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

141–150 of 170 posts

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

#141

Post by ryandrake »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #84
quacked wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, yes, and yes. However, the three situations you named are targeting adults. Children and teenagers are worth insulating from the full might of advertisers, propagandists, and always-on virtual social circles.

I would argue that it is the responsibility of parents to decide how to do that. But if you want a legislative solution, there already is one (COPPA) which prevents people under the age of 13 from joining social media. If you think those legal protections aren’t fit for purpose (they were created long before social media even existed), then you should take that up with your legislators. I personally wouldn’t trust th…

> But if you want a legislative solution, there already is one (COPPA) which prevents people under the age of 13 from joining social media.

Nothing (besides parents) can prevent people under the age of 13 from joining social media. The kids just lie about their age. Everyone knows how to lie about their age to get something they want, from the time they're in kindergarten.

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

#142

Post by bdzr »

quacked wrote: post #7
avalys wrote: post #4

Do grocery stores “capitalize on vulnerability” when they place name-brand products at eye level? Do carmakers “capitalize on vulnerability” when they advertise pickup trucks as big tough vehicles for tough, outdoorsy men? Do providers of health insurance for pets “capitalize on vulnerability” when they say you need to buy their product if you love your pet? At some point people need to be responsible for their own d…

Yes, yes, and yes. However, the three situations you named are targeting adults. Children and teenagers are worth insulating from the full might of advertisers, propagandists, and always-on virtual social circles.

Ironically, many cereals are placed at eye level of children.

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

#143

Post by lotsofpulp »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #139
lotsofpulp wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes, if the thing you are finding unethical is as broad and pervasive and undergirding as "business".

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

#144

Post by LorenPechtel »

lossolo wrote: post #129
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…

> The dilemma parents are grappling with is this: tablets and smartphones, while beneficial for children's learning and socializing Recent reports from teachers indicate that many children are intellectually behind their peers. A concerning trend is that these children struggle to hold conversations, a problem attributed to their parents phone/social networks addiction. Rather than engaging and raising their children…

Yeah. I think this is the real problem. Electronics let parents slack off on parenting but electronics do not replace socialization.

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

#145

Post by LorenPechtel »

wussboy wrote: post #107
anthk wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

I doubt there is any real difference, it's just a matter of quantity. The magazine comes out monthly or possibly weekly. The computer comes out all the time.

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

#146

Post by AmericanChopper »

ryandrake wrote: post #141
AmericanChopper wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that it is the responsibility of parents to decide how to do that. But if you want a legislative solution, there already is one (COPPA) which prevents people under the age of 13 from joining social media. If you think those legal protections aren’t fit for purpose (they were created long before social media even existed), then you should take that up with your legislators. I personally wouldn’t trust th…

> But if you want a legislative solution, there already is one (COPPA) which prevents people under the age of 13 from joining social media. Nothing (besides parents) can prevent people under the age of 13 from joining social media. The kids just lie about their age. Everyone knows how to lie about their age to get something they want, from the time they're in kindergarten.

And I’d suggest that’s absolutely the way you want it to be. The consequences of pushing a full blown KYC regime on all social media are pretty dystopian.

The value COPPA does provide is as a tool parents can use. If they report their underage children’s social media accounts, they will be removed. But of course they still have to actually do the parenting, which is how it should be. I think you shouldn’t want government to takeover those responsibilities for them.

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

#147

Post by katfish17 »

thesausageking wrote: post #25
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…

The data is well established that social media use by teens leads to worse mental health outcomes. I'm a parent and as my kids near the age in which social media becomes a thing, I started digging into. I had assumed it would be vague and filled with underpowered studies, but it's not. Social media is bad for kids and the data is very clear on it. This post has a list of the some of the better studies and gives a goo…

This article was a good rebuttal to Haidt's post: https://reason.com/2023/03/29/the-statistically-flawed-evide...

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

#148

Post by everforward »

superkuh wrote: post #66
dotandgtfo wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you stating? I genuinely don't get the point. Are you saying that screens/apps don't cause addiction?

I thought I was clear. There is no such thing as "internet addiction" or any subset. There's actually not even "gambling addiction" anymore. It's been properly renamed to "gambling disorder". But I guess we're not talking facts here. Instead we're concentrating on how it feels to us. And various ambitious policians are realizing they can use that collective lay delusion to further their careers. I am not pro-corporat…

> There's actually not even "gambling addiction" anymore. It's been properly renamed to "gambling disorder".

You're incorrectly making assumptions about that wording. They're all disorders now. E.g. a heroin addiction is officially "opioid use disorder" in the DSM. It's probably part of some initiative to be more inclusive or avoid the accusatory nature of the word addiction.

More than that, you're interpreting in the wrong direction. Gambling disorder and substance use disorders were both moved into the same chapter of the DSM-V ("Substance-related and addictive disorders"), reflecting ongoing evidence that gambling disorder triggers reward pathways in the brain the same way that drugs do.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40429-014-0027-6 if you want more info on the history of categorizing gambling and other addictive but non-substance-abuse disorders.

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

#149

Post by hnburnsy »

Boy this is so different than the MMA accusations against X. The WSJ fully reported on their methodology, gave Meta months to change, and partnered with a third party to verify the results. The advertiser responses to their ads showing next to arguably much more objectional content here are quite different.

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

#150

Post by quacked »

bilbo0s wrote: post #49
quacked wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, yes, and yes. However, the three situations you named are targeting adults. Children and teenagers are worth insulating from the full might of advertisers, propagandists, and always-on virtual social circles.

Here is the issue of with these kinds of things, where does it end? Do tv shows target teens too much with high energy music and dancing? Does media target them too closely with intentionally addictive music riffs from Taylor Swift to Billy Eilish? Will we shut down all these video games that clearly target kids with bright colors and, let's call it what it is, "aestheticized violence"? We need to be careful about ho…

Yes, I agree that enforcement of moral norms requires setting arbitrary limits on behavior that aren't necessarily objectively defensible. Every law and ban regarding the dissemination of goods and services involves a slightly illogical compromise between a partially elected moral authority and the citizenry.

There isn't really a clear answer to your questions about whether or not "we" would continue to censor video games, popular media, and TV shows if limits were introduced about what minors can see on the internet. It would depend on the compromise reached between the citizenry and the enforcement agency that tasked with enforcing the bans. In some regards, I feel that American life is far too censored and supervised, but in others I feel that it is far too liberated and unrestricted. I happen to believe that there should be more content limitations on entertainment and social media, and less content limitations on political speech. If I were ever to meet with a large group of people who shared my beliefs, we would probably take political action to enforce our will for society.

I suppose that doesn't really prove or disprove your assertion that censorship laws would inevitably lead to more extreme censorship, but I think it's important to recognize that there are already many and forced censorship laws in the US, and altering them isn't really the craziest thing.

Post reply on HN