3 ms·
In a world where every party was rational, your points would make total and complete sense. The reality, however is that social media companies with their cura
by logshipper 6y ago
In a world where every party was rational, your points would make total and complete sense.
The reality, however is that social media companies with their curated feeds, dopamine buttons, echo chambers, and sheer size can push products to the market that cause detriment to the overall cultural environment. The average Joe does not understand that his Twitter feed is _designed_ to keep him hooked. I bet you, if he knew, he'd have quit long ago.
Your argument essentially posits that opioid addicts be held responsible for their addictions rather than our legal system clamping down on big pharma.
- djoldman 6y ago>The reality, however is that social media companies with their curated feeds, dopamine buttons, echo chambers, and sheer size can push products to the market that cause detriment to the overall cultural environment. Given the nature of the internet, any entity can bring a product to the market that could be negative for users. What's the solution beyond the current legal framework? >Your argument essentially posits that opioid addicts be held responsible for their addictions rather than our legal system clamping down on big pharma. There's a wide gulf between consuming and engaging with intangible media content and abusing biologically powerful physical substances. Someone becoming addicted to a controlled substance like opioids is different from social media in a profound way. I think society recognizes this given that opioids are largely controlled substances.