first airbnb, and now this, you love to see it. hopefully banning all gambling is next
I’m always amazed by how much some people want the government to control.
New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens
21–30 of 113 posts
Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens
#22This 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-...
Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
HN is my most addictive social media, should this site be banned? :)
I see the name "dang" discussed here quite a bit; it seems to be an internal code name for a highly effective algorithm for surfacing relevant content. Whatever it is, it seems to be far more intelligent than any other automated system I've seen. Has HN somehow created a sentient recommendation system?
No, it's just a minced oath, as in "dang, that was a good moderation call".
Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens
#24Another case of the political use of medical terms in completely unsupported ways for political goals. There is no medical or scientific support for the use of the word "addiction" in this context. It's a meme that's become more dangerous than the problem it imagines. It's not in the DSM 5 or ICD10 and not because they haven't addressed it in committee. They have, as recently as 2020 and found no support for it. And…
Eh, this feels like a bad-faith argument. I think most of us on this site first-hand feel that obsession to update a feed that seems to control us more than we control it. I don't need the DSM's permission to notice that. Whether the ban will work out, open question. But pretending there's no addiction here doesn't pass the smell test.
I have never felt any compulsion to update a feed. I would like some actual numbers of people that have a debilitating relationship with social media before we pass a bunch of laws restricting it.
Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens
#25Another case of the political use of medical terms in completely unsupported ways for political goals. There is no medical or scientific support for the use of the word "addiction" in this context. It's a meme that's become more dangerous than the problem it imagines. It's not in the DSM 5 or ICD10 and not because they haven't addressed it in committee. They have, as recently as 2020 and found no support for it. And…
Eh, this feels like a bad-faith argument. I think most of us on this site first-hand feel that obsession to update a feed that seems to control us more than we control it. I don't need the DSM's permission to notice that. Whether the ban will work out, open question. But pretending there's no addiction here doesn't pass the smell test.
Even if it may feel universal that is likely not reflecting the actual distribution of the perception. (ref: Inferring the Popularity of an Opinion From Its Familiarity: A Repetitive Voice Can Sound Like a Chorus https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/psp-925821.pdf)
Additionally, feelings are fine for personal behavior but legislation requires a higher level of evidence. I really do believe what I am saying: addiction is an inappropriate concept to apply here since incentive salience is not being directly hijacked. The types of legislative responses to social problems of addiction (like to cocaine) are not appropriate or justified in this context.
To be clearer: enjoyable things with intrinsic value are being targeted in this context and those things are enjoyed. While addiction involves uncontrollable reptition of things without intrinsic value which become wanted due to the system for wanting being activated directly. Stimuli on screens do not do this. Drugs do. That's why it's gambling disorder and drug addiction. That extra layer of abstraction through the senses makes all the different.
Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens
#26No feeds from addictive algorithms? No notifications after midnight? Can we please raise the age from 18 to maybe 65?
Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens
#27We need to think bigger. Having an app on your phone is like having a stranger in your house. The same legal protections that apply to property should apply inside the software that runs on your phone. An app should be at the mercy of the user and should provide easy (and automated) ways to turn off manipulative and surveillance features.
The same legal protections already apply. You can invite a person into your house to perform a service for you. They can define conditions on performing their service: "I'll shampoo your carpet for $50." Those conditions could also be "I'll shampoo your carpet every month if you let me read your credit card bill every month." You don't have to agree to this! If you don't want to let them read your credit card bill, y…
This is pure fiction though. How many people read an app's ToS? If a carpet cleaner showed up with terms like: "I'll shampoo your carpet every month if you let me read your credit card bill every month." no one would read it before signing either, but I suspect that a court would also consider this contract unenforceable.
In addition, with software "contracts", it's often a case of "give an inch and they'll take the mile". The terms are always open to unilateral change from the vendor. So it's more like: "I'll shampoo your carpet for $50. And I can change the terms to whatever I like at any point in the future." which in itself seems insane.
Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens
#28The “definitions” section of the bill is a lot more decent than I expected it to be. Page 3 of the bill pdf: https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2023/S7694A
> [The definition for Addictive Feed applies] unless any of the following 18 conditions are met, alone or in combination with one another:
> ... (b) the recommendation, prioritization, or selection is based on user-selected privacy or accessibility settings, or technical information concerning the user's device;
And also:
> It shall be unlawful for a covered operator to provide an addictive feed to a covered user unless:
> (b) the covered operator has obtained verifiable parental consent to provide an addictive feed to a covered minor.
"Hey, kid, activate the Dynamic Feed setting and get a cool badge on your profile!" Or: "Type your parent or guardian's email here; we'll tell them all about how we work to provide you with age-appropriate content, and if they click to upgrade your Dynamic Feed, you'll get a special hat for your avatar!"
This seems rife for abuse in practice, but I'd rather this be the case than have overly-broad definitions.
(Not a lawyer, this is not legal advice!)
Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens
#29At a glance this sounds like fast food.
Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
An app is at the mercy of the user, who can uninstall at any time, just as you can kick out people out of your home, but you can't turn off "manipulative" behaviour for them.
I can let in a contractor in my house and also ask them not to smoke. They of course have the right to refuse that request and decline my money, but in the real world, contractors usually comply with such requests as smoking is known to harm health. I don't see why the digital world has to be any different. Just because laws and awareness are lagging behind, tech world's toxic practices don't need to get a pass.
> They of course have the right to refuse that request and decline my money, but in the real world, contractors usually comply with such requests as smoking is known to harm health.
Right, but you're suggesting that they should legally have to comply with this request and can't refuse service.