7 ms·

A parallel between Facebook and Big Tobacco had never occurred to me until I read this: > In a move straight out of big tobacco's playbook, Facebook downplayed

by apeace 5y ago

A parallel between Facebook and Big Tobacco had never occurred to me until I read this: > In a move straight out of big tobacco's playbook, Facebook downplayed the negative effects of its product and hid this research from the public and even from members of Congress who specifically asked for it What would our world be like if it were illegal to have a social media account until you were 21 years old? Interesting to think about.

jetrink 5y ago
I wonder if this happened, would teenagers would be upset or relieved? There's a This American Life episode[1] in which several teenage girls explain the complex etiquette of Instagram. It sounds stressful, it sounds exhausting, it sounds like a full time job. Right now, anyone who opts out also excludes themselves from a major aspect of school social life. 1. https://www.thisamericanlife.org/573/transcript https://www.thisamericanlife.org/573/transcript
- jakequade 5y ago
  They would be upset. 100%. Many of them just don't care about the inner workings of the app.
  - disconcision 5y ago
    agreed, it just seems easier to make being on social media mandatory; then the kids would hate it
  - Saptarishi 5y ago
    Maybe that is the downside of the general policy of abstraction that Devs use, that software should be made to look as simple as possible, and all the apparently "unnecessary intricacies"(which could have disastrous effects) should be dumped under the hood.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - worrycue 5y ago
      The point of abstraction isn’t to hide information from you. The point of (properly done) abstraction is to allow you to work without having to worry about the details. Abstraction has nothing to do with this. The problem is the side effects of social media. Even if Facebook open source their algorithms, I doubt anyone could have conclusively predicted this. We only know all this because of empirical sampling of the user population.
- randycupertino 5y ago
  My nieces will instantly delete something they post if it doesn't get enough likes right away which seems so anxiety-inducing. :-/
  - thomasahle 5y ago
    I wonder what would happen if deletion wasn't an option. Like how it didn't use to be possible on Twitter. Would that make it worse? Or better, because then everybody would be in the same boat?
    - randycupertino 5y ago
      ha! Just like old hackernews comments :)
    - shrikant 5y ago
      Social media on the blockchain, hmmm...
khc 5y ago
I think the alternative would not be that teenagers would not have social media accounts, but that they would all be on Tiktok (which probably is already the case)
- xvector 5y ago
  TikTok is a much more positive platform than anything Facebook has come up with TBH. Almost all of the creators I follow are just... normal people, making normal jokes and doing normal things. They aren't heavily airbrushed or photo/videoshopped or whatever. The content itself is generally much more positive and much more focused around acceptance and (body-)positivity. As far as social media platforms go, TikTok is much "healthier" than Instagram.
  - will4274 5y ago
    My SO has TikTok. It seems like mostly staged videos and folks with barely informed political rants to me.
    - xvector 5y ago
      TikTok shows you precisely what you want to see, whether it's simple and funny staged videos or something more intellectually engaging.
      - core-e 5y ago
        Does it show you precisely what you want to see? Or just what you're most likely to engage with? I feel like there's an important distinction there.
        xvector 5y ago
        The former, which is why people use it. It shows you what you want to see and will genuinely enjoy seeing. That is why TikTok is more popular than platforms that only focus on engagement, because those platforms will show content that you will engage with even if it's in frustration.
Nasrudith 5y ago
I would expect to see it struck down by a Supreme Court ruling. You cannot just declare speech a new drug to get around the first ammendment. An 18+ law may past constitutional muster however.
- pier25 5y ago
  It's not about speech per se but more similar to gambling. Gambling is not banned for minors because they can't watch fruit icons and blinking lights.
ndesaulniers 5y ago
I'm increasing worried more so for what kind of nonsense my older relatives are picking up on the platform.
brink 5y ago
I've been saying to my friends for some time that social media is the new smoking.
- doodlebugging 5y ago
  True. Except that smoking causes cancer in the individual and those unlucky enough to have to breathe that second-hand smoke. Social media causes cancerous decay in whole societies. and is a much bigger threat to all of us as a result. We could choose not stand close to a smoker, not to share a ride in their car, etc. but it is very difficult to avoid having to interact with someone whose world-view has been bubbled up by their social media activity.
  - black_puppydog 5y ago
    actually, the basis for most regulation to curb smoking is based on exactly the kind of societal argument you bring up for social media. The freedom of the individual to harm themselves had stood pretty strong, but the societal cost (mostly health care) eventually outweighed it.
    - doodlebugging 5y ago
      I wonder what happens to Facebook, Reddit, and other social networks if they are eventually forced to pay reparations for the societal damage in much the way the tobacco companies had to pay billions to re-educate Americans about the real dangers of smoking. We see that Big Tobacco has pivoted to owning other parts of the consumer economy and they are still quite strong and healthy companies though their tobacco operations have shifted overseas where there is little to no education or regulation. Should Facebook have to sponsor educational initiatives designed to pivot users away from social networks and/or pay restitution for teen suicides, family break-ups, politically motivated crimes committed by their users? That would be great but we tend not to hold anyone accountable for anything nowadays. The worst penalty our society applies tends to be banishment from social networks or public shaming of participants. It reminds me a bit of the oil and gas business. In college we learned about the creation of the Texas Railroad Commission and how it was given control over oil and gas operations in the state at a time when over-production was driving oil prices down and boomtowns were lawless. The Railroad Commission created the guidelines that established minimum well spacings in producing fields, production rates, etc and they were given control over how to handle spills and most anything related to oil and gas operations. The big brag in the course was that this was such a comprehensive set of rules that it became the model for the world in how frontier operations were managed. Basically the oil and gas industry wrote the regulations that they would need to follow and used those as a blueprint for operations globally in countries where there were no established laws. As time went on, industry tailored the rules to the sophistication level of the judicial system of the operating country allowing them to produce other nation's assets at the most favorable rates, in the most industry-favorable manner using rules they modified so as to maximize their own profits and minimize their own liability. I'm not sure how I got off on that but it is late here and I go on tangents sometimes but it seemed relevant in the sense that Facebook and others have O&G industry levels of influence, they have no incentive to hamstring their own operations or to do anything that would diminish or negatively impact the future value of the massive amounts of data they have collected on everyone so it seems like they will get to write the rules about how their own operations are regulated since, just as the O&G industry did back in the day, they can portray themselves as the experts who are the only ones who really know how to fix the problems they themselves created. Anyway. Sorry for the long-winded reply. Not sure if it adds any value to the conversation.
option 5y ago
Spot on - we shouldn’t allow social media accounts for anyone under 21 years old.
BugsJustFindMe 5y ago
> What would our world be like if it were illegal to have a social media account until you were 21 years old? Is that the question you take away? Mine is... What would our world be like if it were illegal to lie to or otherwise obstruct Congress?
- inetknght 5y ago
  > if it were illegal to lie to or otherwise obstruct Congress? Not only is it illegal to lie to Congress but it should be illegal for corporations to lie to anyone in public statements.
  - na85 5y ago
    >Not only is it illegal to lie to Congress Only for the plebs. As James Clapper demonstrated, there is a separate set of laws for the elites.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > As James Clapper demonstrated, there is a separate set of laws for the elites. Surely, the banner example here id Brett Kavanaugh, whose lies in his Circuit Court confirmation hearing were punished with a seat on the Supreme Court.
      - na85 5y ago
        Perhaps; I'm Canadian and have never heard of Kavanaugh.
        zwirbl 5y ago
        Kavanaughs selection for the Supreme Court was covered heavily even in Europe
        na85 5y ago
        Okay. I still haven't heard of him.
invalidname 5y ago
You'd see a picture of a blackend facebook lung every time you launched the website
- conductr 5y ago
  Along with a Surgeon General’s health warning banner on all UX
  - FiggyPudding 5y ago
    Government Warning: (1) According to the Surgeon General, people should not pursue "likes" as it may lead to mental health defects. (2) Consumption of social media impairs your ability to drive a car or operate machinery and may cause social problems.
    - conductr 5y ago
      (3) Just put your dang phone down!!!
RedComet 5y ago
And better yet, illegal in public places.
fsflover 5y ago
> A parallel between Facebook and Big Tobacco https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24579498 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24579498

by apeace 5y ago

jetrink 5y ago

I wonder if this happened, would teenagers would be upset or relieved? There's a This American Life episode[1] in which several teenage girls explain the complex etiquette of Instagram. It sounds stressful, it sounds exhausting, it sounds like a full time job. Right now, anyone who opts out also excludes themselves from a major aspect of school social life. 1. https://www.thisamericanlife.org/573/transcript https://www.thisamericanlife.org/573/transcript

jakequade 5y ago
They would be upset. 100%. Many of them just don't care about the inner workings of the app.
- disconcision 5y ago
  agreed, it just seems easier to make being on social media mandatory; then the kids would hate it
- Saptarishi 5y ago
  Maybe that is the downside of the general policy of abstraction that Devs use, that software should be made to look as simple as possible, and all the apparently "unnecessary intricacies"(which could have disastrous effects) should be dumped under the hood.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - worrycue 5y ago
    The point of abstraction isn’t to hide information from you. The point of (properly done) abstraction is to allow you to work without having to worry about the details. Abstraction has nothing to do with this. The problem is the side effects of social media. Even if Facebook open source their algorithms, I doubt anyone could have conclusively predicted this. We only know all this because of empirical sampling of the user population.
randycupertino 5y ago
My nieces will instantly delete something they post if it doesn't get enough likes right away which seems so anxiety-inducing. :-/
- thomasahle 5y ago
  I wonder what would happen if deletion wasn't an option. Like how it didn't use to be possible on Twitter. Would that make it worse? Or better, because then everybody would be in the same boat?
  - randycupertino 5y ago
    ha! Just like old hackernews comments :)
  - shrikant 5y ago
    Social media on the blockchain, hmmm...

khc 5y ago

I think the alternative would not be that teenagers would not have social media accounts, but that they would all be on Tiktok (which probably is already the case)

xvector 5y ago
TikTok is a much more positive platform than anything Facebook has come up with TBH. Almost all of the creators I follow are just... normal people, making normal jokes and doing normal things. They aren't heavily airbrushed or photo/videoshopped or whatever. The content itself is generally much more positive and much more focused around acceptance and (body-)positivity. As far as social media platforms go, TikTok is much "healthier" than Instagram.
- will4274 5y ago
  My SO has TikTok. It seems like mostly staged videos and folks with barely informed political rants to me.
  - xvector 5y ago
    TikTok shows you precisely what you want to see, whether it's simple and funny staged videos or something more intellectually engaging.
    - core-e 5y ago
      Does it show you precisely what you want to see? Or just what you're most likely to engage with? I feel like there's an important distinction there.
      - xvector 5y ago
        The former, which is why people use it. It shows you what you want to see and will genuinely enjoy seeing. That is why TikTok is more popular than platforms that only focus on engagement, because those platforms will show content that you will engage with even if it's in frustration.

Nasrudith 5y ago

I would expect to see it struck down by a Supreme Court ruling. You cannot just declare speech a new drug to get around the first ammendment. An 18+ law may past constitutional muster however.

pier25 5y ago
It's not about speech per se but more similar to gambling. Gambling is not banned for minors because they can't watch fruit icons and blinking lights.

ndesaulniers 5y ago

I'm increasing worried more so for what kind of nonsense my older relatives are picking up on the platform.

brink 5y ago

I've been saying to my friends for some time that social media is the new smoking.

doodlebugging 5y ago
True. Except that smoking causes cancer in the individual and those unlucky enough to have to breathe that second-hand smoke. Social media causes cancerous decay in whole societies. and is a much bigger threat to all of us as a result. We could choose not stand close to a smoker, not to share a ride in their car, etc. but it is very difficult to avoid having to interact with someone whose world-view has been bubbled up by their social media activity.
- black_puppydog 5y ago
  actually, the basis for most regulation to curb smoking is based on exactly the kind of societal argument you bring up for social media. The freedom of the individual to harm themselves had stood pretty strong, but the societal cost (mostly health care) eventually outweighed it.
  - doodlebugging 5y ago
    I wonder what happens to Facebook, Reddit, and other social networks if they are eventually forced to pay reparations for the societal damage in much the way the tobacco companies had to pay billions to re-educate Americans about the real dangers of smoking. We see that Big Tobacco has pivoted to owning other parts of the consumer economy and they are still quite strong and healthy companies though their tobacco operations have shifted overseas where there is little to no education or regulation. Should Facebook have to sponsor educational initiatives designed to pivot users away from social networks and/or pay restitution for teen suicides, family break-ups, politically motivated crimes committed by their users? That would be great but we tend not to hold anyone accountable for anything nowadays. The worst penalty our society applies tends to be banishment from social networks or public shaming of participants. It reminds me a bit of the oil and gas business. In college we learned about the creation of the Texas Railroad Commission and how it was given control over oil and gas operations in the state at a time when over-production was driving oil prices down and boomtowns were lawless. The Railroad Commission created the guidelines that established minimum well spacings in producing fields, production rates, etc and they were given control over how to handle spills and most anything related to oil and gas operations. The big brag in the course was that this was such a comprehensive set of rules that it became the model for the world in how frontier operations were managed. Basically the oil and gas industry wrote the regulations that they would need to follow and used those as a blueprint for operations globally in countries where there were no established laws. As time went on, industry tailored the rules to the sophistication level of the judicial system of the operating country allowing them to produce other nation's assets at the most favorable rates, in the most industry-favorable manner using rules they modified so as to maximize their own profits and minimize their own liability. I'm not sure how I got off on that but it is late here and I go on tangents sometimes but it seemed relevant in the sense that Facebook and others have O&G industry levels of influence, they have no incentive to hamstring their own operations or to do anything that would diminish or negatively impact the future value of the massive amounts of data they have collected on everyone so it seems like they will get to write the rules about how their own operations are regulated since, just as the O&G industry did back in the day, they can portray themselves as the experts who are the only ones who really know how to fix the problems they themselves created. Anyway. Sorry for the long-winded reply. Not sure if it adds any value to the conversation.

option 5y ago

Spot on - we shouldn’t allow social media accounts for anyone under 21 years old.

BugsJustFindMe 5y ago

> What would our world be like if it were illegal to have a social media account until you were 21 years old? Is that the question you take away? Mine is... What would our world be like if it were illegal to lie to or otherwise obstruct Congress?

inetknght 5y ago
> if it were illegal to lie to or otherwise obstruct Congress? Not only is it illegal to lie to Congress but it should be illegal for corporations to lie to anyone in public statements.
- na85 5y ago
  >Not only is it illegal to lie to Congress Only for the plebs. As James Clapper demonstrated, there is a separate set of laws for the elites.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > As James Clapper demonstrated, there is a separate set of laws for the elites. Surely, the banner example here id Brett Kavanaugh, whose lies in his Circuit Court confirmation hearing were punished with a seat on the Supreme Court.
    - na85 5y ago
      Perhaps; I'm Canadian and have never heard of Kavanaugh.
      - zwirbl 5y ago
        Kavanaughs selection for the Supreme Court was covered heavily even in Europe
        na85 5y ago
        Okay. I still haven't heard of him.

invalidname 5y ago

You'd see a picture of a blackend facebook lung every time you launched the website

conductr 5y ago
Along with a Surgeon General’s health warning banner on all UX
- FiggyPudding 5y ago
  Government Warning: (1) According to the Surgeon General, people should not pursue "likes" as it may lead to mental health defects. (2) Consumption of social media impairs your ability to drive a car or operate machinery and may cause social problems.
  - conductr 5y ago
    (3) Just put your dang phone down!!!

RedComet 5y ago

And better yet, illegal in public places.

fsflover 5y ago

> A parallel between Facebook and Big Tobacco https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24579498 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24579498