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

EU opens child safety probes of Facebook and Instagram, citing addictive design

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 103 posts

Re: EU opens child safety probes of Facebook and Instagram, citing addictive design

#91

Post by lm28469 »

can16358p wrote: post #14

I don't get how exactly this is measured though. For many app projects, keeping the user in the app is obviously one of the most important metrics, especially for free apps (hence more ads to show and more money to make). Many UX patterns are fine tuned to keep people in more, which is perfectly understandable as the primary goal is to keep the user in. Now, who defines "addictive" using which aspect? And even if it…

Yeahs it's a tough one, who's at fault:

Overworked parents

Or

Billionaires employing the top minds of the world using every trick in the book to make you consume as much and as long brain washing content

Re: EU opens child safety probes of Facebook and Instagram, citing addictive design

#92

Post by everforward »

skocznymroczny wrote: post #71
idle_zealot wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering the fact that obesity rates continue to climb despite approximately everyone knowing that eating too much sugar is bad for them at some point you need to acknowledge that a systemic problem requires a systemic solution. Education is great, but seems insufficient when pitted against companies actively trying to ensnare and addict the populace. We decided that the harms done by cigarettes and drug addiction…

"approximately everyone knowing that eating too much sugar is bad for them" That's not really the case. For many people, if they know that too much sugar is bad for them, they think of sugar as in white sugar they add to the coffee or in terms of candybars, when instead they should think about carbohydrates as a whole. Replacing soft drinks with orange/apple juice many people would consider a healthy choice, but in t…

The average knowledge of dietary advice is poor at best. I’ve heard so many people tell me that the vegetable for their meal is potatoes that it stopped being funny years ago.

I don’t even blame them. I was taught similar in high school, and I specifically recall them suggesting juice over soda as if there was a big difference.

The sugar industry paid for the early studies that blamed fat for weight gain and resulting health issues. That’s why everyone hates low carb diets. I still think there needs to be a tobacco industry level lawsuit against and crackdown of high sugar items.

I also don’t think anything containing high levels of sugar should be marketed as for children. Look at the absolute trash they market to children, and half of them claim to be healthy! Fruit juice, fruit snacks, sugary breakfast cereal, garbage drinks like Capri Sun, Oreos, chips, etc.

Practically the only healthy thing marketed to children is pre-packed apple slices (as if apples dont come in natural packaging, sigh).

Why can’t we market healthy stuff to kids? Whole grain breads can be good in the right sandwich. There’s gotta be at least one veggie they like, there are like a billion different vegetables. Olives are delicious.

Re: EU opens child safety probes of Facebook and Instagram, citing addictive design

#93

Post by rawgabbit »

notyourwork wrote: post #65
idle_zealot wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering the fact that obesity rates continue to climb despite approximately everyone knowing that eating too much sugar is bad for them at some point you need to acknowledge that a systemic problem requires a systemic solution. Education is great, but seems insufficient when pitted against companies actively trying to ensnare and addict the populace. We decided that the harms done by cigarettes and drug addiction…

As an American who travels to Europe from time to time, I find the prevalence of smoking in Europe to be what I used to experience as a kid in the states in the 90s. I always wonder why that is when I visit.

When I visited Paris and Rome last summer. I was pleasantly surprised to find little to no smoking among the young people. Only old people continue that habit as far as I could see.

Re: EU opens child safety probes of Facebook and Instagram, citing addictive design

#94

Post by robertlagrant »

ceejayoz wrote: post #90
robertlagrant wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, not particularly, (although I would need to see more to know if the first claim is true) and what you just did is just a couple of sentences. I just don't like it when people link to potentially-polemics to be waded through, rather than do what you did in your most recent comment. If you disagree with that, fair enough, but I didn't anticipate that that preference would be an emotive topic for you. Apologies for…

I'm simply a bit baffled at someone meeting a comment saying essentially "this is disputed, here's a collection of specific critiques" would be met with "you didn't provide any specific critiques". I found the article easy to skim, with well-linked sources throughout. Again, it already contained exactly what you were asking for.

> saying essentially "this is disputed, here's a collection of specific critiques" would be met with "you didn't provide any specific critiques".

That would indeed be baffling, but did not happen here.

Re: EU opens child safety probes of Facebook and Instagram, citing addictive design

#95

Post by the_af »

robertlagrant wrote: post #40
the_af wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed on regulating the actual problem. But it seems the problem in practice is concentrated on a few big companies...

That's also true for sugar. And sugar is massively subsidised. Brazil spends $2.5bn a year subsidising sugar[0], for example. [0] https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/16/steel-sugar...

Agreed about sugar! If you look at my initial comment, I find it "not unlikely" that some sort of regulation could be enacted against sugary foods in the future.

Re: EU opens child safety probes of Facebook and Instagram, citing addictive design

#96

Post by the_af »

rangestransform wrote: post #70
the_af wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I'd say this thing with attention grabbing/addictive feedback loops seems to be qualitatively different. Are you truly a "free" citizen if corporations have hacked your brain? This wouldn't be a ban on consumption either. It's not penalizing the person who drinks alcohol or uses cannabis or pays for sex. It's going after the providers, who are not small-time like hookers,…

> An addict doesn't really have "free choice". You can’t just call people addicts to justify paternalistic policy over them, you can similarly justify total tobacco bans, alcohol prohibition, etc etc etc

Why not?

Some things are banned and we don't consider that paternalistic.

Besides, each thing must be considered individually, e.g. tobacco bans make sense because tobacco affects second-hand smokers; many countries forbid selling alcohol to underage people and some place some restrictions on even adults.

You're also glossing over the nuances of my comment.

Re: EU opens child safety probes of Facebook and Instagram, citing addictive design

#97

Post by fngjdflmdflg »

ceejayoz wrote: post #90
robertlagrant wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, not particularly, (although I would need to see more to know if the first claim is true) and what you just did is just a couple of sentences. I just don't like it when people link to potentially-polemics to be waded through, rather than do what you did in your most recent comment. If you disagree with that, fair enough, but I didn't anticipate that that preference would be an emotive topic for you. Apologies for…

I'm simply a bit baffled at someone meeting a comment saying essentially "this is disputed, here's a collection of specific critiques" would be met with "you didn't provide any specific critiques". I found the article easy to skim, with well-linked sources throughout. Again, it already contained exactly what you were asking for.

As someone who hasn't researched to this topic at all, and therefore has no dog in this race, I don't like when people link to something and say "this guy says I am right." That goes to both linking the book in the first place and it's refutation. I especially dislike when people post the names of books on these types of topics because these are really topics that need to be treated academically, while popular books try to persuade you to their opinion for 400 pages while leaving out or rewording fair criticisms. I would much rather read 150 pages from 3 articles published in reputable journals than 400 pages of a biased viewpoint. I should note that academics can also be biased but 1) they are less free than book authors to make things up 2) you can read multiple opinions 3) they do not use as much rhetoric as book authors. Basically, the name of a book is not an argument or a discussion. Posting the argument(s) of the book is much better, whether accompanied to a link to the book or not.

The way I would have preferred the discussion to have been had would to be something like "Jonathan Haidt has a book out (The Anxious Generation) arguing for a causal link between children having smartphones with social media, and the increases in depression, suicidality, anxiety and other negative effects in teenagers and young adults over the last decade or so. Specifically Haidt notes that/ claims that x factor caused y result." If the only thing you can mention about the book is the conclusion, ie. that social media causes depression, then there may be little substance to the book. This is part of why academic journals have book reviews. Similarly, "read my link that refutes your book" is not helpful as it now requires me to read the book (which, as explained above, I don't want to do) and the refutation. It ends up just as people trading links without having an actual discussion. So I agree that it would be better to just post the relevant point(s) directly by both sides.

Re: EU opens child safety probes of Facebook and Instagram, citing addictive design

#98

Post by dathinab »

perihelions wrote: post #7
dathinab wrote: post #3

I wonder if we at as a society at some point will decide that any "flow which which constantly provides short feedback loop high and lows with no substantial user interaction between" should be treated like gambling. I I mean AFIK they do affect the brain in similar ways as gambling and seem to have the potential to do quite a bit of damage for the development of young children, and at least in case of Ticktock in co…

- "clear strong net positive for society," This has been debated to death for centuries already: of course it's a clear net positive, in the same sense that prohibiting alcohol, cannabis, regulating video games, legislating sex, putting ankle monitors on fat people to monitor their activity levels—all these things are "obvious" social improvements: in practice, not at all. These isn't a novel debate. It's a revisited…

I think your argument drifted far of the point I was making.

Which was treat it like gambling.

Which means it's fully legal for adults to do.

Just don't overly expose children to it.

Re: EU opens child safety probes of Facebook and Instagram, citing addictive design

#99

Post by dathinab »

robertlagrant wrote: post #25
pelario wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course there are tons of open questions, yet you made a huge false dichotomy. I would bet that most people agree with banning sales of alcohol, cigarettes and opioid to kids.

But it would be silly to classify opioid use as gambling, which was the proposal. Figuring out the real issue, and banning that for kids, might well be a good idea. But to my mind the thinking from parents is still very open around what kids should be allowed to do, so it might be too soon.

The argument was to treat it like gambling.

Not to classify it as gambling.

Re: EU opens child safety probes of Facebook and Instagram, citing addictive design

#100

Post by dathinab »

red_admiral wrote: post #48
EMIRELADERO wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that Haidt's work is... disputed, to say the least. https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-coddling-of-the-american-p...

In principle, the truth could be either of a. social media is strongly positive for kids, and Haidt is at best cherry-picking evidence and at worst being actively dishonest. b. social media is strongly negative for kids, but there's lots of money involved and so people are trying to shut down anyone who says otherwise, just like the tobacco industry kept yelling "it's disputed! it's not proven!"

The world in general tend to not work in extrema.

I think there is a good reason Haidts work is disputed, but that doesn't mean there is no truth in it either.

Post reply on HN