Live data from Hacker News

Fear and denial in Silicon Valley over social media addiction trial

bbc.com

221–230 of 247 posts

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

#221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 reg…

>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?

How about, "If it involves exploiting aspects of human psychology that have to be taught to be mitigated it's not allowed?". There. No more marketing. For anyone. As it should have been. My heart to the artists and creatives that'll have to find employment somehow els, because it's clear that we can't both allow for creative, artistic campaigns without big industry going and sinking a psych ward worth of researchers on making themselves indispensable.

Also, I don't find questions of fairness to come into play on the topic of "getting people addicted". If you set out to do that, that's not something we should condone. Also, if you've ever cooked, you damn well know the "oil, butter, and sugar" is not what keeps people coming back to those foods. It's that they're cheap and low cognitive load to generally make. So no, I won't even entertain the question you're asking by putting food manufacturers on the same level as bloody social media. Every time I've seen A/B or marketing tests/focus groups done by the food industry, they at least have a proper psych experimentation setup. Bloody Meta made a regular habit of A/B testing without even getting consent from the parties involved. As far as other stores with marketing and all that jazz? To be quite honest, if you bother to get a psychology degree, and you are weaponizing it against the public, I really think that deserves a life reconsideration. So refer to my first paragraph. You will find no sympathy from me for usage of psychological manipulation tactics against the unawares.

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

#222
post #75

I have no love for social media, but I also really don't like the idea of the government regulating how apps are designed, or trying to circumnavigate online privacy to "protect children" which where I see this whole thing going. On another note, personally I'm not sure I buy the "addictive" argument with social media, maybe its just me but I find social media pretty boring, but I think for a lot of younger people it…

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…

It's very maga-coded moment, but tech not government: a transcendent rage demanding only things be broken.

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

#223
post #219
post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Notice that I said "many people". I have no way of knowing what your affiliation or agenda is, or even if you're human. That doesn't change the fact that many people here are indeed biased in favor of Big Tech, and at the same time would never admit it. You may simply be a fervent social media user, or have your own reasons for being wrong. :)

Look, do you think that I somehow don't care about my civil liberties? That I wish to live in a nanny state where the government gets to control every facet of my life? Obviously not. But at the same time, it would be foolish to look at the current state of the world without coming to the conclusion that social media has played a significant role in creating it.

FWIW, I'm not opposed to social media in principle. I think it creates spaces where cacophony dominates which ironically does the exact opposite of "connecting people", so I wouldn't be a part of it even if it weren't controlled by giant corporations. But if someone else feels differently, it's their own choice and I respect it. The real problem is the weaponization of these platforms to corrupt democratic processes, spread disinformation, and serve as a playground for companies to conduct mass psychological experiments, and do all kinds of devious shit we're not privy to, which should make it very clear that this technology is doing much more harm than good.

Which brings me back to the core of my argument, and what GP brought up: the undeniable parallels between social media and cigarettes. Do you think that regulating Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, and other industries, was government overreach? Would you rather live in a world where cigarettes are marketed towards children, are pumped full of addicting chemicals (beyond some "safe" limit, whatever that is), and where the Zuckerbergs, Sacklers, and Johnsons of the world get to do what they want? That seems objectively much more harmful to society than whatever erosion of your "liberties" you think is taking place. Governments don't need some big excuse to erode your liberties; they'll do that behind your back regardless. This "free" world you think you live in is an illusion.

Besides, which civil liberties are you particularly defending in regards to social media? Your rights to publish and consume content on platforms controlled by giant corporations? These are not some "public squares", as its CEOs would lead you to believe. Your "free speech" on them is heavily regulated by opaque algorithms and very specific terms of service. There are plenty of other channels you can use to communicate with people without being exploited and manipulated, while enjoying actual freedoms, so why is social media so sacred?

Regulation is a double-edged sword that needs to be carefully balanced. I share your own concerns about government overreach. But it's foolish to have the viewpoint that social media, and Big Tech in general, shouldn't be regulated. This is not "off the back of a moral panic"—it's based on hard evidence of the harm it actually causes. Do these companies actually have to commit genocide before you agree that something has to be done? Which has effectively already happened if you consider Facebook's role in the Myanmar genocide.

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

#224
post #84

What would be an actually good faith way of regulating this short of banning it for children (which I’d think is fine). How do you define what is too addictive? At any given time it seems like whatever is defined as the most addictive is just the one with most market share? For me personally I think most addictive is actually hacker news (god bless you all)

I really don't think there is a good faith way to regulate it without either violating free speech and/or removing online privacy/anonymity. I strongly believe it should not be regulated, though I would support better educational programs on the dangers of social media usage and other dark patterns (and somewhat related, I would remove most screens from (public) schools).

What "free speech" exactly? Do you think that such a thing actually exists on platforms controlled by giant corporations? This "free speech" is heavily regulated by opaque algorithms and very specific terms of service. It's "free" as long as it aligns with the company's values and business goals, and your opinions will only reach other people if the algorithm decides that promoting it would drive engagement.

There is definitely a risk of governments using this as an excuse to encroach upon civil liberties, as they've done in the past, but this is not a black or white issue. The reality is nuanced and passing regulation requires careful discussion and balancing. I'm sure we can agree that regulating Big Tobacco and Big Pharma was a good thing, and not some civil rights issue, so why is Big Tech different?

We can also work on educating people, as you suggest, but it can't be the only solution. Regulating greedy and predatory companies should be a part of it.

It's amusing that you would rather support a ban on screens in schools, than regulating companies that make using screens harmful in the first place. It's very reminiscent of the blanket "TVs are bad" argument from past decades.

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

#225
post #84

What would be an actually good faith way of regulating this short of banning it for children (which I’d think is fine). How do you define what is too addictive? At any given time it seems like whatever is defined as the most addictive is just the one with most market share? For me personally I think most addictive is actually hacker news (god bless you all)

Why regulate? Look at the failure that is the "war on drugs". The solution is education. The government should be educating society and especially parents on how to protect their children. Education worked to cut cigarette use, and is starting to lower alcohol consumption as well. It can work for social media without all the negative impacts on civil liberties that come with regulations.

> Education worked to cut cigarette use

Ah, yes, it was education, and certainly not strong regulation of how cigarettes are produced, marketed, and sold. Educating the youth is why vaping and smoking is not cool anymore.

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

#226
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.

Early FB was bad enough when it was your actual friends posting the best (or made up) bits of their lives - and you were only scrolling when you had nothing better to do. Did you know kids, there was a time when the feed was ordered by time and you knew the people who posted stuff? It's a shame we can't have nice things. An actual non-abusive social medium for people to share things like this - I'd use it. But I see…

> It's a shame we can't have nice things. An actual non-abusive social medium for people to share things like this - I'd use it.

Cohost existed, for, a couple years, before they shut down...

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

#227
post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

[deleted]

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

#228
post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

Social media is already in the hands of all those folks. Saudi Arabia was an investor in Twitter. Zuckerberg is literally an advisor to the president. All your worst fears are coming true! You’ve already lost your freedom of speech. Fight to get it back!

https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/facebooks-discriminat...

At some point I think we’re going to regulate these social media companies and it won’t be perfect, but similar to cigarettes we’ll figure it out and it will be largely fine. Have we all become reaganites internalizing his "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.'"?

We’re going to start needing a definition of freedom of speech that includes corporations, because we’re already in a world where they don’t need the states help to censor you. I’m not even confident the governments monopoly on violence is long for this world if Peter Thiel gets his way.

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

#229
post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

Social media is already in the hands of all those folks. Saudi Arabia was an investor in Twitter. Zuckerberg is literally an advisor to the president. All your worst fears are coming true! You’ve already lost your freedom of speech. Fight to get it back! https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/facebooks-discriminat... At some point I think we’re going to regulate these social media companies and it won’t be perfect, b…

[dead]

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

#230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why tho, are you really just a nihilist?

How is respecting peoples freedoms nihilistic?

Because we’re entering this era where the only freedom we’re recognizing is the freedom to be miserable at some extreme end, “freedom” is just a euphemism for neglect.
Post reply on HN