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

New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 113 posts

Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens

#101

Post by nxicvyvy »

School-Cotton wrote: post #63
readthenotes1 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Addiction was a meaningful word long before the DSM

Correct, which is why the DSM doesn’t get to define what it means for all English-speakers.

They're not? They're Defining what it means in a medical setting so we can all have a standard set of evaluating principles to work and diagnose from in order to ensure a standard level of care is achieved across all those under their care.

I don't agree with DSM decisions but I don't have to in order to see this basic nuance about their purpose.

Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens

#102

Post by sdwr »

viraptor wrote: post #91
varispeed wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like: lets appear that we are doing something, but make it easy enough to go around so it doesn't hit our bottom line.

I think it realistically needs an escape hatch. For example some sports / activity groups organise exclusively through Facebook. If Facebook solves the issue by not allowing NY teens any access, then parents may want to override that for that specific purpose. Or the teen may be working on something that integrates with a service providing the addictive feed - it would make sense to allow.

And honestly, knowledge is half the battle. People seeing "Addictive Feeds" as a dangerous product that needs regulating is worth more than the actual regulations.

I think they're trying to make it go the way of smoking:

- general consensus of harm

- warning labels

- start applying pressure to phase out

Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens

#103

Post by Nasrudith »

jimbokun wrote: post #65
jcranmer wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's discriminating between social media companies purely on the basis of their speech--the recommendation algorithms they choose to use.

If the algorithm constitutes speech by the social media companies, doesn’t that remove their common carrier status? If the speech is theirs, they are responsible for its content.

Good god, not that zombie lie again!

Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens

#104

Post by varispeed »

sdwr wrote: post #102
viraptor wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it realistically needs an escape hatch. For example some sports / activity groups organise exclusively through Facebook. If Facebook solves the issue by not allowing NY teens any access, then parents may want to override that for that specific purpose. Or the teen may be working on something that integrates with a service providing the addictive feed - it would make sense to allow.

And honestly, knowledge is half the battle. People seeing "Addictive Feeds" as a dangerous product that needs regulating is worth more than the actual regulations. I think they're trying to make it go the way of smoking: - general consensus of harm - warning labels - start applying pressure to phase out

Additionally, why do they allow to call it "Dynamic Feed" and not for what it is: "Addictive Feed"? Seems like doublespeak.

Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens

#105

Post by School-Cotton »

nxicvyvy wrote: post #101
School-Cotton wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct, which is why the DSM doesn’t get to define what it means for all English-speakers.

They're not? They're Defining what it means in a medical setting so we can all have a standard set of evaluating principles to work and diagnose from in order to ensure a standard level of care is achieved across all those under their care. I don't agree with DSM decisions but I don't have to in order to see this basic nuance about their purpose.

Sure, but this law is not a “medical setting”.

Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens

#106

Post by superkuh »

School-Cotton wrote: post #105
nxicvyvy wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not? They're Defining what it means in a medical setting so we can all have a standard set of evaluating principles to work and diagnose from in order to ensure a standard level of care is achieved across all those under their care. I don't agree with DSM decisions but I don't have to in order to see this basic nuance about their purpose.

Sure, but this law is not a “medical setting”.

Exactly. As you say, the use of the word "addiction" in this context has nothing to do with scientific or medical reality. It's just an ignorant meme of misclassification; like people saying "the internet isn't working" just because their monitor is unplugged. Imagine legislation to "protect the internet" and require by law that all monitors remain plugged in at all times. That is how stupid this reads. The internet working may just mean "monitor displays browser" in common usage, but it doesn't actually mean that and making law based on popular usage is very, very bad.

Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens

#107

Post by gwbas1c »

jcranmer wrote: post #77
gwbas1c wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is obviously unconstitutional "or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" Well, is social media "speech" or "press"? Television and radio stations need to abide by FCC guidelines, and in general, certain topics and words aren't allowed in the daytime. Another example: Tobacco advertising is severely curtailed, *especially advertising targeted towards minors." In this case, what isn't restricted is so…

> Well, is social media "speech" or "press"? Speech. > Television and radio stations need to abide by FCC guidelines As far as the content restrictions, they only need to do so if they are broadcast channels (or cable rebroadcasts of broadcast channels), and FCC is constitutionally prohibited from regulating speech on cable-only channels. The argument for why they can do broadcast is the "compelling government intere…

I don't think you understand what "speech" and "press" are if you argue that the algorithm itself, or the act of running a social network, is protected speech.

In the case of the FCC, there's a clear difference between a radio signal, and the message it carries.

If you think the FCC is unconstitutional, I don't think you are able to make an argument with merit regarding social media.

Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens

#108

Post by School-Cotton »

superkuh wrote: post #106
School-Cotton wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but this law is not a “medical setting”.

Exactly. As you say, the use of the word "addiction" in this context has nothing to do with scientific or medical reality. It's just an ignorant meme of misclassification; like people saying "the internet isn't working" just because their monitor is unplugged. Imagine legislation to "protect the internet" and require by law that all monitors remain plugged in at all times. That is how stupid this reads. The internet…

> As you say, the use of the word "addiction" in this context has nothing to do with scientific or medical reality.

I didn’t say anything like that. I said they’re perhaps using the word in a way that is broader than it’s used in medical jargon. That’s not the same thing as saying the word is meaningless or has nothing to do with reality.

Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens

#109

Post by btown »

viraptor wrote: post #91
varispeed wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like: lets appear that we are doing something, but make it easy enough to go around so it doesn't hit our bottom line.

I think it realistically needs an escape hatch. For example some sports / activity groups organise exclusively through Facebook. If Facebook solves the issue by not allowing NY teens any access, then parents may want to override that for that specific purpose. Or the teen may be working on something that integrates with a service providing the addictive feed - it would make sense to allow.

My implication is that Facebook will solve this, not by disallowing access to NY teens, but by incentivizing NY teens and their parents to opt into the exact type of addictive feed that they currently have, and in the meantime falling back to non-user-specific recommendations. Also, it appears that a platform can still show content from users/channels that a minor user has explicitly subscribed to, without that counting as an addictive feed.

It's a very de-fanged law, but it's an iterative step in the right direction.

Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens

#110

Post by leotravis10 »

O1111OOO wrote: post #89
leotravis10 wrote: post #22

This is obviously unconstitutional and it'll be shot down in the courts before it takes effect since this is their version of KOSA among other First Amendment issues. Some context here: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/06/11/nys-safe-for-kids-act-a-...

> This is obviously unconstitutional I also wonder if this is a first salvo to get users to submit IDs before using online services. How do you determine if a user is a minor or an adult without some form of ID, right?

Exactly, since age verification is going to be required which means collecting a LOT of personally idenificable information (PII) by ways of ID which govenrnments don't have a good history in securely storing that information.
Post reply on HN