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

121–130 of 323 posts

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

#121

Post by alex1138 »

lazide wrote: post #102
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…

There are literally emails back and forth with Zuck where it's brought up that they're essentially making things as addictive as possible and it's bad for people, and he goes (to paraphrase) 'yeah, whatever. keep doing what you're doing'.

He said 'if you need info on people at Harvard just ask'. Called people who gave him information 'dumb fucks' (so, who's the next person on HN that's going to dare to reply to me that he was 'making a good point'? Do you see the Google founders saying that? Even as a joke?). Killed the competition of Instagram and Whatsapp. Copied every single Snapchat feature. Wants AI friend profiles for people. Hijacked emails https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4151433 . Free Basics https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10791198

List goes on. Socio.

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

#122

Post by ricardobayes »

Aurornis wrote: post #81
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.

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 a…

Yes, anyone who has been looking for Spotify alternatives can readily tell how poor the music recommendation algorithms of competitors. I feel like the only comparative one is weirdly, youtube, since they simply have more data points and context to attach recommendations to.

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

#123

Post by conception »

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…

The best idea ive seen is if you decide what a user sees in an algorithm way (beyond “natural” ones like chronological) you are liable for the content - you are no longer a common carrier and can be sued for damages. That should be step 1.

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

#124

Post by ben_w »

Groxx wrote: post #96
Aurornis wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

Seems like you don't have to rule it out completely? "You might also like this show" is rather different than YouTube's "OMFG SHORTS WATCH THEM NOW" experience. Even if the line is fuzzy, I think many can agree some things are closer than others, and that's enough for some laws (there are plenty of other not-perfectly-testable laws out there as counterexamples).

While this is true in principle, my understanding is that the failure to carefully deliniate ahead of time, was why prohibition in the USA ended up being "all alcohol" rather than "just liquor".

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

#125

Post by Aurornis »

Groxx wrote: post #96
Aurornis wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

Seems like you don't have to rule it out completely? "You might also like this show" is rather different than YouTube's "OMFG SHORTS WATCH THEM NOW" experience. Even if the line is fuzzy, I think many can agree some things are closer than others, and that's enough for some laws (there are plenty of other not-perfectly-testable laws out there as counterexamples).

> Seems like you don't have to rule it out completely?

This is what I was talking about in the second half of my comment: Every time I bring up the fact that these proposals would be overbearing, people start brainstorming infinite carve outs and exceptions that would exempt the products they use, but harm the products they don’t want other people using.

If these laws hit the books they’re not going to be neatly shaped to avoid the things you like and only impact the things you don’t.

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

#126

Post by friendzis »

Aurornis wrote: post #81
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.

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 a…

> > “Do you use personal / behavioral data / usage to shape the user experience and recommendations, creating a reinforcing loop?”

> This would include everything from my Spotify recommending new music that I like to my Netflix showing me similar shows.

Spotify recommending music and Netflix recommending shows that are similar to what? To previously recommended music/shows. This is exactly the problem.

> I'm a responsible adult. I want those things.

This is a clear indicator that these things are addictive and are in fact gambling.

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

#127

Post by charcircuit »

solid_fuel wrote: post #79
itake wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

voluntary feedback - things like "I wish the customer service was faster" - is not the same thing as measuring engagement time down to the millisecond and using that data to feed a presentation loop.

Engagement is measuring voluntary feedback. If you aren't engaged you typically either move to the next piece of content or close the app. These are the voluntary mechanisms you as a customer report how good the recommendation is.

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

#128

Post by Aurornis »

dotancohen wrote: post #103
Aurornis wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

> when I have exactly 2 hours of TV watching time in a week and don't want to waste it finding a new show. Please please somebody explain this to me. I see it often, but fail to understand it. The television is a tool for watching shows. The show is ostensibly the draw, and the television is the vehicle for watching it, no? So why do some people (lots of people actually) feel compelled to sit in front of the televisi…

> So why do some people (lots of people actually) feel compelled to sit in front of the television to watch something?

Because I have kids, an active life, and a lot of physical hobbies and activities.

And some times it’s 10PM, too early for bed, too tired from a busy day, and I’m looking to relax and enjoy a show with my wife for an hour.

I said two hours per week because that’s about how much it ends up being. The fact that this is attracting criticism and even a sister comment calling me “addicted” is bizarre. What even is the goal here? Shaming people for relaxing and enjoying things? Feeling a smug sense of superiority over others for their consumption choices during down time?

Is it lost on you that these criticisms are coming in the comments section of a social news site where people waste a lot of time?

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

#129

Post by Aurornis »

2muchcoffeeman wrote: post #117
dotancohen wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> when I have exactly 2 hours of TV watching time in a week and don't want to waste it finding a new show. Please please somebody explain this to me. I see it often, but fail to understand it. The television is a tool for watching shows. The show is ostensibly the draw, and the television is the vehicle for watching it, no? So why do some people (lots of people actually) feel compelled to sit in front of the televisi…

GP is addicted and can’t see it.

2 hours of TV per week is addicted?

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

#130

Post by mm263 »

lukan wrote: post #109
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…

In my humble opinion: anyone optimizing for "engagement" is trying to make a product inherently addictive. Having a great product is not, but designing your product intentionally so people spend more time with it, than they wanted - intentionally not just let them write that one message, but distract them into other stuff - would qualify.

How would you prove this? What if the product was not intentionally designed to be engaging but ends up being more engaging than TikTok?
Post reply on HN