6 ms·

Creating regulations like this may end up acting as a regulatory moat for existing social network companies. This probably makes the overall social media pie sm

by czhu12 4y ago

Creating regulations like this may end up acting as a regulatory moat for existing social network companies. This probably makes the overall social media pie smaller overall but guarantees incumbents slice of the pie. We've seen this happen in other highly regulated areas such as healthcare, telecommunications, etc. I suspect the way things are trending, in 10 years, very few entrepreneurs would be willing to start a new social media company. Clearly the regulators see this as a potential downside, which is why the $100 million in gross revenue provision was added.

mc32 4y ago
On the other hand, we want to prevent new companies forming on the premise they can make money from gamifying their product so much it becomes addictive. Now, addictiveness has to have some definition to be useful. It can't be some odd random user who suffers from some kind of condition that prevents them from self-regulating their particular addiction whereas for example other people don't get addicted. There have to be some thresholds and milestones which indicate some service is "addictive" and then regulate against that.
- throw_m239339 4y ago
  > we want to prevent new companies forming on the premise they can make money from gamifying their product so much it becomes addictive Not if the existing companies are still allowed to do exactly that, or it's just called regulatory capture and serves the interests of Reddit/Twitter/Facebook/TikTok and co. Either it's illegal for everybody to exploit mental illness for profit or it's legal for everybody.
  - mc32 4y ago
    No disagreement there.
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  I think when companies consult with behavioral, and other, psychologists in order to craft better ways to wring more engagement out of their users, those companies are intentionally making their products addictive. I don't see it as being much different than exploiting the addictive potential of new nicotine salts, or exploiting additives to cigarettes to do the same. It can be spun however anyone wants to spin it, but at the end of the day, that's exploiting biology to subvert the will of others. And yes, I know this can describe advertising, as well.
  - mc32 4y ago
    Agreed. This is why the "metaverse" needs oversight as well. It will be a new frontier ripe for gamification, explication and general behavioral control.
    - westurner 4y ago
      No, every business optimizes yield. Smart businesses optimize UX for conversion. FREE with no revenue is loss. What's next? Suing vegas for the lights? You don't want to gamble? Don't go to Vegas. They already have "How much time have I spent in here?" features. You may not optimize yield because the children are compulsive addictive and it's the internet's fault. What's next? Suing the bar for allowing you to spend time there? You'll have to make it more unbearable. Just do a little more censorship for me too, mmkay?
      - westurner 4y ago
        How about the movies? Are they allowed to optimize for engagement by screen testing, or no? It's not Art it's Ari: You want to sell an art film? Take it to an art film festival. How are they supposed to know that you don't want to be in the store anymore?
        westurner 4y ago
        So, just {Facebook,} has to have a timer at the top? Above the fold? Indicating cumulative time spent? What about Amazon? For context here, there are many existing methods for limiting ones access to certain DNS domains and applications at the client. A reasonable person can: - Add an /etc/hosts file entry: `etchosts='/etc/hosts' echo '127.0.0.1 domain.com www.domain.com' >> "${etchosts}` - Install a browser extension for limiting time spent by domain - Buy a router that can limit access by DNS domain and time of day (with regard for the essential communications of others who could bypass default DNS blocking with a VPN that can be expected to also regularly fail) - Install an app (with access to the OS process space of other programs in order to restrict them) to limit time spent by application and/or DNS domain -- Enable "Focus Mode" in Android; with the "Digital Wellbeing" application -- Enable "Screen Time" in iOS; and also report on and limit usage of apps [and also to limit access to DNS domains, you'd also need required integration with a required browser] You can install just an IM (Instant Messenging) app, and only then learn strategies for focusing amidst information overload and alert fatigue. Some users do manage brands and provide customer service and support non-blocked but blocking essential communications, while managing their health at a desk all day. Some places literally require you to check your mobile device at the door. What should the default timer above the fold on just facebook be set to?
- hoseja 4y ago
  It's possible for an adult to enjoy these strongly addictive products responsibly, probably up until they figure out a way to audiovisually create heroin in your brain.
izzydata 4y ago
Ideally Facebook, Twitter and the like could be sued into oblivion instead.
heavyset_go 4y ago
If this is a concern, lobby for applying the law to companies or social networks over set sizes. Tangential laws are proposed in the EU that apply to companies with market caps over ~$80 billion, for example[1]. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/24/22994234/eu-antitrust-legislation-dma-digital-markets-act-details https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/24/22994234/eu-antitrust-leg...
- czhu12 4y ago
  But why do we assume small social media companies are less addictive or harmful than big social media companies?
  - heavyset_go 4y ago
    I was just pointing out an option that addressed the OP's concern. I don't personally assume that.
  - Kbelicius 4y ago
    If the EU was making a directive on this topic it would not differentiate between company sizes because it thinks that the company size has a relation to how addictive their product is. The reason why it would differentiate on size is precisely the reasoning you presented in your previous post. Because it doesn't want to create moats around big existing players on the market. If you look at the act the GP linked to you'll see that one of its purposes it to tear down a non regulatory moat that those big existing player have. And because a small company, without a doubt, has less potential for harm on a societal level than a big company.
throw_m239339 4y ago
> I suspect the way things are trending, in 10 years, very few entrepreneurs would be willing to start a new social media company. I suspect that future social media will be even worse that Twitter/TikTok/Reddit and co, just like TikTok is even more unhinged than Facebook or Twitter. Social media is entertainment, entertainment is always pushing the limits of what is morally acceptable to broadcast because it's profitable and brings in more eyeballs. It's exactly the same reason as to why reality TV perverted television even more by turning TV into some voyeuristic dystopia. That's what social media is.
JohnJamesRambo 4y ago
> very few entrepreneurs would be willing to start a new social media company. I’m not sure this is a bad thing. Is the world better and happier from social media? Do we want it to keep rising from the ashes and sowing misery, ignorance, and depression? Maybe it is my nostalgia glasses but I feel like everyone I know was happier when the only way to communicate long distance for the average person was a rotary phone that weighed about 20 lbs.
- benatkin 4y ago
  Yes, it's a very bad thing. There are a lot of different types of social media. How about projects with Discourse forums? That could be considered social media. Do you want to force them onto Facebook?
  - smt88 4y ago
    Discord doesn't have an addictive algorithm and seems like it would be totally safe.
    - yardstick 4y ago
      They send notifications to your phone whenever someone messages you. Those unread icons are addictive, at least for me I always have to actively think to not open them immediately. That’s just the natural outcome of blurring chat rooms with social media.
      - judge2020 4y ago
        That still applies for non-social media. My iOS IRC client connected to my znc bouncer also shows notifications. Same for iMessage which is more profile-like, since you can send memoji and stickers and play games with your friends (eg. GamePigeon), which is why the bill tries to exclude 'chat' apps and email apps.
        yardstick 4y ago
ma2rten 4y ago
Maybe there could be some kind of loophole where companies spin out their California operations into a separate company which has less revenue?
throwaway0x7E6 4y ago
that's exactly why faecebook etc are fully onboard with other such initiatives, like fines for hate speech. they want it to be prohibitively expensive to dethrone them.
donthellbanme 4y ago

by czhu12 4y ago

mc32 4y ago

On the other hand, we want to prevent new companies forming on the premise they can make money from gamifying their product so much it becomes addictive. Now, addictiveness has to have some definition to be useful. It can't be some odd random user who suffers from some kind of condition that prevents them from self-regulating their particular addiction whereas for example other people don't get addicted. There have to be some thresholds and milestones which indicate some service is "addictive" and then regulate against that.

throw_m239339 4y ago
> we want to prevent new companies forming on the premise they can make money from gamifying their product so much it becomes addictive Not if the existing companies are still allowed to do exactly that, or it's just called regulatory capture and serves the interests of Reddit/Twitter/Facebook/TikTok and co. Either it's illegal for everybody to exploit mental illness for profit or it's legal for everybody.
- mc32 4y ago
  No disagreement there.
heavyset_go 4y ago
I think when companies consult with behavioral, and other, psychologists in order to craft better ways to wring more engagement out of their users, those companies are intentionally making their products addictive. I don't see it as being much different than exploiting the addictive potential of new nicotine salts, or exploiting additives to cigarettes to do the same. It can be spun however anyone wants to spin it, but at the end of the day, that's exploiting biology to subvert the will of others. And yes, I know this can describe advertising, as well.
- mc32 4y ago
  Agreed. This is why the "metaverse" needs oversight as well. It will be a new frontier ripe for gamification, explication and general behavioral control.
  - westurner 4y ago
    No, every business optimizes yield. Smart businesses optimize UX for conversion. FREE with no revenue is loss. What's next? Suing vegas for the lights? You don't want to gamble? Don't go to Vegas. They already have "How much time have I spent in here?" features. You may not optimize yield because the children are compulsive addictive and it's the internet's fault. What's next? Suing the bar for allowing you to spend time there? You'll have to make it more unbearable. Just do a little more censorship for me too, mmkay?
    - westurner 4y ago
      How about the movies? Are they allowed to optimize for engagement by screen testing, or no? It's not Art it's Ari: You want to sell an art film? Take it to an art film festival. How are they supposed to know that you don't want to be in the store anymore?
      - westurner 4y ago
        So, just {Facebook,} has to have a timer at the top? Above the fold? Indicating cumulative time spent? What about Amazon? For context here, there are many existing methods for limiting ones access to certain DNS domains and applications at the client. A reasonable person can: - Add an /etc/hosts file entry: `etchosts='/etc/hosts' echo '127.0.0.1 domain.com www.domain.com' >> "${etchosts}` - Install a browser extension for limiting time spent by domain - Buy a router that can limit access by DNS domain and time of day (with regard for the essential communications of others who could bypass default DNS blocking with a VPN that can be expected to also regularly fail) - Install an app (with access to the OS process space of other programs in order to restrict them) to limit time spent by application and/or DNS domain -- Enable "Focus Mode" in Android; with the "Digital Wellbeing" application -- Enable "Screen Time" in iOS; and also report on and limit usage of apps [and also to limit access to DNS domains, you'd also need required integration with a required browser] You can install just an IM (Instant Messenging) app, and only then learn strategies for focusing amidst information overload and alert fatigue. Some users do manage brands and provide customer service and support non-blocked but blocking essential communications, while managing their health at a desk all day. Some places literally require you to check your mobile device at the door. What should the default timer above the fold on just facebook be set to?
hoseja 4y ago
It's possible for an adult to enjoy these strongly addictive products responsibly, probably up until they figure out a way to audiovisually create heroin in your brain.

izzydata 4y ago

Ideally Facebook, Twitter and the like could be sued into oblivion instead.

heavyset_go 4y ago

If this is a concern, lobby for applying the law to companies or social networks over set sizes. Tangential laws are proposed in the EU that apply to companies with market caps over ~$80 billion, for example[1]. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/24/22994234/eu-antitrust-legislation-dma-digital-markets-act-details https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/24/22994234/eu-antitrust-leg...

czhu12 4y ago
But why do we assume small social media companies are less addictive or harmful than big social media companies?
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  I was just pointing out an option that addressed the OP's concern. I don't personally assume that.
- Kbelicius 4y ago
  If the EU was making a directive on this topic it would not differentiate between company sizes because it thinks that the company size has a relation to how addictive their product is. The reason why it would differentiate on size is precisely the reasoning you presented in your previous post. Because it doesn't want to create moats around big existing players on the market. If you look at the act the GP linked to you'll see that one of its purposes it to tear down a non regulatory moat that those big existing player have. And because a small company, without a doubt, has less potential for harm on a societal level than a big company.

throw_m239339 4y ago

> I suspect the way things are trending, in 10 years, very few entrepreneurs would be willing to start a new social media company. I suspect that future social media will be even worse that Twitter/TikTok/Reddit and co, just like TikTok is even more unhinged than Facebook or Twitter. Social media is entertainment, entertainment is always pushing the limits of what is morally acceptable to broadcast because it's profitable and brings in more eyeballs. It's exactly the same reason as to why reality TV perverted television even more by turning TV into some voyeuristic dystopia. That's what social media is.

JohnJamesRambo 4y ago

> very few entrepreneurs would be willing to start a new social media company. I’m not sure this is a bad thing. Is the world better and happier from social media? Do we want it to keep rising from the ashes and sowing misery, ignorance, and depression? Maybe it is my nostalgia glasses but I feel like everyone I know was happier when the only way to communicate long distance for the average person was a rotary phone that weighed about 20 lbs.

benatkin 4y ago
Yes, it's a very bad thing. There are a lot of different types of social media. How about projects with Discourse forums? That could be considered social media. Do you want to force them onto Facebook?
- smt88 4y ago
  Discord doesn't have an addictive algorithm and seems like it would be totally safe.
  - yardstick 4y ago
    They send notifications to your phone whenever someone messages you. Those unread icons are addictive, at least for me I always have to actively think to not open them immediately. That’s just the natural outcome of blurring chat rooms with social media.
    - judge2020 4y ago
      That still applies for non-social media. My iOS IRC client connected to my znc bouncer also shows notifications. Same for iMessage which is more profile-like, since you can send memoji and stickers and play games with your friends (eg. GamePigeon), which is why the bill tries to exclude 'chat' apps and email apps.
      - yardstick 4y ago

ma2rten 4y ago

Maybe there could be some kind of loophole where companies spin out their California operations into a separate company which has less revenue?

throwaway0x7E6 4y ago

that's exactly why faecebook etc are fully onboard with other such initiatives, like fines for hate speech. they want it to be prohibitively expensive to dethrone them.

donthellbanme 4y ago