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

81–90 of 323 posts

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

#81

Post by Aurornis »

meowkit wrote: post #28
matrix87 wrote: post #25

This 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.

This would include everything from my Spotify recommending new music that I like to my Netflix showing me similar shows. I'm a responsible adult. I want those things. I make use of them. They make my life better when I'm trying to listen to some music while I work on something or when I have exactly 2 hours of TV watching time in a week and don't want to waste it finding a new show. I do not want regulations coming along and making all of my products worse due to heavy-handed regulation.

Practically, it won't happen. These thought experiments are exercises where people imagine the websites they don't want other people using getting worse, while failing to imagine any way that it might negatively impact any site they use. Usually when I press the topic it turns into a game of whack-a-mole where the other people come up with more and more exceptions and specifics to these theoretical laws to reveal what they really have in mind, which is targeting some small handful of social media sites that they don't want other people to use. We see this with the age restriction laws where the comments come out in full force demanding ID checks and huge fines for Facebook and TikTok, but there are meltdowns whenever people realize that the regulations would be coming for their Discords, YouTube viewing, and Reddit access too.

I halfway imagine this whole exercise ending with some big show about warnings, where users who join TikTok or other websites have to click a big warning sign that says they might be addictive. If some countries start instituting laws against recommendations or personalize recommendations, the popularity of VPNs will continue to rise so people can simply use the products like they want instead of having to deal with nerfed versions to satisfy some country's laws.

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

#83

Post by solid_fuel »

select1 wrote: post #10
MengerSponge wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> fundamentally different fundamentally different how? Because they use your visual cortex to trigger neurons?

Physical compulsion is a pretty big difference.

> Physical compulsion is a pretty big difference.

Have you experienced addiction before? Nicotine withdrawal doesn't make your hand move on it's own, it makes you crave a cigarette, and then you pick up a cigarette and smoke it to make the craving go away.

If you crave scrolling instagram, even when you want to be doing anything else, isn't that the same thing? Maybe you can't point at a specific molecular basis - yet (if you were to look at dopamine and other neurotransmitters, I wouldn't be surprised if social media spikes them in a way similar to other vices) - but the outcome is the same.

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

#84

Post by nitwit005 »

dyarosla wrote: post #70
matrix87 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 year…

Look at video games and you'll see the surface area of "addictive design" is basically infinite. People have gotten addicted to a huge variety of games, with not all that much in common.

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

#85

Post by blackqueeriroh »

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #63
matrix87 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You have moved the goalpost.

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

#86

Post by rockskon »

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…

"You can stop smoking at any time"

"You can stop gambling at any time"

As much as I may agree with you, you need a different argument.

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

#87

Post by solid_fuel »

Taikhoom10 wrote: post #82

[flagged]

> Meta has not done anything illegal

Interesting assertion. Sounds like something that should be proven in court.

> Instead, we are debating if Instagram is bad for kids? Really?

Considering there is considerable scientific evidence that Instagram is bad for kids, and that Meta knew it was bad for kids and designed it to be addictive to kids and teens anyway, yeah. Really.

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

#88

Post by mantas »

matrix87 wrote: post #25

This 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…

Let’s start with banning algorithmic personalized feeds. That seems to be the common determinator of the bad apples.

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

#89

Post by fragmede »

solid_fuel wrote: post #83
select1 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Physical compulsion is a pretty big difference.

> Physical compulsion is a pretty big difference. Have you experienced addiction before? Nicotine withdrawal doesn't make your hand move on it's own, it makes you crave a cigarette, and then you pick up a cigarette and smoke it to make the craving go away. If you crave scrolling instagram, even when you want to be doing anything else, isn't that the same thing? Maybe you can't point at a specific molecular basis - ye…

Right. There's now chemical, biological and digital addictions to account for. GLP-1s seem to help with some of the needy hunger for, not just food, but the dopamine rush of gambling. Science is still waiting on studies to prove this is true, but anecdotally, it's a thing. So there's my hope for the future, that we can science our way out of some of the problems we've created.

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

#90

Post by dumberquestions »

itake wrote: post #72
shaewest wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the major issue is, people still have the option of those older forms of feeds, people just don't like them. New social media competitors (ie Tiktok) have won users by having even more powerful algorithms rather than other options.

How? The 2 feeds on my IG account: "posts" and "reels" show content of people that I do not follow.

Instagram definitely doesn't have the option but youtube for instance does, there's a subscription tab that's collecting dust in most people's accounts.
Post reply on HN