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

Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 549 posts

Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case

#81

Post by Vegenoid »

strongpigeon wrote: post #12

There is a fairly low amount of details about the case in the article. This NPR article [0] has a bit more, but it's still fairly sparse. Though it's interesting how Zuckerberg thought it was a good idea to say: "If people feel like they're not having a good experience, why would they keep using the product?". Given that this is a case about addiction, that feels like a shockingly bad thing to say in defense of your…

> Can you imagine saying the same thing about oxycodone or cigarettes?

No, but unfortunately I can very easily imagine people saying it, just like the people who made loads of money from pushing those products did. Also just like the people who are profiting from the spread of gambling are saying now.

Why would someone choose to do a thing if it harms them? There are good arguments against laws that restrict personal freedoms, but this isn't one of them.

Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case

#82

Post by gusgus01 »

dmitrygr wrote: post #73
xvxvx wrote: post #52

In before someone says ‘blame the parents’ and not the multi-billion dollar companies who’ve spent decades targeting children for lifelong addiction, ignoring the negative effects on their mental health.

It need not be either-or. The guy who made the drugs is guilty. The guy who sold the drugs to kids is guilty. But parents who failed to warn kids about drugs and to oversee them properly are also guilty...

Generally in an article about arresting or sentencing a drug dealer, people don't bring up that the drug users are actually to blame.

Now if we're in a discussion around the cartels, plenty of people do bring up (and there's also those that get annoyed by it) that the drug users are actually the ones funding the cartels via their drug use.

Along these lines, I think another fun comparison might be opioid use and Purdue.

Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case

#83

Post by [deleted] »

jwardbond wrote: post #70
twoodfin wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If something compels behavior vs. behavior remaining a free choice, a liberal society can and should treat it like any other source of compulsion. Personally, I am leery of any technical definition of “addictive” that operates outside the traditional chemical influences on physiology. So I would not describe gambling in that sense. One might have a malady that causes gambling to take on the same physiological vibe fo…

I am not a neuroscientist, but I thought the actual physiological cause of addiction was similar in both nicotine and gambling: you crave the predictable release of dopamine. If that is the (heavily simplified) case, is there a distinction for you between a chemically-induced dopamine release from smoking and, say, and a button you can press that magically releases dopamine in your brain?

[deleted]

Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case

#84

Post by jdasdf »

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #32

This just seems ripe for selective enforcement if not codified in law. I agree the algorithm they use can be addicting, but it's because it's simply good at providing content the user wants to consume. Besides a general 'don't be too good' I'm really not sure what companies should do about it. It just seems like it'll lead to some judges allowing rulings against companies they don't like. Television's goal was always…

thats the point

Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case

#85

Post by btmiller »

twoodfin wrote: post #41
strongpigeon wrote: post #12

There is a fairly low amount of details about the case in the article. This NPR article [0] has a bit more, but it's still fairly sparse. Though it's interesting how Zuckerberg thought it was a good idea to say: "If people feel like they're not having a good experience, why would they keep using the product?". Given that this is a case about addiction, that feels like a shockingly bad thing to say in defense of your…

As someone who values a liberal society, I hope we’d be exceedingly careful in what we label “addictive” in the same bucket as oxy or nicotine. I also hope the reasons are obvious.

There’s a big distance between libertarian and liberal societies. The libertarian tendencies of corporations are what tend to cause more harm.

Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case

#86

Post by dmitrygr »

gusgus01 wrote: post #82
dmitrygr wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It need not be either-or. The guy who made the drugs is guilty. The guy who sold the drugs to kids is guilty. But parents who failed to warn kids about drugs and to oversee them properly are also guilty...

Generally in an article about arresting or sentencing a drug dealer, people don't bring up that the drug users are actually to blame. Now if we're in a discussion around the cartels, plenty of people do bring up (and there's also those that get annoyed by it) that the drug users are actually the ones funding the cartels via their drug use. Along these lines, I think another fun comparison might be opioid use and Purd…

I think that that is actually an oversight. One needs to consider the entire chain. For example, with proper parenting, there would be a lot less youth demand for drugs. It doesn’t make what a drug dealer does any less bad, nor does it make the efforts of the police to arrest the drug dealer any less important. But it’s suboptimal to consider a small piece of a system, without thinking of the whole.

Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case

#87

Post by thewebguyd »

joecool1029 wrote: post #56
twoodfin wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who values a liberal society, I hope we’d be exceedingly careful in what we label “addictive” in the same bucket as oxy or nicotine. I also hope the reasons are obvious.

> I hope we’d be exceedingly careful in what we label “addictive” in the same bucket as oxy or nicotine. Not careful enough apparently: Nicotine isn't that addictive on its own, tobacco is.

Tobacco may be the most* addictive delivery method, but nicotine alone is also addictive. To say its not is misinformation. Consistent use of nicotine still leads to upregulation, which does cause irritability, brain fog, cravings when you stop.

* I'd even change this to say modern nicotine salts in vapes are likely to lead to dependency faster than tobacco. A 5% nicotine salt pod will contain as much nicotine as a full pack of cigarettes, and so vapers tend to consume far more nicotine in a single sitting than they ever could with a cigarette. That combined withe constant availability means users of nicotine vapes & pouches (aka, no tobacco) are likey to have a more difficult time quitting than cigarette smokers.

Bottom line, its still dangerous to dismiss nicotine's addictive potential with or without tobacco as a delivery method.

Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case

#89

Post by strongpigeon »

Vegenoid wrote: post #81
strongpigeon wrote: post #12

There is a fairly low amount of details about the case in the article. This NPR article [0] has a bit more, but it's still fairly sparse. Though it's interesting how Zuckerberg thought it was a good idea to say: "If people feel like they're not having a good experience, why would they keep using the product?". Given that this is a case about addiction, that feels like a shockingly bad thing to say in defense of your…

> Can you imagine saying the same thing about oxycodone or cigarettes? No, but unfortunately I can very easily imagine people saying it, just like the people who made loads of money from pushing those products did. Also just like the people who are profiting from the spread of gambling are saying now. Why would someone choose to do a thing if it harms them? There are good arguments against laws that restrict personal…

But what if we're talking about a product that you're giving away to children? I agree that for adults, cigarettes are fine. But in this case, you're actively designing to maximize tweens and teens engagement and the end result is them saying that they wan't to stop but can't.

Though to be fair, I was mostly pointing out the fact that this was a pretty dumb thing to say for a case like this, especially in a jury trial.

Re: Meta and YouTube found negligent in landmark social media addiction case

#90

Post by cyanydeez »

strongpigeon wrote: post #12

There is a fairly low amount of details about the case in the article. This NPR article [0] has a bit more, but it's still fairly sparse. Though it's interesting how Zuckerberg thought it was a good idea to say: "If people feel like they're not having a good experience, why would they keep using the product?". Given that this is a case about addiction, that feels like a shockingly bad thing to say in defense of your…

"If people didn't like destroying the environment, why would they let lobbiests run their government"

-- Billionaires

Post reply on HN