6 ms·

Generally I am against government regulation of most media but I think its reached the point where something is needed. Platform algorithms are too good and the

Generally I am against government regulation of most media but I think its reached the point where something is needed. Platform algorithms are too good and they absolutely promote doom scrolling, media addiction, suicidal thoughts, poor self image, depression, and a host of other issues. Social media has not been a boon for kids or really anyone except marketers. On top of that video games absolutely target kids to spend money and are addictive. Roblox is built on this, so is Fortnight and similar games. Lets try regulation and see what happens; something has to change. Overall this is not a substitute for parents knowing what their kids are doing and regulating their media intake.

danShumway 3y ago
This is frustrating to read, and I hope that my reply doesn't come off as too snippy. But it really feels like people will do anything, including throwing away rights to privacy, infringing on free speech, and ignoring the advice of over 100 civil rights advocacy groups -- all just to avoid breaking up a few companies or directly legislating algorithms. I just do not understand how weakening constitutional rights is on the table for you and so many other people before antitrust is. It's not even the least invasive compelled speech option! If you've got to target speech, then on one hand we have, "giving the government the power to decide which platforms are liable for what and requiring that teenagers have their speech surveilled online even though multiple government actors involved in the bill are open about the fact that they'd like to use the government to suppress LGBTQ+ speech and consider all LGBTQ+ expression to be harmful for minors", vs "force social media platforms like Facebook to use a timeline rather than displaying algorithmic content." Both would be compelled speech, but if you absolutely have to compel something the second is a lot less dangerous than the first. Every time these conversations pop up there a few people gesturing wildly at the word "antitrust", and everyone else is saying, "well, we've tried literally everything possible, maybe we're at the point where we really do need to build a surveillance apparatus for every teenager in the US, there's just nothing else we can do." You don't have to infringe on the rights of every single minor in the country, you can break up abusive companies. It's totally allowed. We've done it before and it was great! Breaking up companies can be a healthy bonding activity for a divided country that's fun for the whole family and brings us all closer together, so just give it a try ;)
- andrekandre 3y ago
  > all just to avoid breaking up a few companies or directly legislating algorithms. assuming its true, why do they avoid it so much?
  - PartiallyTyped 3y ago
    $
- wonderwonder 3y ago
  Why do you see this as an anti trust issue? Why would Roblox, fortnite, Twitter, Instagram, etc. be broken up due to anti trust? I could see maybe forcing FB to drop Instagram, but Instagram would continue in the same way it currently exists. This is not an attack, perhaps I dont fully understand anti trust.
  - danShumway 3y ago
    That is a great question to ask. Sorry for a long answer, I'll try to trim it down and just give a couple of thoughts: ---- > Why would Roblox, fortnite, Twitter, Instagram, etc. be broken up due to anti trust? First, it's worth noting that at at least for Fortnite/Instagram in this list we should be talking about Epic/Meta. Perverse incentives with the same company owning both a games publishing platform and games that are featured on that platform might potentially be a part of Fortnite's continued success. There's a ton of debate about physical stores putting their own brands inside of general stores -- for the most part we allow this kind of thing, but we should be very careful about the potential downsides and potential conflicts of interest. I don't think it's unreasonable to at least think about antitrust in those situations. Where Instagram is concerned, the case is a little bit more clear. Threads would not have had the launch it had if it wasn't a Meta property. It didn't have to start from scratch; it launched with Instagram's userbase. And Instagram/Threads aren't really competitors in the most traditional sense, they're two arms of the same company. The question where Instagram is concerned is not whether Instagram itself is too big, it's whether or not having one company that owns Instagram and Facebook and Oculus and Threads and whatever else Facebook is getting its grubby hands into is too much. Which leads to: ---- > but Instagram would continue in the same way it currently exists I'm not sure I agree with this. I think that a lot of abusive behaviors online stem from large players shaping what the business models can be, and those business models and attitudes towards moderation and user abuse trickle down into lower players. Instagram is in alignment with Facebook's general views towards privacy, I think the attitudes of Meta as a company really do impact how apps like Instagram are built and run. In other words, I don't think it's just a coincidence that Instagram's privacy and approach to algorithmic content basically mirrors Facebook. I think it's because they're the same company even if they say they aren't, they're aligned with Meta's goals. So, let's talk about Roblox then: ---- So Roblox isn't a giant company, and it is hecking exploitative. But, does that mean that antitrust isn't relevant to Roblox? I would argue no. Back in 2021 as part of investigations into antitrust with Apple, the DOJ started a probe into whether or not Apple privileged Roblox by allowing it to circumvent app store rules. Roblox isn't giant, but it's big enough that other large platforms are willing to privilege it. And the antitrust solution there doesn't have to involve breaking up a company (although... we could talk about Apple too if we do want to break up companies :)). It can also mean recognizing how size can allow other giant companies to excuse abusive behavior in existing businesses while suppressing smaller startups that might otherwise compete. Would Roblox be as popular if it was held to the same strict standards that every other app was held to? The app can get away with things that other competing apps can't get away with, because Apple has so much control over the mobile market and Apple decides where to enforce its rules. ---- Getting further away from "break them up", there are also a lot of anticompetitive things that companies do before they become giant behemoths. Facebook/Instagram provided great examples of that -- even early on blocking links to competing websites, using their API to deliberately push out potential threats. These are ways that unethical companies build moats around their businesses and block more ethical alternatives. So maybe not "break them up", but if another platform pops up, Roblox shouldn't by default be able to just buy that company. If Twitter starts blocking links to other social media companies, that's something that should be regarded as anticompetitive and it's something that we could have a regulatory response to, even if we don't think Twitter is a monopoly. My feeling is that a lot of sites are able to become giant behemoths by doing anticompetitive stuff that antitrust law should be blocking, and very often they get slaps on the wrist and that's it. The consequence of that policy decision is that only the bad actors manage to survive because they're the only companies willing to pull this kind of garbage. ---- One last thing to cycle around to -- touching again on Roblox and Apple, I want to again push at this idea that monopolistic behavior inside of a market shapes the entire market, not just what the dominant players do. We have an ad-driven Internet where personal data is the defacto currency. We are in an attention economy where optimizing for outrage/depression is literally good business. There are almost standardized policies in the market around how user data is treated and about what rights consumers have when using these platforms -- to the point where Threads can launch without a timeline -- with only an algorithmic view. And it's tempting to look at those businesses and say "okay, that's terrible, but all the tiny businesses would be the same if they went away, that's just the market and it's how the market would always act". But I don't know that that's true. I think that when you have search monopolies and mobile market monopolies and advertising monopolies who are dictating how the Internet should be monetized, that leads to businesses going down a certain route and it leads to certain businesses thriving and other businesses failing, and it leads to the market focusing on developing one revenue model. Roblox and Fortnite are huge on mobile, including iOS. And the Apple App Store encourages a subscription model with micropurchases. That is the best app monetization strategy for Apple's profits. It's undeniable that Apple has in many ways defined the mobile games market, they practically invented the modern market for mobile games. And it's not just iOS; Android tends to run in the opposite direction but has also had a huge impact on what kinds of games and apps run on your phone -- Android encourages more advertising and user tracking, and with only one store on Android for the majority of users, developers have learned that certain types of apps (ie, apps with ads) do better on Android. In general, if you want non-exploitative games for kids, a phone isn't the best option. But is that just how the market happened to work out, or is it a consequence of having one dominant revenue model for each phone? So I think that a lot of the companies that people are the most mad about are kind of giant and are involved in straightforwardly anticompetitive behavior, but I also think that their existence influences what the rest of the market looks like, including sub-markets that they almost entirely control. And also that even ignoring the giant companies, many smaller companies still have a lot of power to lock down competitors and to prevent more ethical alternatives from appearing.
scarface_74 3y ago
Having the government control what can be seen and have the power to do selective prosecution based on their belief system. What could possible go wrong.
- george-in-sd 3y ago
  Currently we have corporations with total power to control content. Having a (somewhat) representative system making the decisions may not be great but it is better than what we have now.
  - knome 3y ago
    I expect they'll aim for a system where people looking to control others will use it as a bludgeon to force their self-righteous moralizing on everyone else. They could as easily just require phone manufacturers to lock the phones of minors so parents have to approve what sites they can go to and what apps they can use. There already exists software to control PCs. Instead, they wish to punish everyone online because irresponsible parents can't be arsed to control where their children roam.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    So which corporation is controlling my ability to create a website and put my own content on it as long as it isn’t illegal?
  - danShumway 3y ago
    > Currently we have corporations with total power to control content. But see, this is exactly what I'm talking about above: "The corporations control everything we post." "Are you going to take away their power?" "We're going to give them everybody's drivers license and then spy on teenagers. That will help, somehow." ---- Even when you're outright stating the problem as "the companies are too big and have too much power and rival governments in their abilities to control discourse" you're still not jumping to antitrust, you're still jumping towards just giving the government power over speech. But what could possibly be a more straightforward and direct solution to "this company has too much power" than breaking up the company and just making it less powerful? Just as a general reminder, nobody on HN owes these companies anything. We're not obligated to protect Meta's ability to own Instagram, Threads, Facebook, and a VR platform all at the same time. We're certainly not obligated to throw teenagers under the bus before we throw Facebook under the bus. But hey, don't like antitrust? Weird, but OK that's fine. If you're extremely worried about Facebook controlling public squares online and you also don't want to break up the company, there are data-portability bills and account-migration bills and API-access bills and privacy bills that we could pass to help fix that problem and what's cool about those bills is that they don't likely violate the 1st Amendment and they don't open the doors up for the government to engage in viewpoint discrimination against marginalized groups.
WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
> Lets try regulation and see what happens; something has to change. The regulation to try is the passage of strong federal privacy laws. That may serve us better than gifting gov even more power - more ability to usurp our constitutional rights.
autoexec 3y ago
I agree something needs to change. I disagree that we should shoot ourselves in the foot and hope that somehow it leads to something we want too. We can target the problems directly without giving up our fundamental freedoms. If our elected officials were interested in doing that, they would have done it by now. What they are interested in, is restricting your rights. You're advocating for giving up your freedom without actually solving the problems you want addressed.
themitigating 3y ago
Lets try regulation and see what happens; something has to change. How difficult is it to undo a law that """"protects""" children? Political suicide for anyone

danShumway 3y ago

This is frustrating to read, and I hope that my reply doesn't come off as too snippy. But it really feels like people will do anything, including throwing away rights to privacy, infringing on free speech, and ignoring the advice of over 100 civil rights advocacy groups -- all just to avoid breaking up a few companies or directly legislating algorithms. I just do not understand how weakening constitutional rights is on the table for you and so many other people before antitrust is. It's not even the least invasive compelled speech option! If you've got to target speech, then on one hand we have, "giving the government the power to decide which platforms are liable for what and requiring that teenagers have their speech surveilled online even though multiple government actors involved in the bill are open about the fact that they'd like to use the government to suppress LGBTQ+ speech and consider all LGBTQ+ expression to be harmful for minors", vs "force social media platforms like Facebook to use a timeline rather than displaying algorithmic content." Both would be compelled speech, but if you absolutely have to compel something the second is a lot less dangerous than the first. Every time these conversations pop up there a few people gesturing wildly at the word "antitrust", and everyone else is saying, "well, we've tried literally everything possible, maybe we're at the point where we really do need to build a surveillance apparatus for every teenager in the US, there's just nothing else we can do." You don't have to infringe on the rights of every single minor in the country, you can break up abusive companies. It's totally allowed. We've done it before and it was great! Breaking up companies can be a healthy bonding activity for a divided country that's fun for the whole family and brings us all closer together, so just give it a try ;)

andrekandre 3y ago
> all just to avoid breaking up a few companies or directly legislating algorithms. assuming its true, why do they avoid it so much?
- PartiallyTyped 3y ago
  $
wonderwonder 3y ago
Why do you see this as an anti trust issue? Why would Roblox, fortnite, Twitter, Instagram, etc. be broken up due to anti trust? I could see maybe forcing FB to drop Instagram, but Instagram would continue in the same way it currently exists. This is not an attack, perhaps I dont fully understand anti trust.
- danShumway 3y ago
  That is a great question to ask. Sorry for a long answer, I'll try to trim it down and just give a couple of thoughts: ---- > Why would Roblox, fortnite, Twitter, Instagram, etc. be broken up due to anti trust? First, it's worth noting that at at least for Fortnite/Instagram in this list we should be talking about Epic/Meta. Perverse incentives with the same company owning both a games publishing platform and games that are featured on that platform might potentially be a part of Fortnite's continued success. There's a ton of debate about physical stores putting their own brands inside of general stores -- for the most part we allow this kind of thing, but we should be very careful about the potential downsides and potential conflicts of interest. I don't think it's unreasonable to at least think about antitrust in those situations. Where Instagram is concerned, the case is a little bit more clear. Threads would not have had the launch it had if it wasn't a Meta property. It didn't have to start from scratch; it launched with Instagram's userbase. And Instagram/Threads aren't really competitors in the most traditional sense, they're two arms of the same company. The question where Instagram is concerned is not whether Instagram itself is too big, it's whether or not having one company that owns Instagram and Facebook and Oculus and Threads and whatever else Facebook is getting its grubby hands into is too much. Which leads to: ---- > but Instagram would continue in the same way it currently exists I'm not sure I agree with this. I think that a lot of abusive behaviors online stem from large players shaping what the business models can be, and those business models and attitudes towards moderation and user abuse trickle down into lower players. Instagram is in alignment with Facebook's general views towards privacy, I think the attitudes of Meta as a company really do impact how apps like Instagram are built and run. In other words, I don't think it's just a coincidence that Instagram's privacy and approach to algorithmic content basically mirrors Facebook. I think it's because they're the same company even if they say they aren't, they're aligned with Meta's goals. So, let's talk about Roblox then: ---- So Roblox isn't a giant company, and it is hecking exploitative. But, does that mean that antitrust isn't relevant to Roblox? I would argue no. Back in 2021 as part of investigations into antitrust with Apple, the DOJ started a probe into whether or not Apple privileged Roblox by allowing it to circumvent app store rules. Roblox isn't giant, but it's big enough that other large platforms are willing to privilege it. And the antitrust solution there doesn't have to involve breaking up a company (although... we could talk about Apple too if we do want to break up companies :)). It can also mean recognizing how size can allow other giant companies to excuse abusive behavior in existing businesses while suppressing smaller startups that might otherwise compete. Would Roblox be as popular if it was held to the same strict standards that every other app was held to? The app can get away with things that other competing apps can't get away with, because Apple has so much control over the mobile market and Apple decides where to enforce its rules. ---- Getting further away from "break them up", there are also a lot of anticompetitive things that companies do before they become giant behemoths. Facebook/Instagram provided great examples of that -- even early on blocking links to competing websites, using their API to deliberately push out potential threats. These are ways that unethical companies build moats around their businesses and block more ethical alternatives. So maybe not "break them up", but if another platform pops up, Roblox shouldn't by default be able to just buy that company. If Twitter starts blocking links to other social media companies, that's something that should be regarded as anticompetitive and it's something that we could have a regulatory response to, even if we don't think Twitter is a monopoly. My feeling is that a lot of sites are able to become giant behemoths by doing anticompetitive stuff that antitrust law should be blocking, and very often they get slaps on the wrist and that's it. The consequence of that policy decision is that only the bad actors manage to survive because they're the only companies willing to pull this kind of garbage. ---- One last thing to cycle around to -- touching again on Roblox and Apple, I want to again push at this idea that monopolistic behavior inside of a market shapes the entire market, not just what the dominant players do. We have an ad-driven Internet where personal data is the defacto currency. We are in an attention economy where optimizing for outrage/depression is literally good business. There are almost standardized policies in the market around how user data is treated and about what rights consumers have when using these platforms -- to the point where Threads can launch without a timeline -- with only an algorithmic view. And it's tempting to look at those businesses and say "okay, that's terrible, but all the tiny businesses would be the same if they went away, that's just the market and it's how the market would always act". But I don't know that that's true. I think that when you have search monopolies and mobile market monopolies and advertising monopolies who are dictating how the Internet should be monetized, that leads to businesses going down a certain route and it leads to certain businesses thriving and other businesses failing, and it leads to the market focusing on developing one revenue model. Roblox and Fortnite are huge on mobile, including iOS. And the Apple App Store encourages a subscription model with micropurchases. That is the best app monetization strategy for Apple's profits. It's undeniable that Apple has in many ways defined the mobile games market, they practically invented the modern market for mobile games. And it's not just iOS; Android tends to run in the opposite direction but has also had a huge impact on what kinds of games and apps run on your phone -- Android encourages more advertising and user tracking, and with only one store on Android for the majority of users, developers have learned that certain types of apps (ie, apps with ads) do better on Android. In general, if you want non-exploitative games for kids, a phone isn't the best option. But is that just how the market happened to work out, or is it a consequence of having one dominant revenue model for each phone? So I think that a lot of the companies that people are the most mad about are kind of giant and are involved in straightforwardly anticompetitive behavior, but I also think that their existence influences what the rest of the market looks like, including sub-markets that they almost entirely control. And also that even ignoring the giant companies, many smaller companies still have a lot of power to lock down competitors and to prevent more ethical alternatives from appearing.

scarface_74 3y ago

Having the government control what can be seen and have the power to do selective prosecution based on their belief system. What could possible go wrong.

george-in-sd 3y ago
Currently we have corporations with total power to control content. Having a (somewhat) representative system making the decisions may not be great but it is better than what we have now.
- knome 3y ago
  I expect they'll aim for a system where people looking to control others will use it as a bludgeon to force their self-righteous moralizing on everyone else. They could as easily just require phone manufacturers to lock the phones of minors so parents have to approve what sites they can go to and what apps they can use. There already exists software to control PCs. Instead, they wish to punish everyone online because irresponsible parents can't be arsed to control where their children roam.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  So which corporation is controlling my ability to create a website and put my own content on it as long as it isn’t illegal?
- danShumway 3y ago
  > Currently we have corporations with total power to control content. But see, this is exactly what I'm talking about above: "The corporations control everything we post." "Are you going to take away their power?" "We're going to give them everybody's drivers license and then spy on teenagers. That will help, somehow." ---- Even when you're outright stating the problem as "the companies are too big and have too much power and rival governments in their abilities to control discourse" you're still not jumping to antitrust, you're still jumping towards just giving the government power over speech. But what could possibly be a more straightforward and direct solution to "this company has too much power" than breaking up the company and just making it less powerful? Just as a general reminder, nobody on HN owes these companies anything. We're not obligated to protect Meta's ability to own Instagram, Threads, Facebook, and a VR platform all at the same time. We're certainly not obligated to throw teenagers under the bus before we throw Facebook under the bus. But hey, don't like antitrust? Weird, but OK that's fine. If you're extremely worried about Facebook controlling public squares online and you also don't want to break up the company, there are data-portability bills and account-migration bills and API-access bills and privacy bills that we could pass to help fix that problem and what's cool about those bills is that they don't likely violate the 1st Amendment and they don't open the doors up for the government to engage in viewpoint discrimination against marginalized groups.

WarOnPrivacy 3y ago

> Lets try regulation and see what happens; something has to change. The regulation to try is the passage of strong federal privacy laws. That may serve us better than gifting gov even more power - more ability to usurp our constitutional rights.

autoexec 3y ago

I agree something needs to change. I disagree that we should shoot ourselves in the foot and hope that somehow it leads to something we want too. We can target the problems directly without giving up our fundamental freedoms. If our elected officials were interested in doing that, they would have done it by now. What they are interested in, is restricting your rights. You're advocating for giving up your freedom without actually solving the problems you want addressed.

themitigating 3y ago

Lets try regulation and see what happens; something has to change. How difficult is it to undo a law that """"protects""" children? Political suicide for anyone