Fear and denial in Silicon Valley over social media addiction trial

Post by hiq » Sat, Mar 28, 2026, 1:16 PM UTC

deaux wrote: post #14

operatingthetan wrote: post #6

>The verdict has forced those inside the companies to grapple with the fact that many outsiders do not view them as favourably as they have come to view themselves. I'm not sure this rings true to me. Meta has to know that millenials and younger are giving up on their platforms, they have endless internal data showing it, right? If anything they are just afraid of endless litigation while they are struggling to gain…

> Meta has to know that millenials and younger are giving up on their platforms, they have endless internal data showing it, right? Do you have a source for that? I don't think it's true when looking at global Meta numbers across _all_ Meta social platforms (FB+Instagram+Threads) combined.

Post by jfengel » Sat, Mar 28, 2026, 2:14 PM UTC

cmeacham98 wrote: post #25

jfengel wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The personalization component takes this a step above. Making something very broadly appealing is one thing. Targeting what will keep you specifically from turning it off is a whole new level.

So if social media removed personalization from their algorithms and only applied them broadly across large demographic groups you'd be fine with them? (Genuine question I'm curious)

Post by watwut » Sat, Mar 28, 2026, 6:10 PM UTC

chmod775 wrote: post #181

dingaling wrote: post #176

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…

Post by twoodfin » Sat, Mar 28, 2026, 9:03 PM UTC

slopinthebag wrote: post #171

twoodfin wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah. “Can produce addiction-like behaviors”! Like, I dunno, really getting into running or yoga or fantasy football? Where is the line, according to experts in addiction-like behavior?

Believe it or not, you might find the answer to that question inside the paper I shared with you called "Toward the classification of social media use disorder: Clinical characterization and proposed diagnostic criteria". https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235285322...

Post by techblueberry » Sat, Mar 28, 2026, 10:24 PM UTC

jimmyjazz14 wrote: post #147

im3w1l wrote: post #115

I think the issue people are not acknowledging is that social media and apps and phones are addictive because they are fun . People are addicted to having fun, and to outlaw the addiction is to literally make fun illegal. Let me take half a step backward from that provocative stance. Of course we don't need to outlaw all fun, but we perhaps we really do need to outlaw some fun, to prevent people from overindulgence.…

or hear me out, we could just let people have the freedom to make their own choices and take self-responsibility for their choices in life.