4 ms·

>FB has abused our brain chemistry with addictive content. Their platform makes discussions more impulsive, passionate and careless not unlike any other addicti

>FB has abused our brain chemistry with addictive content. Their platform makes discussions more impulsive, passionate and careless not unlike any other addictive substance. People crave "the goods" ie browsing their bite sized feeds, and neglect the responsibility of actually learning about the news. Not unlike how if you're addicted to sugar/unhealthy foods you don't want your veggies. Is Facebook the bad guy here? Where is examination of the person doing the scrolling? (The following applies to adults): Ostensibly, the person should be allowed to spend their time as they like if they're engaging in legal activity. If people thought that engaging in social media was bad for them, they would stop. Are we really saying that people cannot stop using social media? Are we saying that people don't think it's bad for them? If people can't stop doing an activity that is definitely hurting them, don't they need professional help? Do all these social media users need professional help? What amount of time on social media is sufficient for it to have a negative effect? Is it anything besides zero? To be meta: if hackernews is social media and social media is bad, are we all hurting ourselves?

aliceryhl 6y ago
Do you also think that it should be optional to wear a seatbelt?
- djoldman 6y ago
  That's a good question. In most states, as far as I know, it's illegal not to wear a seatbelt. So from the point of view of the law, it's not optional. Pragmatically, it's somewhat optional because it's unlikely that violations of the law are detected and prosecuted. From a "should this actually be the law" point of view: I don't know. I think that in US society, our championing the rights of the individual has led to a failure to protect the individual from themselves.
sjy 6y ago
> Are we really saying that people cannot stop using social media? Are we saying that people don't think it's bad for them? Yes, that’s part of the definition of ‘addictive.’ Internet and social media addiction is well documented, even though not all users are addicted. Like gambling.
- djoldman 6y ago
  Should we force casinos to change in order to be less addictive?
  - roganartu 6y ago
    Many countries, including Australia, do in fact regulate various aspects of casinos and gambling facilities in order to protect the vulnerable. Things like not allowing ATMs in particular areas, lots of signage about addiction and help, mandatory (and audited) return rates etc. I’m not saying I agree with my government’s approach to this particular problem (tbh it seems like curbing social media addiction, if it happens, will be more of an accident than the intent of this legislation), but the suggestion that we do not regulate other predatory industries is rather misguided.
  - rurp 6y ago
    Casinos are highly regulated and must follow a number of restrictions on how they market their products and handle troubled players. So yes, our society has indeed already decided that casinos should be forced to be less predatory.
    - djoldman 6y ago
      Certainly. My question was aimed at the current state of regulation: should casinos be further restricted? (people are still getting addicted, as far as I know).

aliceryhl 6y ago

Do you also think that it should be optional to wear a seatbelt?

djoldman 6y ago
That's a good question. In most states, as far as I know, it's illegal not to wear a seatbelt. So from the point of view of the law, it's not optional. Pragmatically, it's somewhat optional because it's unlikely that violations of the law are detected and prosecuted. From a "should this actually be the law" point of view: I don't know. I think that in US society, our championing the rights of the individual has led to a failure to protect the individual from themselves.

sjy 6y ago

> Are we really saying that people cannot stop using social media? Are we saying that people don't think it's bad for them? Yes, that’s part of the definition of ‘addictive.’ Internet and social media addiction is well documented, even though not all users are addicted. Like gambling.

djoldman 6y ago
Should we force casinos to change in order to be less addictive?
- roganartu 6y ago
  Many countries, including Australia, do in fact regulate various aspects of casinos and gambling facilities in order to protect the vulnerable. Things like not allowing ATMs in particular areas, lots of signage about addiction and help, mandatory (and audited) return rates etc. I’m not saying I agree with my government’s approach to this particular problem (tbh it seems like curbing social media addiction, if it happens, will be more of an accident than the intent of this legislation), but the suggestion that we do not regulate other predatory industries is rather misguided.
- rurp 6y ago
  Casinos are highly regulated and must follow a number of restrictions on how they market their products and handle troubled players. So yes, our society has indeed already decided that casinos should be forced to be less predatory.
  - djoldman 6y ago
    Certainly. My question was aimed at the current state of regulation: should casinos be further restricted? (people are still getting addicted, as far as I know).