Live data from Hacker News

Fear and denial in Silicon Valley over social media addiction trial

bbc.com

191–200 of 247 posts

Re: Fear and denial in Silicon Valley over social media addiction trial

#191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminds me of soda. Why the hell liquid poison is allowed to exist turns my stomach. You could fill libraries with data linking it to a myriad illnesses and causes of death. Yet they are even allowed to juke it with caffeine for no other reason than to up the addiction level. Like... what are we doing here.

its called freedom, do we really need the government to protect us from everything they deem bad or unhealthy?

Yeah. I think we should let the free market decide if our children do heroin too. Whatever happens, at least it'll be economically efficient

Re: Fear and denial in Silicon Valley over social media addiction trial

#192
post #5

We all know they're addictive, they're designed to be addictive, and they're very, very harmful, to both adults and children. The individuals who are profiting from the harm are clearly identifiable. And that harm directly targets children. That this is allowed to continue is a symptom of a sick society.

In what sense do you mean Instagram is “addictive” to a neurotypical adult?

I feel like this is a somewhat bad faith argument becuase its shifting blame onto the user.

Its addicting the same way gambling is addicting. Its ridiculous to say that people who get addicted to it are not neurotypical.

Re: Fear and denial in Silicon Valley over social media addiction trial

#193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

30 years ago they'd all have been staring at TVs in their respective rooms. 50 years ago they'd be reading their own newspapers and magazines. The name changes but the song remains the same; people have their own interests, even within a family, that aren't shared with others. I wouldn't bore my partner by monologuing about my hobbies, and she likewise. At least we're in the same room together.

Reading was a hobby most people chose not to engage in that much. If you read books/novels etc for 6 hours per day, people would remark on that like "he reads a lot", often asking you to put down your books to join them in whatever activity. Few people would have had their own TVs in their room 30 years ago. That wasn't common. They were huge, expensive, and not remotely interesting enough to capture the attention of…

> Few people would have had their own TVs in their room 30 years ago. That wasn't common. They were huge, expensive, and not remotely interesting enough to capture the attention of most people for prolonged periods. It was common to have family rituals where there was about 2-3 hours of watching TV during/after dinner together. That was when they aired a movie after some news.

Depends on where one is from. In my country (U.S.A.), even many lower-middle-class kids tended to have at least a small portable TV (or, more often, the former family TV that had been replaced by a newer one in the living room) in at least their end of the house or apartment, if not their own room, ’way back in the late 1960s to early 1970s. What was common for kids in other countries at that time is, of course, a different matter. As for watching the TV together as a family rather than on separate TV sets: that often depended more on whether the family TV was a newer color model and the kids' room TV was an older black-and-white model --- or, as kids grew older and their viewing preferences changed from their parents’, which shows were on opposite one another. Sometimes it even came down to which room made it easier to watch TV while you were doing homework, talking to a friend who was visiting you from down the street, etc.

Re: Fear and denial in Silicon Valley over social media addiction trial

#194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Screens are drugs. They are uniquely and magically addictive. Try to take away a kids tablet, a teen's phone, or an adult's phone. They will fight just like an addict.

This is not particularly insightful if you stop and think about it. Try to unilaterally snatch a book that someone is in the middle of reading and you will probably be met with a hostile reaction. Grab the tool someone is using to do a task, similar. What you're describing is the natural reaction to messing with someone else's possessions. Without further context it's blatantly toxic behavior even if you happen to ha…

You aren’t reading or using a hammer for 6 hours a day. It’s hard to find a tone ppl aren’t using their phone that would be appropriate to take it away if it’s only while not using it

Re: Fear and denial in Silicon Valley over social media addiction trial

#195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not particularly insightful if you stop and think about it. Try to unilaterally snatch a book that someone is in the middle of reading and you will probably be met with a hostile reaction. Grab the tool someone is using to do a task, similar. What you're describing is the natural reaction to messing with someone else's possessions. Without further context it's blatantly toxic behavior even if you happen to ha…

You aren’t reading or using a hammer for 6 hours a day. It’s hard to find a tone ppl aren’t using their phone that would be appropriate to take it away if it’s only while not using it

Phones and computers are used for more than one thing; in that sense they aren't analogous to a single item such as a book or hammer but rather an entire closet filled with odds and ends. Keeping in contact with acquaintances, checking traffic and looking up other day to day information, reading a book during down time, these are three completely distinct activities that have all been nearly entirely subsumed by screens for me.

Re: Fear and denial in Silicon Valley over social media addiction trial

#196
post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

its called freedom, do we really need the government to protect us from everything they deem bad or unhealthy?

Yeah. I think we should let the free market decide if our children do heroin too. Whatever happens, at least it'll be economically efficient

[deleted]

Re: Fear and denial in Silicon Valley over social media addiction trial

#197
post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What else could “at some point we limit your freedom of expression” possibly mean?

Yes, such a coherent argument: "no one is trying to restrict your speech, and if they were it would be good actually." There are people who just can't admit to themselves they actually hate free speech. Because they're people who've never needed it. They've never been abolitionists speaking against slavery, or civil rights leaders speaking against apartheid - whether in South Africa or the American South. They've nev…

[deleted]

Re: Fear and denial in Silicon Valley over social media addiction trial

#198
post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What else could “at some point we limit your freedom of expression” possibly mean?

Yes, such a coherent argument: "no one is trying to restrict your speech, and if they were it would be good actually." There are people who just can't admit to themselves they actually hate free speech. Because they're people who've never needed it. They've never been abolitionists speaking against slavery, or civil rights leaders speaking against apartheid - whether in South Africa or the American South. They've nev…

I’m not one of those people, I hate free speech.

Also, wtf are you on about, none of the people you mentioned need infinite scroll and addictive algorithms to connect with eachother.

Aside from the fact that these social media companies have LITERALLY put their finger on the lever to prevent the kind of people you’re talking about from connecting with eachother! If you want to defend those people then what we need is better protocols and platforms, not giant trillion dollar companies with three people in control of speech.

There is zero excuse to defend addictive algorithms with “but won’t you think of the underprivileged”

Re: Fear and denial in Silicon Valley over social media addiction trial

#199
post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a completely false equivalence. No one’s trying to regulate an activity they’re trying to regulate the unhinged behavior of trillion dollar companies. How many people who played DND or video games or music or any of the other things you listed regretted it afterwards? How many people playing DND would say “I wish I was out with my friends because this game is too addictive”. None, because they were with their…

>> How many people who played DND or video games or music or any of the other things you listed regretted it afterwards? How many people playing DND would say “I wish I was out with my friends because this game is too addictive”. None, because they were with their friends!! Lol. Tell me you weren't around for the D&D panic without saying you weren't around for the D&D panic. This was precisely the argument used. "The…

In not sure who you’re arguing against, but you’re arguing against the opposite point I made, the satanic panic of the eighties is like a special interest of mine. Also lol @directionallly correct.

And I’m not asking anyone to ban social media, maybe just regulate some of the behaviors by companies who are creating products 60% of users say that wish were less addictive. The key distinction is insiders. If people playing DND overwhelmingly reported they thought it was harmful, I would say we should ban that too, but they don’t. With DND the only people worried about the harm were outsiders.

https://www.stagwellglobal.com/what-the-data-say-60-of-gen-z...

Maybe just the ever so slightly tiniest bit of friction to the experience, nothing that prevents those from loving the products to continue using them.

Als, I think I would liken my objection to social media less as a moral panic and more in Marx’s “opiate of the masses” framework. But I’m also maybe a bit contrarian here. I think medium-centered moral panics (as opposed to content-centered) were mostly correct. That is to say, going as far back tot he Greeks worrying that the written word would have a negative impact on memory, the fears around television reducing social ties were largely correct.

But here’s an interesting thought experiment for you: with all the previous moral panics you mentioned, the distinction was usually generation. Older generations didn’t understand the new thing and feared it and as the younger generations grew older it was more integrated into their culture.

But social media doesn’t have that pattern, the younger generations seem to hate it as much or more than the older generations. So what is going to change in twenty years to show social media is not that bad, if young people see the harms, maybe even more than older people.

Re: Fear and denial in Silicon Valley over social media addiction trial

#200
Why would they fear anything? They’ve been getting away with criminal behavior for so many years now, I don’t even remember when it started. If they get fined now and then, it’s less than 1 percent of their quarterly profits, so that’s not even small change. This won’t influence their behavior in the slightest.
Post reply on HN