Live data from Hacker News

California parents could soon sue for social media addiction

apnews.com

211–220 of 225 posts

Re: California parents could soon sue for social media addiction

#211
post #55

Is America capable of coming up with solution to anything that doesn't involve sueing?

What is the alternative to suing? US Corporations have demonstrated significant skill in destroying every regulatory agency, and paying off or bribing every legislator. That any laws get passed at all - that could hurt corporations - is stunning.

In that case, what's stopping corporations from buying off every judge? Or buying off the politicians who appoint the judges to be sure that only ones who will side with corporations in these cases are the ones who get appointed?

Re: California parents could soon sue for social media addiction

#212
post #169
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See China, opium. The core problem is: 1) We've gotten very good at making things hyper-addictive. 2) Market forces reward clicks. Without regulation, things WILL be hyper-addictive. 3) Private right-of-action is a really good way to implement regulatory frameworks; it tends to be far more efficient than DoJ or similar for these sorts of things. Personally, I'm uninterested into being tricked into getting addicted to…

What's the difference between addictive and fun?

A lot of fun things aren't addictive. For example, I've done a lot of sports. I enjoy them. I don't suffer withdrawal if I stop doing them, and I don't feel a compulsion to start doing them. Indeed, I need to motivate myself to do them.

A lot of addictive things aren't fun. A gambler might be miserable but CAN'T stop. Likewise, there were a lot of time-wasting games in the 2010s which no one enjoyed playing, but which were very hard to stop.

A popular model was:

- Click on things to gather points / resources / etc. which you can trade in to be able to do more.

- You have a constant feeling of progress. There is often exponential growth of some kind of points / diamonds / etc. as you can trade them in for things which produce more.

- There is real-world time involved. For example, plants might grow in 8 hours, and whither in 24. You need to log in periodically or you lose them. There might be weekly rewards, which are one-shot (if you don't get one some week, you lose it forever).

- There is an element of randomness on rewards (treasure boxes) and determinism on punishments (if you've failed to log in one week, you lose that reward forever).

This was well-studied. Similar techniques are used by shopping vendors to get people to buy, employers to get people to work, etc. We've gotten really good at making things addictive.

Right now, there's a similar thing happening with hate and polarization. People have a need to follow stories which often have no effect on their lives (in some cases, are statistical anomalies), but which serve to scare. We're wired to follow fear. That's a lot more effective than the 2010 model, and makes people hate each other.

A lot of drugs create a dependence too, without being fun.

Re: California parents could soon sue for social media addiction

#213
post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1. Do you think cigarettes and alcohol should be legal for sale to children? Yes. But age limits on them should still exist but be lowered (to say 13). Parents need to teach their kids how to responsibly enjoy vices. In general I think all vice laws should be purged from the books. > 2. What about advertising specifically targeted at getting kids interested and hooked on cigarettes? I'm okay with some limits on add…

And a lot of parents have no idea what is good/right for their kids. What's your solution there?

The government knows better? Please…

Re: California parents could soon sue for social media addiction

#214
post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think social media is anything like chemical addictions to smoking or alcohol you really don’t have a clue.

I would suggest your comment belies the fact you know anything about addiction.

Am addict. Social media is not addictive. It's... Really fun, but addiction is far too strong of a word.

Re: California parents could soon sue for social media addiction

#215
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't the same argument be used for cigarettes? "We shouldn't regulate tobacco companies influence on kids because it's a parent's responsibility to prevent that sort of harmful thing"? I agree that this bill is silly, but "parents are responsible for preventing all harm to children" doesn't seem like a universally applicable argument.

You're regulating chemical compounds with cigarettes. You are regulating patterns of presenting data with social media.

This would be regulating dopamine within a digital Skinner Box

Re: California parents could soon sue for social media addiction

#216

Seems like for every bad law coming out of Texas/Florida lately, California's quick to copy it with their own twist - abortion law was copied for guns, now the social media laws.

Indeed; likewise, the left and right have been ratcheting up their war on bodily autonomy with vaccine mandates and abortion bans

Re: California parents could soon sue for social media addiction

#218
post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would suggest your comment belies the fact you know anything about addiction.

Am addict. Social media is not addictive. It's... Really fun, but addiction is far too strong of a word.

Addiction isn't just a word, it's actually something that's well defined, specifically compulsively engaging in behaviour despite the negative consequences. The thing is, be it behavioural or chemical, the root of addiction is the over expression of the ΔFosB gene in response to a reward pathway. Good for you that you can use social media without being addicted (like most people). It doesn't mean everyone can.

Re: California parents could soon sue for social media addiction

#219
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the alternative to suing? US Corporations have demonstrated significant skill in destroying every regulatory agency, and paying off or bribing every legislator. That any laws get passed at all - that could hurt corporations - is stunning.

In that case, what's stopping corporations from buying off every judge? Or buying off the politicians who appoint the judges to be sure that only ones who will side with corporations in these cases are the ones who get appointed?

I think that the latter is what they are already functionally doing? It’s certainly worked for the SC.

In principle no matter the appointee judges have to follow the law, but there’s clearly huge amounts of variation and bias in terms of sentencing, penalties, how broadly things are interpreted.

Re: California parents could soon sue for social media addiction

#220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It does seem easy to scapegoat companies for these issues though When the addictive factor is deliberately manufactured into a product (AKA engagement), the company absolutely bears some (IMO, a large amount of) responsibility.

> When the addictive factor is deliberately manufactured into a product (AKA engagement) So, every product from every company ever. That's the goal of marketing, after all. Why not extend this law for everyone? Why can't I sue Lego because my son keeps insisting I buy them, or why can't I sue Budweiser because I keep finding myself buying their booze? It's an unfairly targeted law to win easy political points, becaus…

Spot on! These folks arguing for that kind of regulation, along with associated enforcement bureaucracy, are really arguing against freedom in the end. They may not have put 2+2 together yet, but I bet a lot of them haven't actually thought things beyond 1st order effects.

And considering the forum, a credible argument for everyone to sacrifice some of their freedom needs to clear a way higher bar.

Post reply on HN