6 ms·

Literally nothing will change fir the better unless meta can profit off of positive mental health outcomes. Right now they profit from engagement. Engagement =

• jimkleiber 5y ago
  Makes me think about how other businesses have handled user addiction and whether they did so on their own volition—casinos, bars, lottery, etc. Just spit-balling: I think bars will kick people out once they've had too much to drink, sometimes from a legality standpoint, but also from a place of sympathy or even fear (this person will disrupt the environment). How would you say other businesses have handled this without government regulation?
  • heavyset_go 5y ago
    > Just spit-balling: I think bars will kick people out once they've had too much to drink, sometimes from a legality standpoint, but also from a place of sympathy or even fear (this person will disrupt the environment). There's heavy regulation, policing and liability here. Bars will cut people off and kick them out because if they let a person get tanked and they go hit someone with their car while drunk, that puts the business in jeopardy. Not only are there laws that make it a criminal offense, that's how a business loses its liquor license and gets held liable for potentially significant damages. My state has negligent serving of alcohol laws, and it also holds businesses responsible for any injuries, damages or deaths a drunk driver causes.
    • jimkleiber 5y ago
      Ah, so maybe it's more about legal compliance than I had thought. Do bars still cut off people for any non-legal reasons? Trying to find if these establishments do anything to curb addiction even when not forced by outside regulators.
• myhf 5y ago
  > how does that make meta money? It only has to make them more money than the alternative, which is losing the ability to operate within countries that protect the health of their citizens.
• smt88 5y ago
  > Literally nothing will change fir the better unless meta can profit off of positive mental health outcomes. There are a lot of businesses like this, with a profit incentive that is directly at odds with the health of their customers. You can't solve that fundamental issue, so you regulate them or tax the harm. If you make the harm more expensive, the profit motive is (at least a bit) blunted.
  • s1artibartfast 5y ago
    Or you take some individual responsibility to moderate them. Everyone forgets about this option.
    • ben_w 5y ago
      If individual responsibility was enough, social media wouldn’t be a problem. Same deal with obesity. Blaming individuals is how we’re wired, but it’s not functional when you’re concerned about population behaviours.
      • s1artibartfast 5y ago
        Im not blaming anyone, I am identifying a root cause. Any durable changes in population behavior will individuals to take primary responsibility for their social media consumption. Like obesity, no amount of health warnings, sugar taxes, ect on products will solve the obesity epidemic if more individuals don't assume agency for what they put in their body and the bodies of their children.
        • netizen-936824 5y ago
          None of us have any real agency, and the sooner we admit that the sooner we can start truly analyzing cause and effect of behaviors. We need to stop lying to ourselves if we want to truly enact change Free will is an illusion
          • s1artibartfast 5y ago
• Bancakes 5y ago
  You're implying meta will or even can provide mental health.
  • lostlogin 5y ago
    Oh they can! It just the detail that’s disputed. Are you wanting good health or bad health?
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]