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

171–180 of 323 posts

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

#171

Post by Dylan16807 »

hgomersall wrote: post #165
Dylan16807 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Factor in inflation and its pretty easy to get negative returns on bank deposits.

But that applies to having money at all. That can't be enough to call it gambling.

> expectation, intent

I understand your argument here, but I disagree. Shifting to the bank that offers the best rate is good management, not gambling. Understanding how interest works and being motivated by interest to do bog-standard money storage doesn't turn that storage into gambling.

> without doing anything else

I don't understand how this connects at all. Maybe it reflects badly on you if you want to turn money into free income, but that doesn't make it any more or less of a gamble. It's a totally different axis.

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

#172

Post by cloudie78 »

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…

[flagged]

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

#173

Post by lukan »

weatherlite wrote: post #168
lukan wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes please.

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

#174

Post by weatherlite »

lukan wrote: post #173
weatherlite wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Yes please.

I don't think that's what most people want though. Most people are fine getting entertained and addicted. Even in China they allow them to watch 100 episodes of one minute micro dramas created by an A.I per day. People hate boredom more than they hate becoming a zombie.

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

#175

Post by gloryjulio »

hgomersall wrote: post #165
Dylan16807 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

There are lot of value investors which sit at home do stock picking occasionally. They don't work for their money. I don't think they are gambling.

The only investors that fits your non gambling definition seems to be the active investors who take part in the companies. But most investors don't

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

#176

Post by zos_kia »

lukan wrote: post #135
mm263 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Check for the targets of the dev teams. What gets them promotion. Right now they openly optimize for 'engagement".

Agreed, why would we have lawyers and judges if it wasn't to adjudicate exactly this kind of delicate issues ? We're not in a procedural show where you can gotcha the judge with a logical backflip.

"Oh but your honor if you find me guilty then you must also shut down YouTube", he said with a confident smirk. As if it was not trivial to establish intent in the case of meta, who were probably high fiving while sharing reports titled "Basic methods to make teenage addiction go up".

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

#177

Post by lukan »

weatherlite wrote: post #174
lukan wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes please.

I don't think that's what most people want though. Most people are fine getting entertained and addicted. Even in China they allow them to watch 100 episodes of one minute micro dramas created by an A.I per day. People hate boredom more than they hate becoming a zombie.

I am pretty sure most people do not want to become zombies. But entertainment is not the same as intentionally creating addictive mechanisms, the lines are blurry though.

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

#178

Post by salawat »

Aurornis wrote: post #134
friendzis wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > “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 respon…

> This is exactly the problem. What problem, exactly? Helping me find new music to enjoy? I’m beginning to think some people have forgotten what we’re supposed to be angry about and now we’re just angry at all things tech. Spotify recommending new music to me or continuing to play music suggestions when my playlist runs out is in no way harmful. It improves my life. I lose nothing to it. I gain new exposure to music.…

The poster is implying the reinforcement at play is the problematic thing at issue, and they are assigning the word "gambling" to represent it, or so it looks like to me. I think you aren't parsing their meaning correctly because what they seem to be aiming for is extinguishing the automatic reinforcement.

You're claiming it's making your life better, ostensibly by a relative report of the hedonic response a newly introduced piece of music auto delivered to you by the recommendation algorithm invokes. The problem they hint at though is the passive nature involved. You aren't finding that new piece, it's getting pushed. That pushing incentivizes optimizing for continued engagement, an act children, intellectually and developmentally disabled individuals, as well as those in the throes of cognitive decline/impairment, are not at all well equipped to self-regulate against when pitted against paid behavioral psychologists designing maximally engagement encouraging interfaces.

The incentive, and the existence of predatible populations is the problem I take away from it. I can agree you should be free to opt-in mind, but I can also see the wisdom in a by default interface wherein engagement hacking is forbidden being the norm, and that norm coming with a minimally controversial algorithm boiling down to "chronological feed of known/subscribed to sources", followed by a link of some sort to open an interface to the recommendations.

Facebook/Insta/Shorts are absolutely not that non-engagement farming interface. Hell my grandmother toward the end was about driven mad by it, and it was all I could do to just try to remind her that just because the machine had it on offer doesn't mean she had to partake, but her community centric character made that a bit of an ordeal for her.

There is absolutely a pathological pattern to the way tech companies hunt for eyeballs to monetize, and it is a damn shame it's taken this long to start getting traction to even talk about it.

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

#179

Post by jatins »

I am old and used to use FB back when it was cool. Think 2010-14 period, and it was addictive even then even when it was just content from friends. Humans have deep need for connection with other humans and they will be addicted to anything that provides it given that modern society is increasingly isolated.

People are addicted to reddit, heck I know people who are addicted to Stocks app because they just need something to scroll.

Modern day addictions are complex and products are not the sole cause imo, they are just filling a void. Why that void exists needs to be answered. You remove Instagram and that time will be replaced by Reddit, tiktok or whatever product gives you some dopamine

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

#180

Post by shevy-java »

At worst Suckerberg just pays money. So the issue is not being solved.

These US corporations operate outside the law - and they are protected by the orange king who is just too incompetent for anything other than pocketing away more money from the people, which is the only real skill he has.

Post reply on HN