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

The EU moves to kill infinite scrolling

politico.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

831–840 of 979 posts

Re: The EU moves to kill infinite scrolling

#831

Post by warmedcookie »

seydor wrote: post #557
warmedcookie wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like the cookie banners since it is an immediate indication to me that I should leave the site. It's an innate reflex at this point.

Let me guess, you use the app instead

I'm curious as to what your thought process is for suggesting "the app" (not sure what app you are referring to) as an alternative for someone who essentially rage quits when they see a cookie banner, given that apps on average are even more so an invasion of privacy and riddled with dark patterns.

Re: The EU moves to kill infinite scrolling

#832

Post by permo-w »

shaky-carrousel wrote: post #766
permo-w wrote: post #737

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be dead. Google would shut it down or sell it, but who is going to buy billions of dollars a year in costs for no advertising revenue in return? Youtube's hosting costs would put a massive dent in even some hypothetical really nice billionaire's wallet. Apple could afford it and they'd run it a million times better, but would they even consider putting so much loss on their books for the sake of ... PR?

A subscription based YouTube dead? That makes no sense. And a YouTube without terabytes of slop would be way easier to maintain.

What percentage of YouTube's revenue do you think is from subs?

The slop is already there. Even without the slop, which it would be borderline impossible to identify en masse, the hosting costs are still astronomical. I appreciate your idealism, but Youtube without advertising revenue would be a financial black hole, and even if it survived, creators would simply be the ones taking the hit

Unless you're suggesting Youtube would just start again from zero, in which case it would just fail and it might as well be the same as dying

Re: The EU moves to kill infinite scrolling

#833

Post by permo-w »

throwup238 wrote: post #758
permo-w wrote: post #733

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the eternal hacker news debate: "let's regulate x" "but surely we can't regulate x because defining x is complicated" "plenty of things are complex and are regulated, also here is a definition that covers almost all cases and the rest can be left to judicial nous" "but people will just evade the law anyway" Honestly pick a post about the EU at random and you'll be able to find some variety of this chain of conve…

I once had the idea to create a HackerNews equivalent to tvtropes called hntropes that crowd sources all of these patterns.

Do it

Re: The EU moves to kill infinite scrolling

#834

Post by kenjackson »

true_religion wrote: post #765
kenjackson wrote: post #745

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What people who advertise indirectly on the internet. For example the ads around a baseball field - can that baseball game no longer be streamed? Product placement in a movie - can that movie only be in theaters and DVD, but not Netflix? Could streaming companies show previews of coming shows on their own platform? I also assume it means that sites like X could no longer charge for verified accounts.

I'm curious what the point is in calling out obvious edge cases that can be addressed by either the legislation allowing for discretion in enforcement via the FCC or other department, or having the court system directly address this factors? What's important is agreeing or disagreeing with the spirit of the law, not trying to get a HN comment to give you a bullet-proof wording.

The obvious edge cases are often the difference between a law having any teeth at all. Or the edge cases can be such a big loophole that everything fits under it.

Re: The EU moves to kill infinite scrolling

#835

Post by [deleted] »

oompydoompy74 wrote: post #757
deaux wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> . I'm a hypocrite. I admit Great, admission is the first step. > but the pay is too good to find alternative. Yet then you immediately undo it! Try "I'm too greedy". You're the actor with the free will here. The subject of the sentencd shouldn't be "the pay". That is just an amount, a sum, that exists - neither too high nor too low. That is all in the eye of the beholder.

Individual action means absolutely nothing. This person shouldn’t be disparaged for making money for themselves and their family. Every single big corp that pays well is creating the torment nexus. You have to pick your poison. I personally draw the line at missiles and mass surveillance.

[deleted]

Re: The EU moves to kill infinite scrolling

#836

Post by raw_anon_1111 »

tcfhgj wrote: post #645
raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What could possible go wrong with the government funding media? It’s not like they would take away funding for media that they don’t agree with.

Works quite well in germany

So let’s hypothetically say that some autocrat decided to take over Germany and decide a certain minority should be - I don’t know extinguished - wouldn’t a free non government run press be useful?

Nahh that would never happen.

Re: The EU moves to kill infinite scrolling

#837

Post by ziml77 »

rgblambda wrote: post #674
MBCook wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s nothing wrong with macro payments either. Five dollars a month to subscribe or whatever. If people get the value out of it, you can get them to pay it.

The Economist (ironically a subscription based publication) reported that subscriptions for news media results in greater political polarisation. When the news outlets says something subscribers don't like, they run the risk of losing those subscribers. This incentivises appealing to a specific set of political beliefs and coddling the customer.

Did that actually have hard data to back that up? Because publications that don't use subscriptions still need people to show up and look at ads. So they are motivated to publish the clickbaitiest things possible. Maybe the difference in that case is that they will publish content that attracts people from various political extremes? That certainly wouldn't make them less polarized though.

Re: The EU moves to kill infinite scrolling

#838

Post by Ey7NFZ3P0nzAe »

juliangmp wrote: post #751
Ey7NFZ3P0nzAe wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the pay is too good to find alternative. You don't sound psychopathic so I'm genuinely curious what you do with your money to keep your conscious clean. Bevause I think your salary is practically blood money at this point. Blood of the additional instagram girls with anorexia. The additional children with severe myopia. The additional people murdered by persons radicalized by media that had to polarize news to surv…

Idk man, amongst thousands of layoffs (assuming op is in the USA) I'd take "blood money" over uh... starvation

If it was the choice given, I can understand.

But I don't think people having the skills needed by FAANGS are at risk of starvation, even if not working for a large conglomerate. Do you?

That's why I am genuinely asking OP their reasons.

Re: The EU moves to kill infinite scrolling

#839

Post by Ey7NFZ3P0nzAe »

jameson wrote: post #490
poncho_romero wrote: post #25

I hope this goes through. Trillion dollar companies are waging a war on our attention, using everything at their disposal to make these apps addictive. It isn't a fair fight and the existence of infinite feeds is bad both for people and democracy. Regulating consumer products that cause harm to millions is nothing new.

As a person working at social media I support this as well. I'm a hypocrite. I admit, but the pay is too good to find alternative. Terms like "DAU" or "engagement" is common in our field and the primary objective is how to make users spend more time on our platform. We don't take safety or mental health seriously internally but only externally for PR reasons. CEOs won't change that because the more time user spends o…

I have yet to find examples of high pay where the pay is not actually to compensate for an immoral job, one way or another.

If you had to choose between two identical jobs and salary at a company but at big tobacco vs a hospital, which would you choose? I think most people would pick the hospital. Hence the only reason people work at big tobacco is either because of a genuine interest in their product (rare IMHO) OR because the pay is higher.

This applies to big tech too.

I am very curious if people here agree with my reasoning.

Re: The EU moves to kill infinite scrolling

#840

Post by hall0ween »

oompydoompy74 wrote: post #757
deaux wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> . I'm a hypocrite. I admit Great, admission is the first step. > but the pay is too good to find alternative. Yet then you immediately undo it! Try "I'm too greedy". You're the actor with the free will here. The subject of the sentencd shouldn't be "the pay". That is just an amount, a sum, that exists - neither too high nor too low. That is all in the eye of the beholder.

Individual action means absolutely nothing. This person shouldn’t be disparaged for making money for themselves and their family. Every single big corp that pays well is creating the torment nexus. You have to pick your poison. I personally draw the line at missiles and mass surveillance.

> Individual action means absolutely nothing.

You may want to view action and sphere of influence. Does an individual have international or national influence? Probably not. How about within their community, home, or person? Probably, yes.

I want a good society and I think that’s will be made up of good individuals making individual action. So to me, this all starts at home with the individual’s sphere of influence.

Post reply on HN