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

Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 323 posts

Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco

#31

Post by demibabs »

shaewest wrote: post #19
drunner wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we just ban algorithms for content and go back to chronological feeds circa 2004 Facebook? Or maybe ban all content that the user isn't explicitly subscribed to. Those both have problems too, I'm sure.

I think the major issue is, people still have the option of those older forms of feeds, people just don't like them. New social media competitors (ie Tiktok) have won users by having even more powerful algorithms rather than other options.

Of course, but the users can’t be trusted to stay away from something designed to addict them. Only real solution is regulation, although the how is still a big question mark.

Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco

#32

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

matrix87 wrote: post #25

This seems really messy. We regulate gambling because it's a specific thing, but how do you differentiate a non-addictive platform vs an addictive platform? (aside from this specific company... I mean in general). How do you "test" whether or not they're inherently addictive? At least in this specific instance, they can look at the blast radius and make a determination. But this feels legally unsatisfying in the gene…

It's hard to answer in general, but does it have to be answered in general? I could imagine supporting a policy that infinite scroll in particular is addictive and app developers can't use it without strong warning labels and time alerts.

Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco

#33

Post by matrix87 »

meowkit wrote: post #28
matrix87 wrote: post #25

This seems really messy. We regulate gambling because it's a specific thing, but how do you differentiate a non-addictive platform vs an addictive platform? (aside from this specific company... I mean in general). How do you "test" whether or not they're inherently addictive? At least in this specific instance, they can look at the blast radius and make a determination. But this feels legally unsatisfying in the gene…

“Do you use personal / behavioral data / usage to shape the user experience and recommendations, creating a reinforcing loop?” Roughly that.

Okay but suppose you have an AI chatbot which takes in context from previous chats on what your interests are. So people just keep talking with the chatbot more and more as it gains more context. This would meet the criteria. It's not necessarily addictive though because you can stop talking with the chatbot at any time.

Maybe it's something to do with the text-based interface vs short form video. Short form video is better at activating the lizard brain

Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco

#34

Post by mslt »

Pxtl wrote: post #27
matrix87 wrote: post #25

This seems really messy. We regulate gambling because it's a specific thing, but how do you differentiate a non-addictive platform vs an addictive platform? (aside from this specific company... I mean in general). How do you "test" whether or not they're inherently addictive? At least in this specific instance, they can look at the blast radius and make a determination. But this feels legally unsatisfying in the gene…

> We regulate gambling because it's a specific thing Except when it's called "prediction markets" and therefore it isn't.

It’s such a joke. But we also need to find ways to study and measure non-gambling digital platform addiction like 15 years ago. Thanks to algorithmic consumption, we’re nearing a whole generation of adults that have no idea how to navigate their societal agency and 3 trailing generations that had once learned and since forgot.

Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco

#35

Post by charcircuit »

meowkit wrote: post #28
matrix87 wrote: post #25

This seems really messy. We regulate gambling because it's a specific thing, but how do you differentiate a non-addictive platform vs an addictive platform? (aside from this specific company... I mean in general). How do you "test" whether or not they're inherently addictive? At least in this specific instance, they can look at the blast radius and make a determination. But this feels legally unsatisfying in the gene…

“Do you use personal / behavioral data / usage to shape the user experience and recommendations, creating a reinforcing loop?” Roughly that.

What product does not listen to how users use the product to design the first or later version of a product?

Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco

#36

Post by oblio »

matrix87 wrote: post #33
meowkit wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Do you use personal / behavioral data / usage to shape the user experience and recommendations, creating a reinforcing loop?” Roughly that.

Okay but suppose you have an AI chatbot which takes in context from previous chats on what your interests are. So people just keep talking with the chatbot more and more as it gains more context. This would meet the criteria. It's not necessarily addictive though because you can stop talking with the chatbot at any time. Maybe it's something to do with the text-based interface vs short form video. Short form video is…

> It's not necessarily addictive though because you can stop talking with the chatbot at any time.

You can also stop taking drugs at any time. Or stop drinking. Or stop smoking. Or stop doomscrolling.

Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco

#37

Post by shaewest »

demibabs wrote: post #31
shaewest wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the major issue is, people still have the option of those older forms of feeds, people just don't like them. New social media competitors (ie Tiktok) have won users by having even more powerful algorithms rather than other options.

Of course, but the users can’t be trusted to stay away from something designed to addict them. Only real solution is regulation, although the how is still a big question mark.

I would ask, where is the line drawn between 'enjoyment and addiction.'

Is it the harm provided? Then what do we count as harm, and where is the line.

IE, There's no one stopping me from eating unhealthy, IE sugary foods, which are heavily addictive. I ride a motorbike, and I'd consider myself addicted to that, and it's got a high chance of harm, but we don't ban those. Ditto with gaming, social media, hobby XYZ.

I personally think the freedom to choose your vice is reasonable.

Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco

#39

Post by phreack »

matrix87 wrote: post #33
meowkit wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Do you use personal / behavioral data / usage to shape the user experience and recommendations, creating a reinforcing loop?” Roughly that.

Okay but suppose you have an AI chatbot which takes in context from previous chats on what your interests are. So people just keep talking with the chatbot more and more as it gains more context. This would meet the criteria. It's not necessarily addictive though because you can stop talking with the chatbot at any time. Maybe it's something to do with the text-based interface vs short form video. Short form video is…

I'm not sure about that example. I'm seeing non tech people getting very addicted to their customized chat bots. Companies are very primed to eventually nudge them to enshittify the content of the responses and it could get bad.

Re: Meta's blockbuster trial draws parallels to big tobacco

#40

Post by matrix87 »

oblio wrote: post #36
matrix87 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay but suppose you have an AI chatbot which takes in context from previous chats on what your interests are. So people just keep talking with the chatbot more and more as it gains more context. This would meet the criteria. It's not necessarily addictive though because you can stop talking with the chatbot at any time. Maybe it's something to do with the text-based interface vs short form video. Short form video is…

> It's not necessarily addictive though because you can stop talking with the chatbot at any time. You can also stop taking drugs at any time. Or stop drinking. Or stop smoking. Or stop doomscrolling.

What I meant to say was, the standard for when we call something addictive is more hazy than that. In general, text based interfaces don't light up the brain in the same way. Psychologically it's a lot easier to walk away from a chatbot vs an infinite feed of short form video... potentially that difference could help find some kind of standard to determine addictiveness

Edit: I wonder if a hypothetical digital experience like the samizdat out of infinite jest is possible? I.e. a digital experience which hits the brain in the perfect way to produce addiction without a chemical basis

Post reply on HN