6 ms·

If you don’t like Facebook just don’t use Facebook, WhatsApp, or Instagram. Don’t know why so many people here think parents and adults are not capable of regul

If you don’t like Facebook just don’t use Facebook, WhatsApp, or Instagram. Don’t know why so many people here think parents and adults are not capable of regulating themselves and their kids. It’s honestly condescending to think you know better than your fellow citizens if you’re arguing for government intervention.

fighterpilot 5y ago
The problem is roundabout externalities. If you're a genocide victim in Myanmar, whether or not you stayed off FB is irrelevant. The other problem is informed consent. Kids don't have the mental defences to avoid the dopamine trap. Whether parents allow the kids is beside the point. A parent can allow a kid to have sex but it's still illegal because the kid isn't capable of consenting.
brap 5y ago
I had to read through way too many comments to get to a sane one.
dirkt 5y ago
While I agree, and while I do that myself, the social pressure to use Facebook/WhatsApp/Instagram is immense. And it's worse for kids. I have to constantly explain to people why I don't use those, and they still keep trying to convince me that I should.
015a 5y ago
If you don't like Oxycontin, just don't use Oxycontin, Dilaudid, or Fentanyl. Don't know why so many people here think adults are not capable of regulating themselves.
- mr_toad 5y ago
  Chemical dependency is a real thing with serious medical effects. Severe cases of withdrawal can actually be fatal.
  - 015a 5y ago
    Social media dependency is a real thing, with serious medical side effects, which can include Depression, which in severe cases can actually be fatal. But, you know, prescription medicine dependence, its different, right? Right. Its gotta be different. And the reason its different is because... fewer people use social media? No. Fewer people suffer from mental health issues? Definitely not. Fewer people have overtly negative outcomes, including death, from mental health issues? Nope. So, actually, the only reason its different is: We've fully studied and have a mature grasp of the personal and social impact of some chemical dependencies. The same can not be said of mental health, and all the evidence you need for this immaturity can be found in comments like some in this thread, or those from Zuckerberg. The cigarette companies are commissioning studies saying smoking is healthy, and people still downplay the victims. If you've ever wondered how anyone can think smoking is healthy; in 10 years, some may look back to the '10s and wonder the same thing about social media. How could anyone have worked for Facebook, defended them, saying they've done more good than bad?
    - kmlx 5y ago
      > Social media dependency is a real thing, with serious medical side effects citation? or source? i'm asking since it's the first time i'm seeing this idea.
- an-allen 5y ago
  Chemical Addiction != scrolling facebook
  - 015a 5y ago
    Of that, we are in agreement; one is popping a pill which releases chemicals in your brain which over time correlate with a measurable reduction in quality of life; the other is interacting with an app which releases chemicals in your brain which over time correlate with a measurable reduction in quality of life. Definitely on the same page; not a strict mathematical equivalence.
  - jeffrallen 5y ago
    Facebook's researchers found the opposite...
  - AlexandrB 5y ago
    Maybe gambling is a better analog. Last time I checked gambling was pretty tightly regulated.
    - sentinel 5y ago
      Not a better analog at all.
      - unethical_ban 5y ago
        The reward system is quite similar, in my opinion.
    - bigphishy 5y ago
      Excellent analogy.
- karaterobot 5y ago
  And yet, regulating off-label usage of opioids doesn't seem to be very effective at reducing addiction either. So perhaps this analogy doesn't work, and we should acknowledge that using social media and becoming addicted to opioids are substantively different?
  - charwalker 5y ago
    The addiction process has a mental component that in some people is stronger than the physical addiction. This seems more a thread on addiction and bad habits vs aligning the technical specs of each issue.
  - lhopki01 5y ago
    There are many countries around the world that don't seem to have the same issues with opioids so something must be different. What is it apart from regulation?
- CountDrewku 5y ago
  You realize ending the drug war is largely favorable to most people on here right?
  - bestcoder69 5y ago
    I haven't polled HN, but I get the sense it's more about regulating formerly black market drugs, rather than deregulating pharmaceuticals. Anyone on the 2nd side should do a deep dive on buying "clean" delta 8 THC.
    - CountDrewku 5y ago
      >I haven't polled HN, but I get the sense it's more about regulating formerly black market drugs, rather than deregulating pharmaceuticals. That's called cognitive dissonance. Pharmaceuticals already have the shit regulated out of them and it obviously doesn't work.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Uhhrrr 5y ago
  I have actually done this, and it works great! Would recommend.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
unethical_ban 5y ago
We haven't banned cigarettes or alcohol, but we have put labels, restrictions and public ad campaigns into place to govern the behavior of their sellers, and to inform the public of their dangers. I think it is a terrible place where government does not have a responsibility, as the union of the people, to help inform citizens of the dangers of addictive products and to regulate unethical behavior of the sellers of such products. Your perspective completely ignores the intentionally addictive design of the products, and the network effects of having everyone and every business you know also using it.
- CountDrewku 5y ago
  The problem with that is what is and isn't disinformation isn't as clear cut as alcohol/tobacco being harmful for your health. The former could be easily abused to create a certain narrative.
- lr4444lr 5y ago
  There is no amount of tobacco, and probably no amount of alcohol, that has any health benefits. It's completely toxic. What you're advocating is more like suggesting we might also consider putting labels on cheese about the risk of eating too much saturated fat, or heck, a warning on most green vegetables for people taking Coumadin and other blood thinners. The warning labels anyway are not placed on these things you mention on the basis of addictive qualities.
  - unethical_ban 5y ago
    Please cite the health benefits of doomscrolling twitter, playing candy crush for hours, etc. etc. If it is proven that these companies have internal research acknowledging negative psychological effects of this addictive behavior, and ignored it and the widespread social damage it does (the social media specifically, not candy crush), then it would be as big a bombshell as the tobacco industry in the 2000s. So I disagree on your distinction in the first line. I would use the example of putting warning labels on sugary foods and soda more than I would about cheese. Why? Because I disagree with your final line, too. Cigarettes wouldn't be such a problem if they weren't proven to be addictive. It's precisely because they are so habit forming and unhealthy that warnings are necessary. TLDR: The thesis here is that Facebook has internal documents acknowledging that the system they have created has negative psychological and societal consequences, they know it, and choose to obfuscate it rather than eliminate it. As more information comes out, it doesn't seem unreasonable for governments to step in and at least have public awareness campaigns on the dangers of social media overuse. It will be tough because it's not as clean cut as "this is your brain on drugs", but it is necessary. And finally... I don't know how we do it as easily with traditional media, but we collectively have to recognize the patterns of rage-bait and journalistic malfeasance that cable news is the leader in committing, especially Fox. The more traditional "news" label being applied to them, government intervention is a much trickier thing, so it may be more wise to come at it from a different angle.
bbarn 5y ago
There are places in the world where these services are the only option if you wish to engage in the US equivalent of simple text messaging. I have been "that guy" that doesn't want to use the platform the rest of the social group uses, and it sucks. Is it so much to ask for honesty from a company these days?
Steltek 5y ago
Pardon but network effect much? In my area, FB is a huge resource for community groups and news. It would probably make local parent life more difficult to unilaterally cut off FB. It's a good market opportunity actually. Too bad NextDoor is basically known as "racist people alerting their neighbors that a black person is out walking their dog" or some nonsense.
notacoward 5y ago
"If you don't like vaccines..." At first I thought that was a bit too facile, they have nothing to do with each other, but ... is that true? Other people using Facebook to spread hate and misinformation (including vaccine misinformation) does affect me. They affect who gets elected (or appointed) and what policies get enacted. We're already seeing real tangible effects at the state level, and with the 2022 elections we might see more at the federal level. (That's just the US. The same is absolutely true elsewhere, but it's harder for me to come up with examples that are both accurate and familiar to most readers.) In the sense that they both affect public health - political/economic/social in one case, physical in another - hate/misinformation and vaccine refusal are similar. And for the same reasons, "if you don't like..." is an unhelpful response.
- CountDrewku 5y ago
  Exactly how does it affect you if you're vaccinated?
  - heartbreak 5y ago
    Medical resources are finite, and there are people who need non-Covid medical care competing for those limited resources. Getting pretty tired of having the same argument with people who are smart enough to figure this out on their own.
    - CountDrewku 5y ago
      Yeah you're right so you should have the same issue with obese people. Actually you should have MORE of a problem with them than un-vaccinated since they've been a consistent burden on the system for far longer. Getting pretty tired of the hypocritical and illogical dissonance displayed from people who should be smart enough to think the ENTIRE picture through on their own.
      - heartbreak 5y ago
        Really? Your response is, “What about fat people?” If we could dramatically reduce the negative impacts of obesity with a shot you better believe I’d want that mandated too.
CountDrewku 5y ago
Because they're authoritarians. There's a large cultural push by people to use government to bludgeon everyone else with their values. I'm not sure when it switched but it's seems to be more and more acceptable to force people into acting a certain way. It's really anti-american and anti-progressive imo. A government controlled social media ripe for propaganda seems far more terrifying to me than what's currently on facebook.
marricks 5y ago
FB has money to buy the smartest developers, psychologist, and advertisers to make you buy stuff, keep you on their platform, and make you feel what they want you to feel. Is it as addictive as heroin? Probably not, but if they can do that they probably will some day. Of course they should be regulated.
drbojingle 5y ago
if you don't like being poor, just be rich, don't know why so many people here think parents and adults are not capable of regulating themselves and their kids.
decebalus1 5y ago
> If you don’t like Facebook just don’t use Facebook, WhatsApp, or Instagram. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46105934 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46105934

fighterpilot 5y ago

The problem is roundabout externalities. If you're a genocide victim in Myanmar, whether or not you stayed off FB is irrelevant. The other problem is informed consent. Kids don't have the mental defences to avoid the dopamine trap. Whether parents allow the kids is beside the point. A parent can allow a kid to have sex but it's still illegal because the kid isn't capable of consenting.

brap 5y ago

I had to read through way too many comments to get to a sane one.

dirkt 5y ago

While I agree, and while I do that myself, the social pressure to use Facebook/WhatsApp/Instagram is immense. And it's worse for kids. I have to constantly explain to people why I don't use those, and they still keep trying to convince me that I should.

015a 5y ago

If you don't like Oxycontin, just don't use Oxycontin, Dilaudid, or Fentanyl. Don't know why so many people here think adults are not capable of regulating themselves.

mr_toad 5y ago
Chemical dependency is a real thing with serious medical effects. Severe cases of withdrawal can actually be fatal.
- 015a 5y ago
  Social media dependency is a real thing, with serious medical side effects, which can include Depression, which in severe cases can actually be fatal. But, you know, prescription medicine dependence, its different, right? Right. Its gotta be different. And the reason its different is because... fewer people use social media? No. Fewer people suffer from mental health issues? Definitely not. Fewer people have overtly negative outcomes, including death, from mental health issues? Nope. So, actually, the only reason its different is: We've fully studied and have a mature grasp of the personal and social impact of some chemical dependencies. The same can not be said of mental health, and all the evidence you need for this immaturity can be found in comments like some in this thread, or those from Zuckerberg. The cigarette companies are commissioning studies saying smoking is healthy, and people still downplay the victims. If you've ever wondered how anyone can think smoking is healthy; in 10 years, some may look back to the '10s and wonder the same thing about social media. How could anyone have worked for Facebook, defended them, saying they've done more good than bad?
  - kmlx 5y ago
    > Social media dependency is a real thing, with serious medical side effects citation? or source? i'm asking since it's the first time i'm seeing this idea.
an-allen 5y ago
Chemical Addiction != scrolling facebook
- 015a 5y ago
  Of that, we are in agreement; one is popping a pill which releases chemicals in your brain which over time correlate with a measurable reduction in quality of life; the other is interacting with an app which releases chemicals in your brain which over time correlate with a measurable reduction in quality of life. Definitely on the same page; not a strict mathematical equivalence.
- jeffrallen 5y ago
  Facebook's researchers found the opposite...
- AlexandrB 5y ago
  Maybe gambling is a better analog. Last time I checked gambling was pretty tightly regulated.
  - sentinel 5y ago
    Not a better analog at all.
    - unethical_ban 5y ago
      The reward system is quite similar, in my opinion.
  - bigphishy 5y ago
    Excellent analogy.
karaterobot 5y ago
And yet, regulating off-label usage of opioids doesn't seem to be very effective at reducing addiction either. So perhaps this analogy doesn't work, and we should acknowledge that using social media and becoming addicted to opioids are substantively different?
- charwalker 5y ago
  The addiction process has a mental component that in some people is stronger than the physical addiction. This seems more a thread on addiction and bad habits vs aligning the technical specs of each issue.
- lhopki01 5y ago
  There are many countries around the world that don't seem to have the same issues with opioids so something must be different. What is it apart from regulation?
CountDrewku 5y ago
You realize ending the drug war is largely favorable to most people on here right?
- bestcoder69 5y ago
  I haven't polled HN, but I get the sense it's more about regulating formerly black market drugs, rather than deregulating pharmaceuticals. Anyone on the 2nd side should do a deep dive on buying "clean" delta 8 THC.
  - CountDrewku 5y ago
    >I haven't polled HN, but I get the sense it's more about regulating formerly black market drugs, rather than deregulating pharmaceuticals. That's called cognitive dissonance. Pharmaceuticals already have the shit regulated out of them and it obviously doesn't work.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Uhhrrr 5y ago
I have actually done this, and it works great! Would recommend.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

unethical_ban 5y ago

We haven't banned cigarettes or alcohol, but we have put labels, restrictions and public ad campaigns into place to govern the behavior of their sellers, and to inform the public of their dangers. I think it is a terrible place where government does not have a responsibility, as the union of the people, to help inform citizens of the dangers of addictive products and to regulate unethical behavior of the sellers of such products. Your perspective completely ignores the intentionally addictive design of the products, and the network effects of having everyone and every business you know also using it.

CountDrewku 5y ago
The problem with that is what is and isn't disinformation isn't as clear cut as alcohol/tobacco being harmful for your health. The former could be easily abused to create a certain narrative.
lr4444lr 5y ago
There is no amount of tobacco, and probably no amount of alcohol, that has any health benefits. It's completely toxic. What you're advocating is more like suggesting we might also consider putting labels on cheese about the risk of eating too much saturated fat, or heck, a warning on most green vegetables for people taking Coumadin and other blood thinners. The warning labels anyway are not placed on these things you mention on the basis of addictive qualities.
- unethical_ban 5y ago
  Please cite the health benefits of doomscrolling twitter, playing candy crush for hours, etc. etc. If it is proven that these companies have internal research acknowledging negative psychological effects of this addictive behavior, and ignored it and the widespread social damage it does (the social media specifically, not candy crush), then it would be as big a bombshell as the tobacco industry in the 2000s. So I disagree on your distinction in the first line. I would use the example of putting warning labels on sugary foods and soda more than I would about cheese. Why? Because I disagree with your final line, too. Cigarettes wouldn't be such a problem if they weren't proven to be addictive. It's precisely because they are so habit forming and unhealthy that warnings are necessary. TLDR: The thesis here is that Facebook has internal documents acknowledging that the system they have created has negative psychological and societal consequences, they know it, and choose to obfuscate it rather than eliminate it. As more information comes out, it doesn't seem unreasonable for governments to step in and at least have public awareness campaigns on the dangers of social media overuse. It will be tough because it's not as clean cut as "this is your brain on drugs", but it is necessary. And finally... I don't know how we do it as easily with traditional media, but we collectively have to recognize the patterns of rage-bait and journalistic malfeasance that cable news is the leader in committing, especially Fox. The more traditional "news" label being applied to them, government intervention is a much trickier thing, so it may be more wise to come at it from a different angle.

bbarn 5y ago

There are places in the world where these services are the only option if you wish to engage in the US equivalent of simple text messaging. I have been "that guy" that doesn't want to use the platform the rest of the social group uses, and it sucks. Is it so much to ask for honesty from a company these days?

Steltek 5y ago

Pardon but network effect much? In my area, FB is a huge resource for community groups and news. It would probably make local parent life more difficult to unilaterally cut off FB. It's a good market opportunity actually. Too bad NextDoor is basically known as "racist people alerting their neighbors that a black person is out walking their dog" or some nonsense.

notacoward 5y ago

"If you don't like vaccines..." At first I thought that was a bit too facile, they have nothing to do with each other, but ... is that true? Other people using Facebook to spread hate and misinformation (including vaccine misinformation) does affect me. They affect who gets elected (or appointed) and what policies get enacted. We're already seeing real tangible effects at the state level, and with the 2022 elections we might see more at the federal level. (That's just the US. The same is absolutely true elsewhere, but it's harder for me to come up with examples that are both accurate and familiar to most readers.) In the sense that they both affect public health - political/economic/social in one case, physical in another - hate/misinformation and vaccine refusal are similar. And for the same reasons, "if you don't like..." is an unhelpful response.

CountDrewku 5y ago
Exactly how does it affect you if you're vaccinated?
- heartbreak 5y ago
  Medical resources are finite, and there are people who need non-Covid medical care competing for those limited resources. Getting pretty tired of having the same argument with people who are smart enough to figure this out on their own.
  - CountDrewku 5y ago
    Yeah you're right so you should have the same issue with obese people. Actually you should have MORE of a problem with them than un-vaccinated since they've been a consistent burden on the system for far longer. Getting pretty tired of the hypocritical and illogical dissonance displayed from people who should be smart enough to think the ENTIRE picture through on their own.
    - heartbreak 5y ago
      Really? Your response is, “What about fat people?” If we could dramatically reduce the negative impacts of obesity with a shot you better believe I’d want that mandated too.

CountDrewku 5y ago

Because they're authoritarians. There's a large cultural push by people to use government to bludgeon everyone else with their values. I'm not sure when it switched but it's seems to be more and more acceptable to force people into acting a certain way. It's really anti-american and anti-progressive imo. A government controlled social media ripe for propaganda seems far more terrifying to me than what's currently on facebook.

marricks 5y ago

FB has money to buy the smartest developers, psychologist, and advertisers to make you buy stuff, keep you on their platform, and make you feel what they want you to feel. Is it as addictive as heroin? Probably not, but if they can do that they probably will some day. Of course they should be regulated.

drbojingle 5y ago

if you don't like being poor, just be rich, don't know why so many people here think parents and adults are not capable of regulating themselves and their kids.

decebalus1 5y ago

> If you don’t like Facebook just don’t use Facebook, WhatsApp, or Instagram. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46105934 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46105934