Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fear and denial in Silicon Valley over social media addiction trial

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 247 posts

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

#211

Post by imiric »

techblueberry wrote: post #131
troad wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's wild to me how many people are willing to throw basic civil liberties overboard because they don't like the other guys. Today's media circus is about addictive social media. Before that it was video games and rock music and D&D clubs. Before that it the Satanic panic of the 80s, gay 'recruitment', Soviet spies. Much before that it was witches and heretics. And so on and so on, forever. If you have a choice, mayb…

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…

It's ridiculous that you're getting downvoted, you're 100% right. Though it's not unexpected given the forum. Many people here are either directly employed by social media companies and Big Tech, or are inside that bubble. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

The parallels between social media and cigarettes are undeniable. Nicotine and chemicals in tobacco are addictive on their own, yet tobacco companies made cigarettes as addictive as they possibly could. They also advertised to children, and deceived the public with false advertising and disinformation for decades. They were prosecuted for all of this, which put a stop to it in first-world countries, at least. There are still countries with lax regulation where the tobacco industry is engaging in the same tactics they used decades ago, and business is booming. Cigarettes didn't go away. People can still smoke if they want, but it's much more strictly regulated, as it should be.

Nobody was against regulating Big Tobacco, as it was obviously doing more harm than good. And yet whenever regulating social media and Big Tech is brought up, it is a civil liberties and government overreach issue. Give me a break.

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

#212

Post by twoodfin »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #155
twoodfin wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is begging the question. Doritos are designed to taste good and encourage you to eat them to your satisfaction. The latest Mario game is designed to be playable & fun for as long as you have time and energy to play it. My Instagram feed is designed to engage me with interesting and relevant content for as long as I have time to scroll. All three can be used in unhealthy ways, and would be less likely to be so us…

No, it is not begging the question. Can you point to where I presupposed my own conclusions? You are (I suspect disingenuously) pretending not to understand intent. It doesn't matter if the outcome is the same here what matters is the intent behind the design when considered in the context of the intended usecase. That's in addition to lots of other factors (some of which I listed) plus any relevant legislation plus…

You said it mattered if a product was “designed to be addictive”.

I’m asking what that means.

If your answer is, “Only the lawyers can tell us,” then that’s not particularly satisfying if we want to live in a world where how we choose to spend our time is not under the supervision of some elect.

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

#213

Post by jimmyjazz14 »

techblueberry wrote: post #209
jimmyjazz14 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why tho, are you really just a nihilist?

How is respecting peoples freedoms nihilistic?

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

#214

Post by wredcoll »

twoodfin wrote: post #212
fc417fc802 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it is not begging the question. Can you point to where I presupposed my own conclusions? You are (I suspect disingenuously) pretending not to understand intent. It doesn't matter if the outcome is the same here what matters is the intent behind the design when considered in the context of the intended usecase. That's in addition to lots of other factors (some of which I listed) plus any relevant legislation plus…

You said it mattered if a product was “designed to be addictive”. I’m asking what that means. If your answer is, “Only the lawyers can tell us,” then that’s not particularly satisfying if we want to live in a world where how we choose to spend our time is not under the supervision of some elect.

The line between "addictive" and "fun" is tricky. That doesn't make it umimportant or nonexistant.

It's hard to explain black holes, especially in a hackernews text box, but that doesn't make them irrelevant.

At the end of the day it doesn't truly matter if there was intent before we regulate it. If I mix random chemicals/foods/etc and end up with an addictive drug like alcohol, we don't need to try to prove it was intentional before we start considering the harm it causes to society.

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

#215

Post by aprilthird2021 »

jfengel wrote: post #16
aprilthird2021 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But so is cable television designed to be addictive. So are most restaurants and ice cream parlors and grocery stores designed to get you to spend more. Most loyalty programs are designed to be addictive to get you to come back, etc. etc. I just worry we left no levers for the public to regulate these entities and this is the worst option of very few options. Who isn't liable under this kind of logic?

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.

> Targeting what will keep you specifically from turning it off is a whole new level.

Your grocery store app does this and gives you personalized coupons. Will everyone who buys groceries get a $100k+ settlement?

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

#216

Post by aprilthird2021 »

salawat wrote: post #117
CamperBob2 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't know much about the advertising or food businesses, I take it. Suggest Eric Schlosser's Fast Food Nation . It'll open your eyes.

The problem isn't X domain of business is more scummy than Y. They all are. That's kind of the problem. Tech is just egregious though in it's non-reliance on physical matter, meaning anything that can be digitally rendered is instantly a world scale fucking problem. If it were one building in one state doing this shit, no one would care, and we'd just block or tell people don't go in the building. That doesn't work w…

> If it were one building in one state doing this shit, no one would care, and we'd just block or tell people don't go in the building.

Most retail environments do design their storefronts, logos, placement of products, even foods have higher than normal sugar, oil, and butter content, all in the service of keeping people coming back for more whether or not it is healthy for them.

How do we draw the line? Without regulations in place how is it fair to say companies are negligent in allowing people to become addicted to their products?

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

#217

Post by aprilthird2021 »

munificent wrote: post #70
aprilthird2021 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But so is cable television designed to be addictive. So are most restaurants and ice cream parlors and grocery stores designed to get you to spend more. Most loyalty programs are designed to be addictive to get you to come back, etc. etc. I just worry we left no levers for the public to regulate these entities and this is the worst option of very few options. Who isn't liable under this kind of logic?

A match is designed to start fires. So is a flamethrower. That doesn't mean they are equivalent and must regulated the same way. Scale matters.

This isn't about regulation. Regulation would be welcomed because you can follow it and avoid liability.

We are now saying Meta, YouTube, Snap, and nearly every major media app (maybe Netflix and HBO next!) are liable retroactively for the past when people got addicted to the content on the apps despite that the companies did not violate any regulations at the time

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

#218

Post by troad »

techblueberry wrote: post #198
troad wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Sure, kiddo. I'm sure sweeping regulations of social media won't have any consequences on people's ability to express themselves. I'm sure all these regulations will be well tailored and have absolutely no overreach. And I'm sure a pliant, non-E2E-encrypted, non-anonymous social media will be super safe for oppressed minorities in the hands of the Saudi, Russian, etc authorities. (Or authorities closer to home, if things go even more pear-shaped for minorities than they already are.)

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

Cool. Then we have nothing to talk about. I'm not trying to win you over in some fetishistic 'debate me bro' manner. Your stated ideology is deeply hostile to my existential needs, as part of a fragile minority that exists at the sufferance of the majority. If you're openly seeking to destroy free speech, then I don't require your agreement, I require your defeat. "Debate me bro" is a luxury reserved for privileged teenagers on Reddit with nothing at stake, including you, as is apparent from your blithe dismissal of civil rights that made it possible for me to exist in the modern world at all.

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

#219

Post by troad »

imiric wrote: post #211
techblueberry wrote: post #131

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…

It's ridiculous that you're getting downvoted, you're 100% right. Though it's not unexpected given the forum. Many people here are either directly employed by social media companies and Big Tech, or are inside that bubble. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." The parallels between social media and cigarettes are undeniable. Nicotine and chemicals…

Just for the record, I am neither directly employed by social media, nor big tech, nor am inside that bubble. And I never have been. My salary includes precisely zero dollars linked social media in any way. But hey, don't let the facts stop you from spinning a good yarn, built on many fine cliches.

Social media sucks. I used to use it, and I do not use it now. And yet regulating it, off the back of a moral panic, is going to be significantly worse than not regulating it. The laws will overreach. This is a sensitive area where the government greatly benefits from overreach, and there's not enough public pushback to prevent it, on account of the moral panic whipped up by traditional media, who also stand to greatly benefit from overreach.

I am completely consistent in my beliefs on this. I was against all the anti-terrorism legislation too, being absolutely confident it would overreach - and I was completely correct, which brings me no satisfaction at all. Terrorism is obviously far more dangerous than all this 'teenagers seeing images online that harm their self-esteem' nonsense.

It's the traditional media that have a direct pecuniary interest in defeating social media, and no one questions their motives. I'm just some guy, but apparently I'm the ExxonMobil Chairman of Cigarettes and Opioids, just because I dare disagree with the narrative being peddled.

It's much easier to pretend like I'm some paid shill than accept that you're taking a huge gamble with your civil liberties when you push for social media laws. If I could somehow segment reality so you get to live in your restricted world, and I get to live in my free one, I would. But unfortunately I'm trapped in this world with you, and your pitchfork mentality consistently affects me, so I have to take on the utterly thankless task of convincing the mob to take a goddamn second to think about the obvious consequences of their own actions.

And then they don't listen. And then ten years later they come back with their tails between their legs, acknowledging I was right, but by then it's far too late to do anything about it. Deeply unsatisfying cycle.

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

#220

Post by slopinthebag »

twoodfin wrote: post #207
slopinthebag wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I’m not asking about the criteria for establishing new disorders. I’m sure there are many. I’m asking why all this fuss about the social media companies and not the video or causal game companies? Nobody’s ever written a paper about Candy Crush addiction? Everyone seems very excited to throw Meta and others in the bucket with Big Tobacco, and I don’t see how in the world that makes sense without much stronger clinica…

> I’m asking why all this fuss about the social media companies and not the video or causal game companies?

Because of the scale of the observed harm.

There is plenty of documented evidence of the harms of social media to otherwise non-mentally ill people, particularly with vulnerable demographics like adolescents and teenagers. At this point you're just playing dumb because you most likely work for big tech and are running interference. They aren't gonna give you a raise for it man, cut it out.

Post reply on HN