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

131–140 of 170 posts

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

#131

Post by zooq_ai »

blackhaz wrote: post #32
zooq_ai wrote: post #14

I for one hope this case reach the supreme court and it's struck down on egregious Government overreach. This case has no proof about net harm to teenagers by social media. This case is basically projecting everyone's misplaced hate of social media without doing a proper controlled experiment of it's benefits/harm to the society. You can't do controlled experiments on humans and hence the states have no case except o…

I don't know about you, but my Facebook is littered with every day pedophilia, mostly generated and edited photo/video shorts with literally children doing erotic dancing in prostitute clothing. I don't know, did I click on something wrong? Some ads lead to obviously adult pay-per-view accounts on third party sites - you're a click away from porn. Many posts, appearing for some reason clustered - I guess when their a…

This has nothing to do with the lawsuit

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

#132

Post by kelseyfrog »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #111
kelseyfrog wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I don't understand what "using people as a means to an end" means here. Sounds like selling something to people to earn money, but that would describe all business.

Using people as a means is a reference to Kant[1].

> that would describe all business.

What if it does? Should we avoid an honest conclusion because it has profound consequences?

1. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/persons-means/

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

#133

Post by atoav »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #121
atoav wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not what needs to be argued. What needs to be argued is that the form of socializing and learning that can only can come through phones/tablets is worth the negative aspects. As someone who grew up just before smartphones became a thing, I kinda also managed using books and shit.

no, the claim was that phones and tablets make it easier to learn and socialize, not that you can't without them.

Yeah, and doping makes it easier to win the school soccer game — still few would consider letting their kids do it. That is because the trade offs involved are not worth it at all compared to winning by just training harder.

Don't get me wrong, I am not dogmatically against smartphones/tablets for kids and I understand the pressures parents operate under, but if you want to figure out whether it is good to let your kids do X vs not doing it, you should probably take into account:

- what are the benefits? (claimed: easier learning and socializing, but also: parents don't need to deal with their kids)

- what are the downsides? (there are man studies linking e.g. depression to excessive smartphone use in kids, also: parents don't deal with their kids, smartphones are mostly used for consumption, hard to monitor where the algorithm takes them)

- are there any alternatives that have similar advantages while having less of the bad stuff? (I mentioned books, but of course it might be even feasible to limit the amart phone use to certain times of the day etc.)

And then you weigh those for yourself and decide. This was the point of my post before.

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

#134

Post by lotsofpulp »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #132
lotsofpulp wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand what "using people as a means to an end" means here. Sounds like selling something to people to earn money, but that would describe all business.

Using people as a means is a reference to Kant[1]. > that would describe all business. What if it does? Should we avoid an honest conclusion because it has profound consequences? 1. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/persons-means/

Yes, because unless there is an alternative proposal to feed and house the 8B people on this planet, then it is a waste of time to complain about the current solution being imperfect.

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

#135

Post by hotpotamus »

superkuh wrote: post #109
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…

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.

Gambling addiction triggers the same brain areas as drug and alcohol cravings

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/176745/gambling-addiction-tr...

As someone who has had issue with addiction (a real one by your definition as well as screen based one), it's plainly obvious that the brain mechanisms at play are the same.

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

#136

Post by lotsofpulp »

hotnfresh wrote: post #130
lotsofpulp wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Targets have a Starbucks selling 10x as much dissolved sugar 25 feet away from checkout aisles. Are those unethical? How about in a separate Starbucks building, but on a pad site in front of the store with a drive thru? Seems like an arbitrary place to draw the unethical/ethical line.

This is not, cannot be, and shouldn’t be math. Yes, it’s all “arbitrary”. Unhealthy impulse-items at the checkout are going to be regarded as quite unethical, by a lot of people, for really obvious reasons. The approaches you’re trying to use to “disprove” that isn’t how any of this works. Many things are bad. Some are worse than others. Ones that are intentionally manipulative, as the impulse-buy aisle is, and greed…

>But it’s not the same, and you’re not going to be able to construct some proof that requires I condemn those equally or else condemn neither, because that’s nonsense both in the specific terms of what we’re writing about, and also because it’s not a useful way to analyze or discuss these sorts of things in general.

I think it is useful when ideas about government regulation start coming in (like the poster who I responded to wrote). I do not want leaders to (completely) capriciously determine what is and is not allowed.

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

#137

Post by gwbas1c »

LesZedCB wrote: post #87
Curvature5868 wrote: post #83

The dilemma parents are grappling with is this: tablets and smartphones, while beneficial for children's learning and socializing, also expose them to constant marketing and propaganda, even within the confines of their bedrooms, as they attempt to connect with peers or complete tasks. Previously, children's exposure to marketing and propaganda was mostly confined to their entertainment hours, during which they watch…

> while beneficial for children's learning and socializing citation needed? or are we just assuming because, well, there's education and social information and apps available on them?

> citation needed

This isn't Wikipedia. It's a casual internet forum, and you don't need someone to come armed with mountains of proof for casual (and obvious) statements.

BTW: One of my kids learned to read by playing a Cookie Monster word game during the pandemic. We've had enough "edutainment" software for a few decades that you don't need to ask for proof in a casual atmosphere.

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

#138

Post by [deleted] »

gwbas1c wrote: post #137
LesZedCB wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> while beneficial for children's learning and socializing citation needed? or are we just assuming because, well, there's education and social information and apps available on them?

> citation needed This isn't Wikipedia. It's a casual internet forum, and you don't need someone to come armed with mountains of proof for casual (and obvious) statements. BTW: One of my kids learned to read by playing a Cookie Monster word game during the pandemic. We've had enough "edutainment" software for a few decades that you don't need to ask for proof in a casual atmosphere.

[deleted]

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

#139

Post by kelseyfrog »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #134
kelseyfrog wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using people as a means is a reference to Kant[1]. > that would describe all business. What if it does? Should we avoid an honest conclusion because it has profound consequences? 1. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/persons-means/

Yes, because unless there is an alternative proposal to feed and house the 8B people on this planet, then it is a waste of time to complain about the current solution being imperfect.

Let me see if I'm understanding you correctly. You answered in the affirmative that if something is too hard then we shouldn't consider the ethics of it?

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

#140

Post by hotpotamus »

liquidpele wrote: post #73
haltist wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is saying people need to be more techno-optimistic and stop paying attention to all this fear mongering hack jobs about social media algorithms. These algorithms deliver billions of dollars of value on a daily basis. Money and GDP are more important than depressed teens. It's important to focus on what actually matters: market capitalization and profitability.

Poes law almost got me.

I mean, stating it that plainly is what makes it a joke, but it is indeed an accurate description of the choices we have collectively made as near as I can tell.
Post reply on HN