4 ms·

There's an even simpler solution: ban free social media. Require each platform to charge a minimum of $x/user/year. You remove kids by default (no credit card/

There's an even simpler solution: ban free social media. Require each platform to charge a minimum of $x/user/year. You remove kids by default (no credit card/bank card), and the focus of product managers is less on driving addictive browsing, and more on driving renewals (presumably through quality features, content, and fostering community). The customer is no longer the advertisers (or shady Governmental data scrapers), but now the users. Look at the generally higher quality of Netflix content compared to free-to-air TV. You could apply the same regulation to other addictive products: p*rnography and games. These categories would also improve in quality, be less exploitative, and become less available to children, if a minimum payment was required for access.

meowface 5y ago
There was an article on here not too long ago that made a rather salient point that "even if you're paying, you might still be the product". If you're not paying, the only way they'll make money is off of you, but there's nothing stopping them from doing so anyway even if you are paying. Found it: https://odysee.com/@CyberLounge:a/even-if-youre-paying-youre-still-the-product:7 https://odysee.com/@CyberLounge:a/even-if-youre-paying-youre... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27918331 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27918331
throwaway894345 5y ago
> You remove kids by default (no credit card/bank card Children have parents and many of them will shell out thousands of dollars a year so their kid can buy Fortnite skins. I don’t imagine a credit card requirement will keep kids off of social media. For the purposes of addressing some of the data privacy concerns, I think it would be even easier to just restrict the collection and/or sale of personal information. Simply charging for the service doesn’t prevent or disincentivize companies from also selling your data.
- Factorium 5y ago
  The control is still with the parents. They can cut off access by controlling payment access. When the product is free, the control is with the corporation.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    Agreed, it sounded like you were trying to prevent kids' access altogether and not just give better parental controls..
lapetitejort 5y ago
Being able to pay reddit to remove ads is one of the reasons I like the site. Sure, the fact I'm paying probably makes my data more valuable to ad companies, but at least at reddit I won't see any. Their increasing push to gamify awards, while selling a currency to do so does annoy me though.
unethical_ban 5y ago
Okay, they'll charge 0.01 per year and you've just kicked every poor person (or person without a bank card) off social media. Social media, for all its terrible ills, is the primary way many people get their real news too. By news, I mean municipal updates, weather alerts, local events, etc. I don't think putting up a financial barrier to that by law is the solution.
- b3morales 5y ago
  > municipal updates, weather alerts, local events, etc. Having public -- especially government -- information siloed in private services is its own problem that in my opinion also needs badly to be fixed.
mikepurvis 5y ago
Magazines (fashion, fitness, sport, etc) have this effect by virtue of advertisers not wanting to be seen in a "free" publication, but most of their revenue still comes from ads, which is why you continue to still receive new issues for months after you supposedly canceled, even though you nominally are paying for it, all the incentives are for them to pretend you're a paying customer when you in fact are not. But I don't really know how you could reasonably make this work for online communities. Is reading a blog and commenting on it participating in a "social network"? What about reading a blog without comments? Viewing a sponsored Twitch stream?
- Factorium 5y ago
  It would be a pretty easy legal definition. Start with services that have over 100 million users: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_platforms_with_at_least_100_million_active_users https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_platforms_with_... And exclude messaging services eg. Telegram, or platforms which are focused on technical or professional knowledge sharing (eg. Quora, LinkedIn, Wikipedia). I think the risk would be conglomeration - platforms would partner up so that the minimum fee could give access to multiple services. You'd also want to avoid the fee from just becoming a 'token' with advertising still driving 90%+ of revenue. Old-fashioned antitrust enforcement might still be necessary (eg. separating Facebook from Instagram and Whatsapp), as well as setting a maximum % of gross revenue that can come from advertising, maybe 75%.
mschuster91 5y ago
> You remove kids by default (no credit card/bank card) You also remove about 7-22% of the US population that is unbanked or underbanked (per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unbanked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unbanked) from participation in democracy. Not to mention you then have an enforceable paper trail from an online account to some sort of government-backed ID (since you need that to open a bank account), which will lead to self-censorship issues. Facebook and the Internet in general has become the virtual equivalent of townhalls and public "speakers corners".
BeFlatXIII 5y ago
That would also drive many people into realizing that they do not need any social media at all. That's a good policy. However, foreign companies may decide that they don't care about US laws because they have no US employees or assets.
jelliclesfarm 5y ago
That sounds like China. Recently they restricted time spent on video games. And banned portrayal of ‘effeminate and gay men’ in video games’ So..now we need regulations to be free? Nice! * https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/31/tech/china-ban-video-games-minor-intl-hnk/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/31/tech/china-ban-video-games-mi...
_joel 5y ago
How would you stop prepaid debit cards? In this country a child can get one attached to their kids bank account, themselves, from the age of 11. Admitedly there's an audit trail, but I'm not sure it blocks as many kids as you think it would.

meowface 5y ago

There was an article on here not too long ago that made a rather salient point that "even if you're paying, you might still be the product". If you're not paying, the only way they'll make money is off of you, but there's nothing stopping them from doing so anyway even if you are paying. Found it: https://odysee.com/@CyberLounge:a/even-if-youre-paying-youre-still-the-product:7 https://odysee.com/@CyberLounge:a/even-if-youre-paying-youre... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27918331 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27918331

throwaway894345 5y ago

> You remove kids by default (no credit card/bank card Children have parents and many of them will shell out thousands of dollars a year so their kid can buy Fortnite skins. I don’t imagine a credit card requirement will keep kids off of social media. For the purposes of addressing some of the data privacy concerns, I think it would be even easier to just restrict the collection and/or sale of personal information. Simply charging for the service doesn’t prevent or disincentivize companies from also selling your data.

Factorium 5y ago
The control is still with the parents. They can cut off access by controlling payment access. When the product is free, the control is with the corporation.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  Agreed, it sounded like you were trying to prevent kids' access altogether and not just give better parental controls..

lapetitejort 5y ago

Being able to pay reddit to remove ads is one of the reasons I like the site. Sure, the fact I'm paying probably makes my data more valuable to ad companies, but at least at reddit I won't see any. Their increasing push to gamify awards, while selling a currency to do so does annoy me though.

unethical_ban 5y ago

Okay, they'll charge 0.01 per year and you've just kicked every poor person (or person without a bank card) off social media. Social media, for all its terrible ills, is the primary way many people get their real news too. By news, I mean municipal updates, weather alerts, local events, etc. I don't think putting up a financial barrier to that by law is the solution.

b3morales 5y ago
> municipal updates, weather alerts, local events, etc. Having public -- especially government -- information siloed in private services is its own problem that in my opinion also needs badly to be fixed.

mikepurvis 5y ago

Magazines (fashion, fitness, sport, etc) have this effect by virtue of advertisers not wanting to be seen in a "free" publication, but most of their revenue still comes from ads, which is why you continue to still receive new issues for months after you supposedly canceled, even though you nominally are paying for it, all the incentives are for them to pretend you're a paying customer when you in fact are not. But I don't really know how you could reasonably make this work for online communities. Is reading a blog and commenting on it participating in a "social network"? What about reading a blog without comments? Viewing a sponsored Twitch stream?

Factorium 5y ago
It would be a pretty easy legal definition. Start with services that have over 100 million users: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_platforms_with_at_least_100_million_active_users https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_platforms_with_... And exclude messaging services eg. Telegram, or platforms which are focused on technical or professional knowledge sharing (eg. Quora, LinkedIn, Wikipedia). I think the risk would be conglomeration - platforms would partner up so that the minimum fee could give access to multiple services. You'd also want to avoid the fee from just becoming a 'token' with advertising still driving 90%+ of revenue. Old-fashioned antitrust enforcement might still be necessary (eg. separating Facebook from Instagram and Whatsapp), as well as setting a maximum % of gross revenue that can come from advertising, maybe 75%.

mschuster91 5y ago

> You remove kids by default (no credit card/bank card) You also remove about 7-22% of the US population that is unbanked or underbanked (per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unbanked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unbanked) from participation in democracy. Not to mention you then have an enforceable paper trail from an online account to some sort of government-backed ID (since you need that to open a bank account), which will lead to self-censorship issues. Facebook and the Internet in general has become the virtual equivalent of townhalls and public "speakers corners".

BeFlatXIII 5y ago

That would also drive many people into realizing that they do not need any social media at all. That's a good policy. However, foreign companies may decide that they don't care about US laws because they have no US employees or assets.

jelliclesfarm 5y ago

That sounds like China. Recently they restricted time spent on video games. And banned portrayal of ‘effeminate and gay men’ in video games’ So..now we need regulations to be free? Nice! * https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/31/tech/china-ban-video-games-minor-intl-hnk/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/31/tech/china-ban-video-games-mi...

_joel 5y ago

How would you stop prepaid debit cards? In this country a child can get one attached to their kids bank account, themselves, from the age of 11. Admitedly there's an audit trail, but I'm not sure it blocks as many kids as you think it would.