9 ms·

There is no doubt that there's a lot wrong with social media, such as spreading fake information, privacy, etc... Maybe they should have some king of regulatio

• corytheboyd 6y ago
  To me, It’s not just that it’s addictive that is the problem, it’s that the addiction is accelerating the spread of misinformation and allows national/global hate groups to not only exist but flourish. Many have suspected it for a long while but this testimony proves that Facebook profits from hate groups and the spread of misinformation. That’s not hyperbole, that’s now fact.
  • tux1968 6y ago
    It has also accelerated the pace at which good information can spread. What happened to the idea of free-speech and countering bad-ideas with better ones? Perhaps the real acceleration is in the ballooning expansion of who we consider a "hate-group" -- which seems to have no fixed definition and is thrown around rather cavalierly.
    • krapp 6y ago
      >What happened to the idea of free-speech and countering bad-ideas with better ones? Go on Twitter or Facebook, or 4chan, 8chan, Voat or wherever you can find these crazies, and try to engage them in rational debate, and convince them their ideas are bad and yours are better. Let us know how that turns out.
      • tux1968 6y ago
        There are always going to be crazy people. But what does it matter what they think? What matters is what the average rational adult who is a contributing member of society thinks. What is the end goal? To make it impossible for crazy people to be heard online? Wouldn't a better goal be to educate ourselves on how to ignore the crazies and focus on reliable sources?
        • krapp 6y ago
          Are you under the impression that Venn Diagram of "rational adults who are contributing members of society" and "crazy people" do not overlap, and that the latter cannot influence the former? Do you believe QAnon has gone from a 4chan meme to a political movement which has gained the support of the President and seats in Congress because no rational adult or contributing member of society has ever fallen prey to them? Human beings are not rational animals, human beings are emotional animals, we're great apes hardwired for paredolia and bigotry because it helped us survive the tall grasses of the Savannah a hundred thousand years ago. The assumption you and others like you make, that given a free (as in unregulated) market of ideas, rationality and truth will always win out, is as naive as the belief that ethics and quality always win in free market capitalism. Bad actors always dominate unless some external regulating force prevents them from doing so. >What is the end goal? To make it impossible for crazy people to be heard online? Wouldn't a better goal be to educate ourselves on how to ignore the crazies and focus on reliable sources? False dichotomy - we can do both. It is impossible to effectively educate ourselves or anyone else in an environment in which it is also impossible to distinguish good from bad information, or even attempt to do so, without fear of "censorship". We don't need to pretend Joe Rogan and Alex Jones are sources of truth on par with the BBC and Al Jazeera, or that evolution and the Book of Genesis are equally valid attempts to describe the natural world, or that QAnon represents a legitimate framework of political and social criticism, merely for the sake of allowing controversy, in the false belief that controversy is equivalent to freedom.
          • tux1968 6y ago
            You have more faith in your own virtue and right to rule over others than I do. I prefer to live as much as possible letting others live as they choose and being responsible for myself. QAnon isn't really much of a problem in the real world -- nobody is burning down cities and rioting because of it.
• mindcandy 6y ago
  Near my office in SF there is a guy who sits on the street corner with his pants rolled up so you can see that his calves were pretty much just two big, open, leaking sores as a side effect of so many injections. I bought him some bandages but he wouldn't use them until the end of the day because showing them off got him more sympathy money that he needed in order to purchase more injections. The motivation center of his brain has been completely hijacked by a product. Suffering to death is no longer a concern for him. Only the product matters.
  • godshatter 6y ago
    I don't know what physical processes are behind a facebook addiction, but I doubt it's as serious a condition as that caused by a chemically addictive product. I would equate it more with gambling addiction. Not to say that it's not a problem, but I have a hard time equating the two. That might just be my naivete' though. I've been lucky enough not to encounter either type of addiction.
    • liability 6y ago
      The desperation I've seen in addicted gamblers in Las Vegas doesn't seem so different from the despair I've seen from junkies. Both of these are addictions to which some people lose everything. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jul/19/problem-gamblers-much-more-likely-to-attempt-suicide-study https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jul/19/problem-gamb...
      • godshatter 6y ago
        I could definitely be wrong. I'd heard about people with gambling problems losing everything they own. In the end, perhaps the same parts of the brain are getting triggered.
• everdrive 6y ago
  >But I fail to see how making your product as addictive as you can, without breaking laws, is terrible This is an interesting take. Usually I suspect people would say something more like "Making your product as addictive as possible is terrible, but definitely not illegal. And, it's difficult to design laws against something that is addictive and destructive." I think it's pretty clear that "making your product as addictive as you can" is absolutely terrible. Again, I'm not sure that regulation can solve this problem in a constructive way, (and would love to be proven wrong here) but I fail to see how this isn't bad. No one is forced to become obese, however it's definitely bad to have a nation full of obese people.
  • kyrers 6y ago
    >I think it's pretty clear that "making your product as addictive as you can" is absolutely terrible Why? Honest question. For instance, you mentioned obesity. Should a restaurant that makes the most delicious and sugar loaded food be forbidden to do so because its customers can't stop eating it and are getting obese? IMO obesity is an individual problem. I'm all for helping obese people that want to change, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying that they got themselves in that situation. The restaurant should not be punished for their clients lack of control. They should, however, be forced to let clients know exactly what they're eating, but after that, it's not their fault.
    • remarkEon 6y ago
      Perhaps the way to split the difference, in your example/metaphor, is to ban the restaurant from giving the delicious sugary food to the obese rather than banning the food altogether.
      • kyrers 6y ago
        I can see that happening, but I don't think a private business should be forced to do it. Now, I think they should do it, but because they want to. If anyone is to take action, I think the way to go is to reach the obese people and help them. Explain why they should not visit the restaurant anymore.
• munificent 6y ago
  > I fail to see how making your product as addictive as you can, without breaking laws, is terrible. I think it's important to be clear about "addictive" because people use it in different ways. If by "addictive" you mean "really compelling" then, sure, it may not be intrinsically terrible. A product that, for example, makes it really compelling for users to improve their physical health or fight climate is probably not terrible. But the clinical definition of "addiction" which is why "addiction" has a strong negative connotation is that for something that is so compelling that your need to use it causes significant disruption to your quality of life of that of those around you. Read the testimony again. The argument here is not just that Facebook is super engaging. It's that Facebook use harms its users and the world at large and its level of engagement magnifies that.
  • kyrers 6y ago
    For sure. But I mentioned the "too addictive" argument specifically. I understand and agree that facebook does more harm than good, and that is wrong and must be addressed. I just don't understand this addiction angle. Making your product as addictive as you can, without breaking laws, is not wrong IMO. But I think I see where you coming from. They're getting people addicted to something wrong, did I understand you?
    • munificent 6y ago
      > They're getting people addicted to something wrong, did I understand you? That is part of it, yes. Also, the mechanism of addition itself often causes the harm. With chemical addiction, the same components that make the substance addictive also cause miserable withdrawal symptoms. With social media, this is more nebulous, but I do think part of what makes systems like Facebook "engaging" is the anxiety they create when you aren't on them, and the low self-image that users try to assuage by posting flattering photos of their life. Part of addiction (and advertising too, for that matter) is creating a need for your product in the mind of the user. They were probably happier before they had that need in the first place.
      • kyrers 6y ago
• agenticgent 6y ago
  It's bad if you accept that people deserve agency: the ability to freely choose how they act. The primary purpose of making an addictive product is to remove peoples' agency by hijacking known deficiencies in our minds/bodies. It's a form of coercion, because your goal is to prevent people from being able to choose whether they use your product or not.
  • kyrers 6y ago
    But they can't do it without said people help, correct? If they aim to remove agency, it's because you have it in the first place, meaning you can stop it from happening with proper information. I understand that some people might not understand they are being targeted and should be clearly told what could happen to them. But the majority of people must know FB is addictive. After that, I can't see how people still getting addicted is the company's fault.
    • mindcandy 6y ago
      > stop it from happening with proper information. Well, when the product is mis-information that has been carefully tailored, evolved and tested to counteract proper information...
      • kyrers 6y ago
        And is that legal?
  • justincredible 6y ago
    This is a very philosophical view of why addiction is bad. I doubt you can convince politicians to act based on this reasoning.