Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Meta Designed Products to Capitalize on Teen Vulnerabilities, States Allege

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 170 posts

Re: Meta Designed Products to Capitalize on Teen Vulnerabilities, States Allege

#101

Post by kelseyfrog »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #38
ff317 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I should make responsible decisions as an adult, but it's still fair to call that grocery store's actions unethical, and that maybe they should be regulated if they can't be ethical on their own.

Can you define exactly what is unethical about displaying candy in the checkout line? Should nothing be there? Only healthy vegetables? Is it unethical to sell things with added sugar in the first place? Or a certain amount of sugar per volume period?

Using people as a means to an end qualifies here and is generally considered unethical.

Re: Meta Designed Products to Capitalize on Teen Vulnerabilities, States Allege

#102

Post by Curvature5868 »

akprasad wrote: post #96
Curvature5868 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is hard to argue that you can't learn anything or socialize on your phone.

I take the parent comment's point as "beneficial for children's learning and socializing" as compared to the status quo ante.

Understood. I probably should have said "potentially beneficial". A phone is a tool. It can be used or abused like any other.

Re: Meta Designed Products to Capitalize on Teen Vulnerabilities, States Allege

#103

Post by jstarfish »

jocaal wrote: post #86
antiviral wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and moreover, the important point in the article that some people seem to be forgetting is that Meta itself believed that certain design choices led to addictive products and worked to incorporate those designs despite harmful consequences to children and adults alike. It matter much less that anyone on the outside believes this or not. Additionally, saying that children and adults should be wholly responsible f…

> Additionally, saying that children and adults should be wholly responsible for this is like saying the Chinese and not the British should be responsible for their opium addiction (see Opium War) and that homeless in San Francisco should be responsible for their Fentanyl addition. They can always just say no, right? This is why I find it funny that FAANG people call themselves software engineers. In the real world,…

> This is why I find it funny that FAANG people call themselves software engineers. [...] Imagine a bridge collapses and someone dies. Then in court the family is told that the person was responsable to research bridge designs before using it.

They are software engineers though. Engineers build all of our weapons.

The bridge collapsing isn't accidental-- it was the intended outcome. It's a carefully-engineered trap.

Re: Meta Designed Products to Capitalize on Teen Vulnerabilities, States Allege

#104

Post by megmogandog »

BizarreByte wrote: post #12
NickC25 wrote: post #3

Should come as no surprise, honestly. Above all else since turning public, Meta is in the business of making money. It's not illegal to target user's vulnerabilities in order to get the user to spend more time or money on their platform. It's unethical as hell, but it's business 101 - the shareholders would revolt if Zuck came out and said "here's this opportunity to make you all a ton of money, but we're placing our…

> It's not illegal to target user's vulnerabilities in order to get the user to spend more time or money on their platform. Perhaps it should be illegal to target children in such ways? I'm tired of this argument that companies should be able to do whatever they wish in the name of profit, they need to be reigned with strong regulations.

I didn't read the comment you're replying to as endorsing Meta's actions, but rather stating that it is the only thing you should expect given the current lack of regulation.

Re: Meta Designed Products to Capitalize on Teen Vulnerabilities, States Allege

#105

Post by GlibMonkeyDeath »

NickC25 wrote: post #3

Should come as no surprise, honestly. Above all else since turning public, Meta is in the business of making money. It's not illegal to target user's vulnerabilities in order to get the user to spend more time or money on their platform. It's unethical as hell, but it's business 101 - the shareholders would revolt if Zuck came out and said "here's this opportunity to make you all a ton of money, but we're placing our…

Just as putting actual cocaine in Coca-cola at first also optimized shareholder value. And it was perfectly legal, and not really even considered unethical - heck, it boosted energy, the user gets a beneficial service!

Of course, we know how that worked out. What is galling is that Meta absolutely knows it is creating a bunch of cocaine addicted children.

Re: Meta Designed Products to Capitalize on Teen Vulnerabilities, States Allege

#106

Post by lotsofpulp »

ff317 wrote: post #58
lotsofpulp wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you define exactly what is unethical about displaying candy in the checkout line? Should nothing be there? Only healthy vegetables? Is it unethical to sell things with added sugar in the first place? Or a certain amount of sugar per volume period?

The whole sugar/candy industry is unethical in my mind. It may take some decades for society to catch up, but eventually eating sugar the way we do today will be seen like smoking and the tobacco industry.

Why not extend this to basically everything not essential to life? Traveling to tropical destinations is clearly harmful for the world, living in big homes spaced out from each other is another one that causes unnecessary pollution. Selling alcohol, foods high in saturated fat (butter), etc.

Re: Meta Designed Products to Capitalize on Teen Vulnerabilities, States Allege

#107

Post by wussboy »

anthk wrote: post #78
splitwheel wrote: post #43

There is science driving the design of products to make them addictive. For teen girls - the apps are designed to scare them about being socially excluded. For teen boys - the apps are designed to fill their need to master skills. The issue that the government has to deal with with app addictions is self harm attempts by girls (e.g. emergency room visits) and underperformance of boys in the real world (e.g. low colle…

>For teen girls - the apps are designed to scare them about being socially excluded. Any female magazine ever.

Agreed, but I do think the effects of the addiction are radically different between a social media app and a magazine.

Re: Meta Designed Products to Capitalize on Teen Vulnerabilities, States Allege

#108

Post by hotnfresh »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #38
ff317 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I should make responsible decisions as an adult, but it's still fair to call that grocery store's actions unethical, and that maybe they should be regulated if they can't be ethical on their own.

Can you define exactly what is unethical about displaying candy in the checkout line? Should nothing be there? Only healthy vegetables? Is it unethical to sell things with added sugar in the first place? Or a certain amount of sugar per volume period?

If one course of action that does not even add more options of products to buy, just pushes them in a different way, contributes to worse health outcomes across a population, and you know it’s doing so, yes, that’s super unethical.

Re: Meta Designed Products to Capitalize on Teen Vulnerabilities, States Allege

#109

Post by superkuh »

antiviral wrote: post #75
splitwheel wrote: post #43

There is science driving the design of products to make them addictive. For teen girls - the apps are designed to scare them about being socially excluded. For teen boys - the apps are designed to fill their need to master skills. The issue that the government has to deal with with app addictions is self harm attempts by girls (e.g. emergency room visits) and underperformance of boys in the real world (e.g. low colle…

Yes, and moreover, the important point in the article that some people seem to be forgetting is that Meta itself believed that certain design choices led to addictive products and worked to incorporate those designs despite harmful consequences to children and adults alike. It matter much less that anyone on the outside believes this or not. Additionally, saying that children and adults should be wholly responsible f…

This is what happens when you start using the word "addiction" outside of contexts where it applies. You get these kinds of invalid and dangerous arguments comparing actually addictive substances that hijack incentive salience directly on the physiological level to a screen and speakers that most definitely do not.

Re: Meta Designed Products to Capitalize on Teen Vulnerabilities, States Allege

#110

Post by [deleted] »

hotnfresh wrote: post #108
lotsofpulp wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you define exactly what is unethical about displaying candy in the checkout line? Should nothing be there? Only healthy vegetables? Is it unethical to sell things with added sugar in the first place? Or a certain amount of sugar per volume period?

If one course of action that does not even add more options of products to buy , just pushes them in a different way, contributes to worse health outcomes across a population, and you know it’s doing so, yes, that’s super unethical.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN