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

151–160 of 323 posts

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

#151

Post by londons_explore »

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…

A trial is also the wrong venue. It isn't illegal to make an addictive website.

Instead lawmakers should be making new laws.

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

#152

Post by jbstack »

wpietri wrote: post #77
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…

It took decades to clearly define gambling enough to regulate it as we do now. Note that pinball was banned in major cities for decades because it was too similar to gambling devices. And even with those definitions things weren't very clear. I used to work for financial traders here in Chicago. Every year there would be an unofficial snow futures market. It was a fancy way for all the traders and clerks to gamble on…

> What made one gambling and the other not? What makes any given bet a legitimate financial trade versus pure gambling?

Legally, it's whether the bet meets the legal definition of gambling as per the legislation applicable in your jurisdiction and any binding case law. There's no universal answer.

But from an ordinary language perspective, the difference is whether it involves an element of skill sufficient (at least in theory) to win in the long run if you possess that skill. For example:

Roulette - generally gambling

Blackjack - usually gambling these days, sometimes not if count counting is feasible

Poker - not gambling

Stock market investing - not gambling

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

#153

Post by dotancohen »

josephg wrote: post #119
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…

Sometimes the desire isn't to watch some specific show. It is to have the experience of sitting on the couch and watching something good on tv. This is why people channel surf, or scroll through netflix's collection. You want to have the experience of watching something. The goal is to be stimulated, to cure your momentary boredom. I have the same experience with youtube, reddit and HN. I don't really know what I exp…

  > "I'm in the mood to watch a documentary. Let's see what they've got."
Thank you, this is a sentiment I can understand.

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

#154

Post by dotancohen »

Aurornis wrote: post #128
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…

> 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…

No need to get defensive, not only did I not criticise you - I even commented that the phenomenon is common. I asked for someone to explain something I don't understand, and people explained. I'm a wiser person today.

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

#155

Post by ffaccount2 »

globular-toast wrote: post #104
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…

There's a big difference between a completely optional "recommendations" area and a loop. If the recommended stuff happens automatically without you having to look for it, then it's a loop.

So Spotify is a loop (it automatically plays the next recommended song)

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

#156

Post by Dylan16807 »

hgomersall wrote: post #146
vasco wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having "underlying risk" to something just means you invested in it before. So for you it's not a gambling as long as you... have gambled before in the other direction? Buy bunch of call options? Gambling. Buy a bunch of put options for stock I already hold, somehow honorable investing.

It's all gambling. You can dress it to as having a social purpose, but that's not why most people do it - they want the numbers to go up. The stock market is exactly the same - middle class gambling.

> You can dress it to as having a social purpose, but that's not why most people do it - they want the numbers to go up.

Too cynical. This disqualifies basically anything you can do with money. If you put it in a bank to get interest you are solidly into the not-gambling end of the scale. And I don't think an index fund is that much more to the gambling side.

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

#157

Post by Dylan16807 »

rockskon wrote: post #86
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 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.

I don't see why.

The problem with your examples is that it's a person lying to themselves. GP is acting as an objective third party and telling the truth about their hypothetical.

There are lots of things you really can stop at any time. I could stop eating peanut butter at any time, if I had a compelling reason.

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

#158

Post by hgomersall »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #156
hgomersall wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's all gambling. You can dress it to as having a social purpose, but that's not why most people do it - they want the numbers to go up. The stock market is exactly the same - middle class gambling.

> You can dress it to as having a social purpose, but that's not why most people do it - they want the numbers to go up. Too cynical. This disqualifies basically anything you can do with money. If you put it in a bank to get interest you are solidly into the not-gambling end of the scale. And I don't think an index fund is that much more to the gambling side.

Not really. The question is are you working for your money or are you hoping the money will provide free rent for you. If the latter, you're gambling. The only reason it's relatively risk free is because the system has been thoroughly stitched up in favour of the rent seekers.

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

#159

Post by notawaytothink »

vanderZwan wrote: post #144
notsirius wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

have worked in analytics for a while. Engagement is a very broad category. Not all engagement metrics are toxic. For example, daily active users is healthy for a business to measure and is engagement. Commenting on Hackernews is engagement. Meta also has a wide range of engagement metrics - not all of which are problematic

I've never seen a NAXALT fallacy used for the concept of engagement metrics before. It's not relevant to this discussion that in certain contexts, useful engagement metrics exist that supposedly aren't toxic, because it doesnt apply to the current context . We're clearly talking about the larger systemic issue of companies maximizing all engagement at all costs, and the consequences of such a policy.

For anyone else not understanding the reference: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/NAXALT

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

#160

Post by Dylan16807 »

hgomersall wrote: post #158
Dylan16807 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can dress it to as having a social purpose, but that's not why most people do it - they want the numbers to go up. Too cynical. This disqualifies basically anything you can do with money. If you put it in a bank to get interest you are solidly into the not-gambling end of the scale. And I don't think an index fund is that much more to the gambling side.

Not really. The question is are you working for your money or are you hoping the money will provide free rent for you. If the latter, you're gambling. The only reason it's relatively risk free is because the system has been thoroughly stitched up in favour of the rent seekers.

I'm confused by the ideas you're combining here. Do you think all forms of rent-seeking are gambling or just ones that involve money in a direct way?

The only risk in a bank deposit is up at the "societal collapse" level. Are you really so extreme as to say that's gambling, and if so isn't having money at all a form of gambling?

Post reply on HN