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

161–170 of 323 posts

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

#161

Post by weatherlite »

brookst wrote: post #56
thesmtsolver2 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In fully supportive of prosecuting wrongdoing in the food industry. But it seems strange to use belief in widespread wrongdoing in the food industry to oppose punishing wrongdoing in the tech industry. Is it just nihilism? All industries are corrupt, therefore prosecute none of them?

It seems to me like Meta is being singled out here. It's likely not the start of a movement to change how we live and get rid of/diminish bad influences on our lives - because I don't think we wanna really do that - not for economic reasons and also values - we like our personal freedoms. This is simply targeting one company whose CEO is very disliked so we can all carry on with our lives and feel better about ourselves. I do support restricting social media (not just Meta) in general for people under 18.

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

#162

Post by [deleted] »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #160
hgomersall wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

[deleted]

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

#163

Post by ernst_klim »

> It could, for instance, do so on the grounds that it is protected by Section 230 of the Communications Act, which safeguards platforms from legal liability for content posted by third parties.

But then the platform decides what to show and to whom. It's not an impartial medium anymore, not since the engagement algorithms become a norm.

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

#164

Post by mook »

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.

I think a better take is:

> Do you use personal / behavioral data / usage to shape the user experience and recommendations? You do not get covered by Section 230.

If they get to exercise editorial powers, then it doesn't make sense for them to be protected from liability for choosing what to publish. If they just give you a giant firehose, then they're not doing anything editorially and they should not have any liability as clearly that's not _their_ speech.

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

#165

Post by hgomersall »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #160
hgomersall wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The point is largely around expectation. Sure, the base case of putting money in a bank is very safe, but the interest on that is not. Factor in inflation and its pretty easy to get negative returns on bank deposits.

If you fiddle with "investments" with the intent of making money without doing anything else, that's gambling.

Sticking money in the bank with the hope that it's still there next time you come back to it is not really gambling. You're just doing the default thing.

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

#166

Post by atmavatar »

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 simple first step to me would be to update the DMCA so that platforms using engagement-maximizing algorithms lose their section 230 protections.

If you're targeting individuals with specific content algorithmically, you're hardly a dumb platform for user-generated content, and I would argue that it's well over the line that would classify you as a publisher.

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

#167

Post by esseph »

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…

> But this feels legally unsatisfying in the general case

What if I told you that judicial outcomes are often nondeterministic?

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

#168

Post by weatherlite »

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.

> Having a great product is not, but designing your product intentionally so people spend more time with it, than they wanted

So Netflix, Youtube, basically all ad based websites and social media should be hit with the same requirements no ? Even the news try to get engagement - it's usually not like they really care about honest and facts based reporting.

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

#170

Post by bonzini »

atmavatar wrote: post #166
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 simple first step to me would be to update the DMCA so that platforms using engagement-maximizing algorithms lose their section 230 protections. If you're targeting individuals with specific content algorithmically, you're hardly a dumb platform for user-generated content, and I would argue that it's well over the line that would classify you as a publisher.

How do you distinguish engagement maximization and usability maximization?
Post reply on HN