6 ms·
US could ban 'addictive' autoplay videos and infinite scrolling online
- kragen 7y agoI hope that if they ban addictive autoplay, they apply the ruling first to broadcast TV.
- Upvoter33 7y ago"addictive" being the key word, I think - which implies machine intelligence picking the next show, not network executives.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- lrem 7y agoBut isn't the network executive executing the same intent as the machine, just at a lower quality level?
- vageli 7y ago> "addictive" being the key word, I think - which implies machine intelligence picking the next show, not network executives. How is it implied that machines are picking the next show? Humans are able to engineer addiction as well.
- duckqlz 7y agoHow exactly would you accomplish this? It’s not as though you chose the content that plays you simply choose a station on broadcast TV.
- wcoenen 7y agoMandatory pauses of at least 1 minute between scheduled programs, with no moving images, to allow viewers to wake up from their "TV zombie" state.
- kragen 7y agoMore importantly, between commercials and scheduled programs. But I was just thinking of banning broadcast TV outright, because it seems absurdly antidemocratic to ban the equivalent of broadcast TV online, but not broadcast TV itself
- kragen 7y agoReassign the TV band to license-free data transmission, like Wi-Fi but with potentially higher bandwidth and longer range. Outlaw cable TV. Or you could transmit a special signal that turns the TV off at the end of every program and before every commercial. Require new TVs to interpret the signal and turn off when received. If you want to watch another program, you have to turn the TV back on.
- rcar1046 7y agoYes, infinite scroll is doing as much harm, if not more, than tobacco and alcohol combined. /s
- corodra 7y agoSearch "social media mental health study". Theres a flood of universities that have pretty good evidence of social media causing a lot of mental health issues. Namely towards teens and young adults who grew up with it. Yes, it does seem silly, but the rise of anxiety and depression in society is linked to social media. Theres a good reason why people do the social media fasts and cleanses. A lot don't go back.
- coldcode 7y agoThen ban social media, not a UI feature. Clearly this law is beyond stupid. What next, banning sunglasses because people might have shifty eyes?
- corodra 7y agoWell, ban cigarettes instead of the mechanism for gaining and retaining customers (ads). But the gov banned the widespread advertising of cigarettes instead of banning the product. The usa now has around a 14% smoking population, compared to like a 50% back in the 50s.
- Kaveren 7y agoA lot of that can likely be attributed to increased public awareness of the dangers of smoking.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- tooop 7y agoThat is a social media problem not infinite scrolling problem.
- wojcikstefan 7y agoRegulating infinite scrolling seems like a major overregulation. Even if it kinda makes sense in terms of FB, Twitter, and other social media newsfeeds, it's still a great (and beneficial) UX in many other cases. Overusing social media could be solved via e.g. Screen Time or a similar time-limiting solution (perhaps w/o an option to "snooze" the daily limit if a parent set it on a child's device).
- kd5bjo 7y agoAt the very least, it shouldn’t be allowed to put the links to regulatory information (like the terms of service or privacy policy) in a footer below an infinite scroller.
- nerdponx 7y agoYou could have a separate provision about deceptive practices or something.
- corodra 7y agoWhile, I do agree with you that it does seem a bit on the overregulation, I absolutely hate, with all the fiber of my being, infinite scrolling. Especially if I accidentally click something or don't middle click. Then I hit back just to start at the beginning of the fucking page. Normally just get angry and go "fuck it" to do something else. It's also just so janky too. I've never been on a site that does it and feel it's any better than pages. At that, I never felt when on a page site that infinite scrolling is needed. It's a solution with no real problem. I hate it and will gladly dance on its grave for those reasons alone.
- ConfusedDog 7y agoIt depends on the use case and how it is being implemented. I wouldn’t ban a tech because it was not used appropriately once in the past.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
- yrro 7y agoHow would such a bill not be struck down on first amendment grounds?
- corodra 7y agoThese are mechanisms, not speech. Huge difference.
- blodovnik 7y agoGood to hear the politicians are focusing on the big issues of our time.
- madiathomas 7y agoI don't like sites with autoplay. I only expect autoplay when the page I am about to visit is in a video site like YouTube. I hate it when I am reading a news article and a video autoplays. Autoscrolling also can be irritating. If I click a TechCrunch article on HN, I don't want TC to load more articles at the end of the article I was reading without my consent. It is better to suggest related articles and give me an option to click on them if I am interested.
- LannisterDebt 7y ago> I hate it when I am reading a news article and a video autoplays. Not only that, but the video follows you around while you scroll and most of the time you can't get it off your screen.
- madiathomas 7y agoNot sure what is the benefit of that video that follows you. If I wanted to watch the video, I was going stop scrolling and watch it. In most cases, those videos don't even allow you to pause them. They disable the pause button.
- tiborsaas 7y ago> I only expect autoplay when the page I am about to visit is in a video site like YouTube. Here's the problem with it. There are exceptions, but it's extremely difficult to write the law in a way that can't be gamed if you allow exceptions.
- madiathomas 7y agoBanning autoplay altogether will be the only solution to the problem. Then an opt-in setting can be baked into browsers to allow certain sites to use audio/video features. That way all sites will be treated the same. News sites can always claim to be video playing sites like YouTube, just to be included in the exceptin list.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
- indigochill 7y agoI mean, sure, I agree on the motives. But there are the usual questions about tech regulation: 1. How hard will it be enforced? Turns out GDPR, for example, has been significantly harder to enforce than the EU expected. 2. How punitive is the punishment? Does this become just one more "cost of doing business" that further raises the barrier to entry to competition to the tech giants?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- gitgud 7y agoIs this the first bill to reduce something addictive "on the internet"?
- luxuryballs 7y agoTalk about a nanny state, what’s next, mandatory go outside and play?
- epistasis 7y agoThe Republican Party in the US is famously anti-regulation of large corporations, and "pro-business," yet this is coming from the Republican side. Is there any sort of rationale provided for this seemingly massive ideological shift? Regulation of industry is usually off the table when this party is in control, at least when it comes to pollution or other consumer harms by business.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- JasonFruit 7y agoAmerican politicians are famously unable to articulate consistent principles, and their voters are little better. I don't find it surprising that Republicans are unable to see this sort of invasive regulation in the same light they see regulation of other business practices. Maybe nobody's making it worth their time to see it that way. Maybe they see this as a bone they can throw to the public to get a few votes before they go back to guarding their power hoard. At any rate, there are only about seven or eight people with real, consistent principles in the U.S. Congress, and I'm not aware that Josh Hawley is among them.
- Kaveren 7y agoThis is from the same man who blames human trafficking on the sexual revolution. [0] Conservatives hate Big Tech because of liberal bias (real or perceived). It's simply another unnecessary authoritarian measure. [0] https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/the-buzz/article197603534.html https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/the...
- 33mhz 7y agoThe scope of this bill is within social media networks, and is not blanket autoplay and infinite scroll - it seems to be aiming specifically at automated UI that the user has not indicated they want, and has no option to stop. It has a number of other provisions. It requires the defaults to be "off". It requires legal agreements' Yes/No buttons be standardized on the site and neutral (no split fonts, colors, sizes, etc).
- 33mhz 7y ago"To prohibit social media companies from using practices that exploit human psychology or brain physiology to substantially impede freedom of choice, to require social media companies to take measures to mitigate the risks of internet addiction and psychological exploitation, and for other purposes." "...unlawful for a social media company to operate a social media platform that uses..." * Infinite scroll/auto refill beyond what a user has specified * No natural stopping points * Autoplay without user intent * Badges/awards linked to engagement but not linked to services/content/function * Opt-in options have to be standardized It then requires companies to allow users to set limits on their own daily use, automatically set defaults, and regularly notify users of their continued use. But "...shall not apply to any portion of a social media platform that consists only of a predominantly text-based, direct message service such as email or a service that is substantially similar to email." https://www.hawley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2019-07/Social-Media-Addiction-Reduction-Technology-Act.pdf https://www.hawley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2019-07/So...
- dx87 7y agoI don't know if the proposed solution is the best way of handling it, but I'm glad something is being done about the way some large companies are manipulating users and causing widescale mental harm. It'd be interesting to see social media sites with warnings similar to cigarrette labels. Require the sites to regularly display a warning along the lines of "Warning: Long term exposure to social media is shown to cause anxiety, low self-esteem, and depression. If you experience these symptoms, call <HOTLINE>"
- rafpaf 7y agoThe internet giants are trying to addict us to their products. I despise this and welcome solutions including regulation. However, the proposed law is stupendously overbroad. It bans "the use of a process that, without the user expressly requesting additional content, loads and displays more content into a content feed than the typical user scrolls through in 3 minutes." So long, Google Maps? (Unless scrolling the map counts as an 'express request', but if it does then scrolling to the bottom of an infinite-scrolling page would count.) The bill also bans "providing a user with an award for engaging with the social media platform (such as a badge or other recognition of a user’s level of engagement with the platform) if such award does not substantially increase access to new or additional services, content, or functionality." The point of this clause is to ban "Snapstreaks" as the Guardian article says. But if "substantially increase" is a low bar, then Snapchat can meet it. And if it's a high bar, then many nonaddictive karma systems would be banned. So long, StackOverflow and Hacker News. The proposed law requires social media platforms to "allow a user to set a time limit that blocks the user’s own access to those platforms" — that sounds more helpful. But it goes on to require them to "automatically limit the amount of time that a user may spend on those platforms across all devices to 30 minutes a day unless the user elects to adjust or remove the time limit and, if the user elects to increase or remove the time limit, resets the time limit to 30 minutes a day on the first day of every month." This just sounds bananas. Today, the techlash; tomorrow, the regulation-lash. The law says, "When an operator requests a user to make a selection from among options, no option may be preselected." MY BRAIN IS MELTING. So, in an address form, I can't pre-guess the user's country/state/province (even if those guesses are based on previous input)? My forms can't have DEFAULTS? The law is overbroad — but in another way, it's too easy to elude. It says you're not a social media platform unless you "enable users to create accounts or profiles specific to [your platform]." But then, as long as accounts on YouTube are really Google-wide accounts, the law doesn't apply to YouTube — even though it mentions YouTube as one of its targets. Who wrote this bill?
- merricksb 7y agoEarlier discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20565141 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20565141
- mic47 7y agoDoes it apply only to web browsers? What about apps? As far as I understand, huge part of Facebook, Twitter users use the apps and not the web, so if the bill does not ban it also there, then it will be kind of toothless (and motivate those companies to even more aggressively nudge people to use apps).
- maitredusoi 7y agoCan we ban people from being stupid ? uuh ;)