4 ms·
It will be interesting how to draw the line here. Clearly, some of the highly addictive Internet platforms actually contain useful information like the StackExc
by sawwit 11y ago
It will be interesting how to draw the line here. Clearly, some of the highly addictive Internet platforms actually contain useful information like the StackExchange network, some parts of Reddit, HN… So you would have to make exceptions for things that are likely a professional or personal net benefit for the user to get such a regulation right. I think this will be hard to quantify as opposed to identifying heroine in a product.
Perhaps nudges are a viable alternative approach to this problem. Perhaps simple banners like "Procrastination can kill." on such websites are sufficient. There is a great book on this topic by Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein.
- TeMPOraL 11y agoThe primary difference between SE, HN, even Reddit and addictive places is that the former aren't designed around getting you addicted to the service. They have it as a side effect, but we're talking of a similar side effect that makes one read books or talk with other people. I'd like to see more focus on separating places that are incidentally "addictive" from those that are addictive on purpose.
- mseebach 11y agoI read an article[1] a while ago on evaluating political proposals: When proposing a rule, imagine the rule under the control of politicians you actually know, running in electoral systems with voters and interest groups that actually exist. In other words, deciding that HN and Reddit obviously aren't addictive in the wrong way, but Candy Crush obviously is, is fine when it's you and me working it out -- but what is your confidence that an Federal Internet Addiction Board with members named by presidents Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton[2], and confirmed by (the intellectual heirs of) senator Ted Stevens[3] would reach a similar conclusion? 1: https://fee.org/freeman/unicorn-governance/ https://fee.org/freeman/unicorn-governance/ 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Entertainment_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Entertainment_Protectio... 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_of_tubes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_of_tubes
- TeMPOraL 11y agoThat's... actually a very good heuristic; one I haven't thought about explicitly. Thanks, I'll be using it to inform my views.
- fche 11y ago"designed around getting you addicted" This seems to want to incriminate someone's thoughts, based only on some other people's optional responses. Can you imagine a whole legal framework for divining and arguing "design" intent? "No, your honour, it is designed for maximum entertainment and repeated play value, it says so right here in our design manuals."
- TeMPOraL 11y agoI can't. But I'm increasingly noticing that the biggest problems with our existing legal framework happen when it can't follow the perpetrator into the intent-land. There are many cases where it's blindingly obvious that something was done with ill intent, but the legal system can't process it (and trying to make it would only open it up for more abuse). I don't know how we should handle those cases but I know we need to figure it out, because they're the ones that are becoming the most harmful.
- fche 11y ago"[intent-land are] the ones that are becoming the most harmful" Why do you think so? Or in other words, in what cases does the intent of a person make any action more harmful?
- TeMPOraL 11y agoI mean that people are finding a sweet spot to act maliciously while still staying on the legal side. We all know what they're doing, but we can't make it illegal without hurting innocent people. Consider advertising. We can often tell when a vendor is bullshitting their customers, but if they do it well, the law has no way of reaching such person. Trying to extend the reach of law to cover such cases would create opportunities for other malicious actors could silence people who disagree with them. So bad people are free to thrive at the intersection of "in bad faith" and "still technically legal".
- fche 11y agoThat may be so, but it sounded like you were making a much stronger claim two messages up - as though intent made activity more harmful to the victim (than if no intent were present). That worries me because that way lies thought policing.