #28

Earlier 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…

Suppose you have a video service which takes context from previous videos you watched to show you more videos you're interested in. Doesn't sound very addictive, does it? You described it in an innocuous way, but I can absolutely see that being a lead-in to a parasocial "relationship" or even AI psychosis.

> you can stop talking with the chatbot at any time.

doubt. Lonely people will get addicted.

Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco

#62

Post by mslt »

select1 wrote: post #17
dsp_person wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so you draw the line at smell-o-vision?

I draw the line at physical compulsion, but everyone is different.

So what are your thoughts on tavern slot machines where legal? No chemicals but plenty of people who will openly tell you they wish they weren’t doing thus while they cash out a 90% loss and buy another beer to head back in for another round of punishment

Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco

#63

Post by ToucanLoucan »

matrix87 wrote: post #55
ToucanLoucan wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

If I cut my leg off with a chainsaw, am I addicted to the chainsaw? I think what matters is the intent of the design. E.g. if they design the product to make you need more of it (while it has an actively detrimental effect)

> If I cut my leg off with a chainsaw, am I addicted to the chainsaw?

If you repeatedly willingly do so despite the harm, then yes.

Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco

#64

Post by jrflo »

drunner wrote: post #7
demibabs wrote: post #3

I 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).

Can we just ban algorithms for content and go back to chronological feeds circa 2004 Facebook? Or maybe ban all content that the user isn't explicitly subscribed to. Those both have problems too, I'm sure.

I build a safari extension to do just this (block all content that isn't explicitly subscribed to by the user) and it's a remarkably better experience. This is my hot take that most people seem to disagree with: the vast majority of culture wars we are having today would not exist without content recommendation algorithms.

Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco

#66

Post by itake »

rf15 wrote: post #43
charcircuit wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

According to "Build things that last" author, 90% of the businesses evaluated are "customer first", meaning business listen to the customer and improve their produce based on that feedback.

Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco

#67

Post by alastairr »

select1 wrote: post #18
intended wrote: post #11

Earlier 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.

If heroin was free, nobody would be breaking into cars but there'd still be a problem.

I think we're missing the point debating addictiveness. meta very deliberately use patterns that result in compulsive usage - and at the scale they operate - cause a substantial amount of societal damage as a result.

Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco

#68

Post by jrflo »

demibabs wrote: post #3

I 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).

I really hope it gets legislated away or kneecapped to the point where it isn't so effective. With all the legislation coming out regarding kids and social media, I hope that people will start to draw a line to the fact that maybe adults shouldn't be hooked up to it too. I don't think all content recommendation algorithms should go away, but we need to dial down the intensity by an order of magnitude or two.

Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco

#69

Post by bad_haircut72 »

mslt wrote: post #49
matrix87 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No matter how intelligent they make the AIs they work for openAI/Anthropic, not the users. Our future lies in open, local models, or we might aswell give up our computers altogether

Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco

#70

Post by dyarosla »

matrix87 wrote: post #53
didibus wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But a substance is not a specific product or a corporation. Maybe you could call "infinite scroll" the substance, but then you're playing whack-a-mole with whatever new interface they cook up. But then we end up with a long list of "disallowed" software features which might not be inherently addictive

Regulating specific interfaces that have been shown to be addictive is the same as regulating specific classes of drugs. And it’s not like we have a plethora of variants of interfaces that have been equally discovered to be toxic. They are finite and enumerable as they come up.

If they have a set of characteristics that line up with social negatives, they should be disallowed or not permitted for persons under N years old (like for gambling or smoking). This doesnt solve the problem for adults of course, but its a good compromise.

I would very readily be in favor of outright banning infinite scrolling video feeds, even if its just for under 18s

Post reply on HN