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

New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 113 posts

Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens

#81

Post by akdor1154 »

jcranmer wrote: post #77
gwbas1c wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is obviously unconstitutional "or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" Well, is social media "speech" or "press"? Television and radio stations need to abide by FCC guidelines, and in general, certain topics and words aren't allowed in the daytime. Another example: Tobacco advertising is severely curtailed, *especially advertising targeted towards minors." In this case, what isn't restricted is so…

> Well, is social media "speech" or "press"? Speech. > Television and radio stations need to abide by FCC guidelines As far as the content restrictions, they only need to do so if they are broadcast channels (or cable rebroadcasts of broadcast channels), and FCC is constitutionally prohibited from regulating speech on cable-only channels. The argument for why they can do broadcast is the "compelling government intere…

There's a pretty strong argument that an algorithmic feed optimised for engagement is commercial speech.

Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens

#82

Post by jcranmer »

akdor1154 wrote: post #81
jcranmer wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well, is social media "speech" or "press"? Speech. > Television and radio stations need to abide by FCC guidelines As far as the content restrictions, they only need to do so if they are broadcast channels (or cable rebroadcasts of broadcast channels), and FCC is constitutionally prohibited from regulating speech on cable-only channels. The argument for why they can do broadcast is the "compelling government intere…

There's a pretty strong argument that an algorithmic feed optimised for engagement is commercial speech.

How is that feed "proposing a commercial transaction"?

Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens

#83

Post by neetle »

SoftTalker wrote: post #79
munchler wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pornhub home page has a very clear warning before you get to anything explicit: This is an adult website This website contains age-restricted materials including nudity and explicit depictions of sexual activity. By entering, you affirm that you are at least 18 years of age or the age of majority in the jurisdiction you are accessing the website from and you consent to viewing sexually explicit content. I am 18 or ol…

I don't see that. And no, it's not because I have cookies from them. Maybe it's geo-location dependent?

Try it in a private browser, without any cookies? May also be an ad blocker

Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens

#84

Post by ihumanable »

fallingknife wrote: post #56
pessimizer wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the choice is between the government and the landlord, I choose the government.

I'll choose the one that can't come after me with guns

I'll choose the one that I can at least vote out.

Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens

#85

Post by ihumanable »

BuckYeah wrote: post #21
pie420 wrote: post #3

first airbnb, and now this, you love to see it. hopefully banning all gambling is next

I’m always amazed by how much some people want the government to control.

Everyone's pro-democracy until people go "hey maybe allowing a few mega corporations to profit off of addicting everyone to dopamine feeds is actually bad for society."

The biggest con economists ever pulled was to model people as "rational actors" and then generate an entire worldview off of "if everyone acts in their rational self-interest then this works great."

People are almost fundamentally irrational. People are guided by emotion and superstition and a bunch of weird shit that makes it easy for them to get addicted to things that have little to no societal value. If not a government, what force should counter balance that?

Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens

#86

Post by m463 »

btown wrote: post #28
vundercind wrote: post #7

The “definitions” section of the bill is a lot more decent than I expected it to be. Page 3 of the bill pdf: https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2023/S7694A

> [The definition for Addictive Feed applies] unless any of the following 18 conditions are met, alone or in combination with one another: > ... (b) the recommendation, prioritization, or selection is based on user-selected privacy or accessibility settings, or technical information concerning the user's device; And also: > It shall be unlawful for a covered operator to provide an addictive feed to a covered user unl…

Now, with improved >Addictive Feeds< you'll get cool blue messaging bubbles instead of plain green ones!

Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens

#87

Post by dylan604 »

hot_gril wrote: post #73
jimbokun wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This puts parents back in control of what their kids are consuming. Without laws like this, it’s extremely difficult for parents to supervise and control their children’s media consumption.

I get that in theory a kid could sneak off to use TikTok/Instagram on some friend's device away from home, but that's not what's happening. Parents are handing their kids smartphones with unrestricted access to these apps.

People here keep coming back to the social pressures of not allowing their kids on these platforms. It's one thing to give them a device for being able to keep tabs with locations and being able to get in touch with them, but once they have a device where other parents have allowed their kids on the platforms your kid will be made fun of for not being on there.

The parental controls the platforms put on there are non-existent or a mere joke at best (as the recent post about TikTok suggesting porn to minors illustrates). So a parent trying to do things then gets accused of "damaging" their kid by being over restrictive. So, again, what's a parent to do?

Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens

#88

Post by zug_zug »

superkuh wrote: post #25
zug_zug wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, this feels like a bad-faith argument. I think most of us on this site first-hand feel that obsession to update a feed that seems to control us more than we control it. I don't need the DSM's permission to notice that. Whether the ban will work out, open question. But pretending there's no addiction here doesn't pass the smell test.

Even if it may feel universal that is likely not reflecting the actual distribution of the perception. (ref: Inferring the Popularity of an Opinion From Its Familiarity: A Repetitive Voice Can Sound Like a Chorus https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/psp-925821.pdf ) Additionally, feelings are fine for personal behavior but legislation requires a higher level of evidence. I really do believe what I am saying: ad…

> Additionally, feelings are fine for personal behavior but legislation requires a higher level of evidence.

This I can agree with -- but I think it would trivial to get that evidence by asking 10,000 teens if they agree with the following statement "Some of my social media apps feel addictive -- they don't bring my enjoyment but I can't seem to stop using them."

I'd bet about half of teens agree with that.

Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens

#89

Post by O1111OOO »

leotravis10 wrote: post #22

This is obviously unconstitutional and it'll be shot down in the courts before it takes effect since this is their version of KOSA among other First Amendment issues. Some context here: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/06/11/nys-safe-for-kids-act-a-...

> This is obviously unconstitutional

I also wonder if this is a first salvo to get users to submit IDs before using online services. How do you determine if a user is a minor or an adult without some form of ID, right?

Re: New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens

#90

Post by yamazakiwi »

dylan604 wrote: post #71
yamazakiwi wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They weren't referring to Social Media Platforms, they were referring to the previous poster talking about AirBnB and Gambling specifically. There are many mechanisms we can rely on, like teaching someone the tradeoffs of a dangerous decision.

You say that like addiction is just something that can be taught by parents to overcome. You can attempt to teach your kids to "just say now", but they are kids and are going to rebel against anything they are told they can't do. That's just part of being a kid. Once they do it and become addicted, telling them no is just a useless concept. Part of the problem of laying it at the parent's feet is that there's a much…

I don't intend for my one example to fit all issues. Just trying to point out there is more we can do than rely on government legislation.
Post reply on HN