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

191–200 of 323 posts

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

#191

Post by somenameforme »

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…

Tobacco regulations don't regulate the general case, they regulate tobacco products. I think the same will apply to social media. There's no need to define an addictive platform anymore than there's a need to define an addictive substance. Instead all that you need to define is a social media platform. And that can be expanded/adjusted as necessary.

As for Meta itself, and proving their case - I can't imagine it'll be difficult. Whatever they get in discovery + endless testimony from various people that have worked there will already likely leave it beyond any reasonable doubt.

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

#192

Post by charcircuit »

vasco wrote: post #136
charcircuit wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What product does not listen to how users use the product to design the first or later version of a product?

A hammer doesn’t have a sensor to know how you are doing while you're hammering away, and it doesn't make the strike smoother to keep you hammering longer if you start seeming tired. Almost no products ever monitor you

But I can collect feedback about it compared to other hammers. If you really wanted to you could attach an IMU to the hammer and run a user study collecting such usage data. Then use that usage data to evolve the design for the next generation of the hammer you produce.

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

#193

Post by postexitus »

vasco wrote: post #132
danielmarkbruce wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's actually somewhat easy... If you are creating financial exposure to an event with no underlying risk to it, and the point is exposure itself, you are gambling. In your snow example, those guys were gambling on snow for fun. The formal weather derivative - most weather derivatives have parties (usually players in the energy market, sometimes agriculture) who have real underlying risk and aren't entering those con…

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.

No - it means you are exposed to - electricity / gas / oil prices. Or Wheat maybe?

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

#194

Post by postexitus »

Sharlin wrote: post #150
rglullis wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Toeing the line? There is no underlying risk to any of that except the bet itself. Of course it is gambling.

Not in the eyes of law (in many or most jurisdictions that regulate gambling).

At some point it's going to catch up. Legislation is a very hard process.

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

#195

Post by raffael_de »

throwyawayyyy wrote: post #74

I do wonder about intent. Meta has spent 20 years paying its engineers and others vast amounts of money to Increase Engagement, and punishes those who fail to find ways to do so (over the past few years, by firing them). And it's worked! Engagement has increased greatly over the years, Meta survived the effective end of Old social media (you know, the stuff from your friends) and thrives in the new world of infinite…

the engagement argument could be applied to every commercial service or product. anything that is sold is getting optimized for appeal/attraction/engagement/adictiveness.

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

#196

Post by mschuster91 »

jbstack wrote: post #152
wpietri wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Stock market investing - not gambling

That entirely depends on the asset classes you invest in. Proper stonks? Sure, that's not gambling. But as soon as you enter the fun world of derivatives and daytrading...

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

#197

Post by itintheory »

pants2 wrote: post #116
wpietri wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's certainly not well defined today; memecoins, prediction markets, sports betting, and more are all toeing the line of gambling.

> toeing the line I'm not sure that phrase means what you intended to say here. From Wikipedia, [1]: "Toe the line" is an idiomatic expression meaning either to conform to a rule or standard, or to stand in formation along a line.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toe_the_line

It's possible I misinterpreted your statement though, and if so: apologies.

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

#198

Post by the_other »

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.

> 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.

So putting money in my savings account is gambling, but investing in businesses is not.

I suspect I misunderstand your point completely.

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

#199

Post by renegade-otter »

pants2 wrote: post #116
wpietri wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's certainly not well defined today; memecoins, prediction markets, sports betting, and more are all toeing the line of gambling.

Prediction markets are 100% gambling. It's just synonym acrobatics.

I say this as someone who had a lot of fun GAMBLING during the World Cup.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOptJl8Xkx0

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

#200

Post by friendzis »

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.…

> Helping me find new music to enjoy?

Is it helping you find new music or is it feeding the same thing it has been feeding you in a reinforcement loop? Are you really searching or are you mindlessly taking what's on offer?

> Spotify recommending new music to me or continuing to play music suggestions when my playlist runs out is in no way harmful.

In both Netflix and Spotify any real discovery is quite well hidden, nearly all of the feeds you can get are algorithmically generated for you to consume what is beneficial to them. You get an interface pretending to offer you a choice and an algorithm behind, designed and fine-tuned by behavioral psychologists to get you coming back for more. An apparently it is doing it's job so well that you keep defending it.

Post reply on HN