9 ms·

Everyone's piling on FB and TikTok (and yes, they are designed for engagement/addiction). I think there's something more fundamental to it, though. I'm pretty

Everyone's piling on FB and TikTok (and yes, they are designed for engagement/addiction). I think there's something more fundamental to it, though. I'm pretty sure the same mechanisms hold here on HN and on web forums and that its inherent in asynchronous online social fora. Other commenters so far seem to be overlooking this. I can't imagine any regulation that would address the root cause of the problem without completely destroying the good aspects of the web and the internet. Fundamentally we as individuals need to learn how to engage in a healthy way and be self-aware.

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
Overall, yes to your post, but it does not touch several related aspects that is driving the piling on ( and you do not expand on the fact that they are designed for addiction, which translated means that they are made to tailor made for any individual to be addicted to it ). << Other commenters so far seem to be overlooking this. I honestly question that assertion. I would venture to say that most people here are well aware of how social media operates and how general population responds to it. << I can't imagine any regulation that would address the root cause of the problem without completely destroying the good aspects of the web and the internet. This is admittedly the hard part, but I can absolutely imagine appropriate regulation should social media get to the point it is actually destructive to the fabric of society. I am willing to sacrifice some of the internet for it too given how much of a cesspool it has become. It may not be the time yet, but I suppose the weird geopolitical constellation now may actually provide a conduit for just such change. I am not celebrating, because as always, it will likely be the worst of both worlds. << Fundamentally we as individuals need to learn how to engage in a healthy way and be self-aware. Yes, but ideally without making an attempt to go viral in the process. I would argue this is not a healthy way to do this.
- hnaddict 4y ago
  > This is admittedly the hard part, but I can absolutely imagine appropriate regulation should social media get to the point it is actually destructive to the fabric of society. I am willing to sacrifice some of the internet for it too given how much of a cesspool it has become. Reading this, I'd even rephrase it stronger: I can't imagine any regulation that would address the root cause of the problem without violating fundamental human rights of private correspondence and access to general computation. There is certainly room for potentially appropriate regulation of the cesspools of today and the adtech-surveillance-engagement machinery can go die but let's not open up for scenarios where it becomes legally unfeasible to run a phpBB instance for a community (yes, you can have addiction of those exacerbating depression as well). > Yes, but ideally without making an attempt to go viral in the process. I would argue this is not a healthy way to do this. Fo sho.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
    << I can't imagine any regulation that would address the root cause of the problem without violating fundamental human rights of private correspondence and access to general computation. It is a fascinating question and I am officially now just engaging in a hypothetical. I want to keep it US-centric for now. Flying and driving in US was deemed a privilege and not a right despite very clearly making citizen's life either very difficult ( with not being able to fly ) or downright impossible in some locales ( based on how US is driver centric ). What makes internet so different from driving that would likely result in a different legal categorization?
    - bryan_w 4y ago
      For once, the answer is actually The First Amendment. It prevents the government from interfering with speech and association. If there was an amendment about freedom of road/air travel, then those would no longer be "privileges"
    - hnaddict 4y ago
      The main difference would probably be that being on the internet absentmindedly or poorly doesn't generally cause deaths and damage to third parties to the same extent as driving.

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago

Overall, yes to your post, but it does not touch several related aspects that is driving the piling on ( and you do not expand on the fact that they are designed for addiction, which translated means that they are made to tailor made for any individual to be addicted to it ). << Other commenters so far seem to be overlooking this. I honestly question that assertion. I would venture to say that most people here are well aware of how social media operates and how general population responds to it. << I can't imagine any regulation that would address the root cause of the problem without completely destroying the good aspects of the web and the internet. This is admittedly the hard part, but I can absolutely imagine appropriate regulation should social media get to the point it is actually destructive to the fabric of society. I am willing to sacrifice some of the internet for it too given how much of a cesspool it has become. It may not be the time yet, but I suppose the weird geopolitical constellation now may actually provide a conduit for just such change. I am not celebrating, because as always, it will likely be the worst of both worlds. << Fundamentally we as individuals need to learn how to engage in a healthy way and be self-aware. Yes, but ideally without making an attempt to go viral in the process. I would argue this is not a healthy way to do this.

hnaddict 4y ago
> This is admittedly the hard part, but I can absolutely imagine appropriate regulation should social media get to the point it is actually destructive to the fabric of society. I am willing to sacrifice some of the internet for it too given how much of a cesspool it has become. Reading this, I'd even rephrase it stronger: I can't imagine any regulation that would address the root cause of the problem without violating fundamental human rights of private correspondence and access to general computation. There is certainly room for potentially appropriate regulation of the cesspools of today and the adtech-surveillance-engagement machinery can go die but let's not open up for scenarios where it becomes legally unfeasible to run a phpBB instance for a community (yes, you can have addiction of those exacerbating depression as well). > Yes, but ideally without making an attempt to go viral in the process. I would argue this is not a healthy way to do this. Fo sho.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
  << I can't imagine any regulation that would address the root cause of the problem without violating fundamental human rights of private correspondence and access to general computation. It is a fascinating question and I am officially now just engaging in a hypothetical. I want to keep it US-centric for now. Flying and driving in US was deemed a privilege and not a right despite very clearly making citizen's life either very difficult ( with not being able to fly ) or downright impossible in some locales ( based on how US is driver centric ). What makes internet so different from driving that would likely result in a different legal categorization?
  - bryan_w 4y ago
    For once, the answer is actually The First Amendment. It prevents the government from interfering with speech and association. If there was an amendment about freedom of road/air travel, then those would no longer be "privileges"
  - hnaddict 4y ago
    The main difference would probably be that being on the internet absentmindedly or poorly doesn't generally cause deaths and damage to third parties to the same extent as driving.