7 ms·

> On July 30th the junior senator from Missouri unveiled the “Social Media Addiction Reduction Technology Act”, or SMART Act. The bill would limit social-media

> On July 30th the junior senator from Missouri unveiled the “Social Media Addiction Reduction Technology Act”, or SMART Act. The bill would limit social-media usage to half an hour a day (users would be able to bypass the limit by adjusting their app settings). It would also ban addictive features, such as “infinite scroll” (when a user’s entire feed can be seen in one visit) and “autoplay” (when online videos load automatically one after another). We should never let the government dictate UI through laws. It’s shocking that it’s even being proposed.

mc32 7y ago
On the other hand it’s shocking social media companies use every psychological tool at their disposal to get people to share their private info as well as getting them to engage with them as much as possible. I’m shocked they’d do this!
dustinmoris 7y ago
Why is it shocking? The government has always had a say in the UI if it was for the greater benefit of it's citizen: - Off putting images printed on cigarette packages - Warning stickers put on microwaves to prevent people from drying their house cats in the microwave - Forcing speed meters in cars - Forcing head lights of cars to be turned on after a certain hour of the day - Lot's of "UX" regulations in casinos and other addictive establishments - Licenses to sell alcohol which basically influences where people can find and shop alcohol - Recently the UK has drafted a law which prohibits supermarkets to stock and display addictive unhealthy food close to the checkout tilts (Mars, Snickers, fat crisps, etc.) Why should it be different on the internet? Social media has a damaging and addictive negative impact on society, so it need's to be regulated to protect citizens from the exploitative patterns which these companies purposefully implement to hook vulnerable people into their system. I wonder what makes people believe that the internet should be this sort of "law free" place where anyone can implement all the exploitative behaviour which is otherwise forbidden elsewhere?
- yostrovs 7y ago
  Many of us find most of your list disturbing as is. So we certainly don't use it as evidence that we'd like it to grow longer.
  - dustinmoris 7y ago
    Out of curiosity, what do you find disturbing exactly? That people who drive a vehicle which is capable of speeds that can easily cause death to passengers and other vehicles around them need to have a device mounted which visibly gives them an indication of how fast they are actually travelling? Or do you find it disturbing that kids who don't know better yet are meant to be told that if they start smoking cigarettes, which are very addictive, can cause them to die 20 years earlier rather than telling them that it is "cool" which is what the ad industry did before? Maybe from a complete selfish point of view I can see how it's annoying that I cannot buy alcohol just at any time of the day wherever I want, but the government is not being elected to act selfishly. They have a responsibility towards their electorate, and if something is causing people to get depressed, harm themselves and become unhappy, unproductive and a burden on the state, then it is the governments duty to implement regulation which can help prevent from falling into those damaging habits.
    - yostrovs 7y ago
      You probably longed for stricter parents when growing up. You still are. I'm assuming you're an adult.
      - gerbilly 7y ago
        No, and I didn't long to live in a race to the bottom dystopia either.
      - peterpost2 7y ago
        Or you could just respond to the man's question? - instead of responding childish
    - 7y ago
9HZZRfNlpR 7y ago
When industries don't self regulate and cause harm to societies, then yes the government steps in to prevent harm through regulation.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
raxxorrax 7y ago
Well, if he removed endless scrolling, which should be listed as a deadly sin somewhere in the bible, I might humor him.
- slantyyz 7y ago
  What I never understood is sites that put links only available in the footer -and- enable endless scrolling. Worst thing ever.
  - jedieaston 7y ago
    Without that, why would you need the end button on your keyboard? /s
qubex 7y ago
Think of getting a car approved for road use involving a pointing mechanism that isn’t a steering wheel... and then you let me know how successful you expect to be.
rco8786 7y ago
This happens all the time and is completely normal. It’s just the first time it’s happened in the context of a web browser or mobile app as far as I know.
impalallama 7y ago
As strange as it is I think there is something to be said to limiting social media's most addictive features. These things are designed to be as addicting and unhealthy as possible in order to absorb as much of our time and energy as possible.
Pete_D 7y ago
> The bill would limit social-media usage to half an hour a day (users would be able to bypass the limit by adjusting their app settings). The Economist is putting it mildly. The Act is quite short and accessible, so well worth reading directly: 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.... More on that half an hour limit, from Section 4 (paraphrased): - Opt-out 30 minutes a day time limit - The time limit gets reset every month, so you have to keep opting out - A nag pop-up at least once every 30 minutes showing how much time you've spent there that day If this passes, using the (US) internet will become much more annoying. (Section 7, which says the FTC gets to make up new rules later, looks a bit suspicious to me too, but I'm not clear on the degree to which that's just standard operating procedure for American politics.)

mc32 7y ago

On the other hand it’s shocking social media companies use every psychological tool at their disposal to get people to share their private info as well as getting them to engage with them as much as possible. I’m shocked they’d do this!

dustinmoris 7y ago

Why is it shocking? The government has always had a say in the UI if it was for the greater benefit of it's citizen: - Off putting images printed on cigarette packages - Warning stickers put on microwaves to prevent people from drying their house cats in the microwave - Forcing speed meters in cars - Forcing head lights of cars to be turned on after a certain hour of the day - Lot's of "UX" regulations in casinos and other addictive establishments - Licenses to sell alcohol which basically influences where people can find and shop alcohol - Recently the UK has drafted a law which prohibits supermarkets to stock and display addictive unhealthy food close to the checkout tilts (Mars, Snickers, fat crisps, etc.) Why should it be different on the internet? Social media has a damaging and addictive negative impact on society, so it need's to be regulated to protect citizens from the exploitative patterns which these companies purposefully implement to hook vulnerable people into their system. I wonder what makes people believe that the internet should be this sort of "law free" place where anyone can implement all the exploitative behaviour which is otherwise forbidden elsewhere?

yostrovs 7y ago
Many of us find most of your list disturbing as is. So we certainly don't use it as evidence that we'd like it to grow longer.
- dustinmoris 7y ago
  Out of curiosity, what do you find disturbing exactly? That people who drive a vehicle which is capable of speeds that can easily cause death to passengers and other vehicles around them need to have a device mounted which visibly gives them an indication of how fast they are actually travelling? Or do you find it disturbing that kids who don't know better yet are meant to be told that if they start smoking cigarettes, which are very addictive, can cause them to die 20 years earlier rather than telling them that it is "cool" which is what the ad industry did before? Maybe from a complete selfish point of view I can see how it's annoying that I cannot buy alcohol just at any time of the day wherever I want, but the government is not being elected to act selfishly. They have a responsibility towards their electorate, and if something is causing people to get depressed, harm themselves and become unhappy, unproductive and a burden on the state, then it is the governments duty to implement regulation which can help prevent from falling into those damaging habits.
  - yostrovs 7y ago
    You probably longed for stricter parents when growing up. You still are. I'm assuming you're an adult.
    - gerbilly 7y ago
      No, and I didn't long to live in a race to the bottom dystopia either.
    - peterpost2 7y ago
      Or you could just respond to the man's question? - instead of responding childish
  - 7y ago

9HZZRfNlpR 7y ago

When industries don't self regulate and cause harm to societies, then yes the government steps in to prevent harm through regulation.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

raxxorrax 7y ago

Well, if he removed endless scrolling, which should be listed as a deadly sin somewhere in the bible, I might humor him.

slantyyz 7y ago
What I never understood is sites that put links only available in the footer -and- enable endless scrolling. Worst thing ever.
- jedieaston 7y ago
  Without that, why would you need the end button on your keyboard? /s

qubex 7y ago

Think of getting a car approved for road use involving a pointing mechanism that isn’t a steering wheel... and then you let me know how successful you expect to be.

rco8786 7y ago

This happens all the time and is completely normal. It’s just the first time it’s happened in the context of a web browser or mobile app as far as I know.

impalallama 7y ago

As strange as it is I think there is something to be said to limiting social media's most addictive features. These things are designed to be as addicting and unhealthy as possible in order to absorb as much of our time and energy as possible.

Pete_D 7y ago

> The bill would limit social-media usage to half an hour a day (users would be able to bypass the limit by adjusting their app settings). The Economist is putting it mildly. The Act is quite short and accessible, so well worth reading directly: 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.... More on that half an hour limit, from Section 4 (paraphrased): - Opt-out 30 minutes a day time limit - The time limit gets reset every month, so you have to keep opting out - A nag pop-up at least once every 30 minutes showing how much time you've spent there that day If this passes, using the (US) internet will become much more annoying. (Section 7, which says the FTC gets to make up new rules later, looks a bit suspicious to me too, but I'm not clear on the degree to which that's just standard operating procedure for American politics.)