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

861–870 of 979 posts

Re: The EU moves to kill infinite scrolling

#861

Post by raw_anon_1111 »

dahart wrote: post #852
raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #849

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the internet exists outside of the US and you can get to foreign sites on the Internet? Do we tell US companies they can’t buy advertising on foreign sites and that those foreign sites can’t be accesed from the US? We have an existence proof of what happens when a government tries to restrict what people can see on the internet. I live in one of the states that require porn sites to validate ID. If you add al…

We also have an existence proof that region-specific laws can change web advertising practices globally with the GDPR.

The only thing that the GDPR has done outside of the EU is annoying cookie banners.

Re: The EU moves to kill infinite scrolling

#862

Post by raw_anon_1111 »

dahart wrote: post #860
raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #804

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know some Spanish. But if I were an advertiser, I wouldn’t want to waste my money on ad impressions on people who couldn’t understand a word I was saying. I also as a business person who targets Spanish speaking people - like you know immigration assistance or when mask thugs think I’m here illegally when I was born in Puerto Rico (hypothetically). So what if I have a website based out of the counter and accept adv…

Obviously sites not based in the US don’t have to follow US laws. And obviously using a VPN circumvents local laws. Again, I’m not going to do any of this, but you answered your own question: one way the US could enforce this would be to require ISPs to block targeted advertising, regardless of where the originating site is located.

So now we are going to put up the “Great Firewall of America” to protect Americans from those evil foreign advertisers?

You really like where this is going?

Re: The EU moves to kill infinite scrolling

#863

Post by forgetfreeman »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #685
forgetfreeman wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know there's individuals who will unironically defend any dark pattern one cares to point to so your take here is pretty unsurprising. I feel like this is getting excited over finding a kernel of undigested corn in a random turd.

I meant it more as marveling at the people who get excited at the undigested corn kernel and then make artwork about it, though not to knock participation in this zeitgeist. There really is something fascinating about seeing people congregate over something that excites them, regardless of the curmudgeons who denigrate it. Doubly so if I don't understand it. It doesn't have to be your cup of tea but calling it "a ker…

The only thing more predictable than the credulous defense of harmful technologies is the wildly fallacious "old man sneering at clouds". If there is hostility there's generally a good reason for it. Refusing to engage with that is an indication of arrested emotional development or maybe a massive ideological blind spot. It certainly doesn't herald open-mindedness.

Re: The EU moves to kill infinite scrolling

#864

Post by ajam1507 »

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #857
ajam1507 wrote: post #843

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right that modern video games and Netflix are a good examples of things that are non-ad-based, but are insidiously addictive. I used "insidiously addictive" to mean something which is engineered specifically to maximize addictive potential, and is not addictive purely on its own merits. An example of a game development pattern that I would consider "merely addictive" would be a game developer trying to make th…

Corporations want to sell as much as possible to make as much money as possible. Whenever the frequency, quantity or intensity of use drives up earnings, you are bound to get the same result: More "addictive" designs are better for earnings than less "addictive" designs. The difference (if any) between addictive because fun and addictive by design is irrelevant for this outcome. What I will grant you is that the link…

> If a newspaper publisher knows that some very loyal subscribers only ever read 5 articles every morning, making that particular group read 30 articles would not drive up earnings.

I think it's hard to say if that's true. A consumer might be willing to pay more for a service they use a lot rather than a little.

What I do know is that I can see plainly that advertising-driven services are among the worse offenders for creating addictive products and other revenue models generally provide healthier incentives to direct development.

The EU's general approach here is probably better than banning advertising since it diagnoses a clear problem, but leaves it open for regulators and companies to address it.

Re: The EU moves to kill infinite scrolling

#865

Post by onion2k »

xiconfjs wrote: post #634
onion2k wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true, but it's worth adding that there are no blog posts about those things either, or articles, discussions, etc except in very limited niche places dedicated to talking about them. If there was a ban on 'internet advertising of anything' then it would basically kill all discussion of any products on the internet.

Like what the internet was before advertising? ;)

Tim Berners-Lee invented the world wide web in 1992. Doubleclick started in 1995. So yes, like those glorious 3 years when hardly anyone was online and most access was via a 28kbps modem.

I'd take adverts over that. :)

Re: The EU moves to kill infinite scrolling

#866

Post by paulddraper »

ncruces wrote: post #848
paulddraper wrote: post #810

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> claiming there is no law against it Is there a law against it?

No, that's the entire point. There's a strong hint that something's wrong, and that good corporate citizens would change course and try to become positive forces for the world. Or else.

Ah is sounded like it was claimed but incorrect

Re: The EU moves to kill infinite scrolling

#867

Post by rockskon »

DarkUranium wrote: post #139
ben_w wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Treating social media design as equal to something that can kill people in excess unnerves me. As it should, because there's a really obvious "slippery slope" argument right there. But… it can kill people. There is a certain fraction of the population who, for whatever reason, can be manipulated, to the point of becoming killers or of causing injury to themselves. Social media… actually, worse than that, all A/B te…

There's literally a name for using this on purpose: stochastic terrorism. There's also a very good TED talk on this topic from 8 years ago : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFTWM7HV2UI

I've always found the notion of "stochastic terrorism" to be elastic, effectively transforming "speech a given person dislikes" into "danger" so censorship looks like virtue.

Not to mention - you have to account for what happens if someone you hate may be in power and could wield any sort of system to stop "stochastic terrorism" against you. This is often dismissed as an abstract what-if, but....given what's been happening with world leaders these days, it should be a central consideration.

Re: The EU moves to kill infinite scrolling

#868

Post by rockskon »

lII1lIlI11ll wrote: post #563
rockskon wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's the problem - different substances require different solutions. You reduce sugar intake, not eliminate it. You eliminate cocaine intake, not just reduce it. Treating social media design as equal to something that can kill people in excess unnerves me.

This is a weird take. Sugar have been killing much more people historically than cocaine.

Yes, and without any sugar, the human body cannot function. Literally.

You must mean "added sugar", which is different and one I more readily agree with you about.

Re: The EU moves to kill infinite scrolling

#869

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

Funes- wrote: post #158
jjcm wrote: post #64

Here's the actual statement from the European Comission: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_26_... It's important to note they aren't creating laws against infinite scrolling , but are ruling against addictive design and pointing to infinite scrolling as an example of it. The wording here is fascinating, mainly because they're effectively acting as arbiters of "vibes". They point to certain feat…

>"well what specific laws would I write to combat addictive design?" Hear me out: banning advertising on the Internet. It's the only way. It's the primordial domino tile. You knock that one over, every other tile follows suit. It's the mother of chain reactions. There would be no social media, no Internet as we know it. Imagine having TikTok, YouTube or X trying to survive on subscriptions alone in their current iter…

Thankfully that absurd comment about "vibes" dropped from the top spot

"It's the primordial domino tile."

FWIW, I believe this is correct

However when using the term "banning" this needs to be placed in context; advertising might be "banned" only in certain circumstances.. Mind you, advertising has been banned whole cloth from computer networks in the past. It is still banned on many computer networks.^1 Before the internet (an interconnected network of computer networks) opened to the public there was a rule, i.e., policy, against advertising

A better term than "banning" might be simply "regulating". Online advertising is not regulated in the same way that advertising is regulated on billboards, in print publications, radio or television. For example, regulating the time (electoral campaigns), place (billboards), subject matter (cigarettes)

Whenever this topic comes up on HN, it draws inane replies about people being unable to distinguish advertising from anything else

But there is zero evidence to support this theory in practice. Everyone knows what advertising is, and how to identify it. That's why and how people are capable of complaining about it

Even this forum, Hacker News, places limits on advertising. YC may promote its participating companies but others are generally not permitted to advertise. Submissions that are deemed to be ads are killed. If advertising was undefinable, then how is HN able to define it

If advertising was impossible to define then how could anyone design a so-called "ad blocker"

1. If advertising were undefinable then why would any computer network have a "Network Use Policy" that prohibited using the network for disseminting advertising

The suggestion that advertising is undefinable, that either everything is advertising or nothing is advertising, is pure nonsense

It's only when the subject of tampering with the sole "business model" of the so-called "tech" company having nothing else to sell, or the means of substinence for the low quality website operator republishing public information in pages crammed full of ads and tracking, that HN commenters try to argue that advertising is beyond definition

A large percentage of internet users, perhaps a majority, have never experienced the internet without ads. Hence it may be difficult for these people to understand the place of advertising on a computer network. Let's be clear, originally, there was _no place for it_

Some people alive today did experience the internet without ads. Sadly, many of them are now engaged in providing internet advertising services for financial gain. Others are not. I'm in the later category

Some of the loudest voices defending internet advertising will be people in the former category. They have cashed in at every internet user's expense

Re: The EU moves to kill infinite scrolling

#870

Post by Eisenstein »

raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #805
Eisenstein wrote: post #764

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I would argue that they have been able to do this because a small group of private individuals control the information networks and either desired that purpose or are ambivalent to their cause in it. The potential failure of the system because of the effect of the wrong choice in this matter is evidence in favor of my argument, not against it.

I’m continuously astounded by people who want to give the government more power seeing the current state of the US government.

You aren't amazed at how people advocating for privatizing things that are supposed to be for the public good keep doubling down when it doesn't work out? We couldn't be in the place we are if it weren't for those who constantly yelled 'smaller government!' while dismantling all features of accountability and balance of power in order to achieve that end.
Post reply on HN