6 ms·
When will social media finally be regulated like alcohol, nicotine, and every other addictive poison?
by tempodox 3y ago
When will social media finally be regulated like alcohol, nicotine, and every other addictive poison?
- CamperBob2 3y agoWhen the First Amendment is repealed.
- dexwiz 3y agoBoth censorship and advertising regulations both exist in accordance with the first amendment.
- CamperBob2 3y agoNo, they exist as instances of rationalized disobedience. If the founders had meant something other than "Congress shall make no law," nothing stopped them from saying so.
- Manuel_D 3y agoYes: censorship is prohibited, at least outside of specific narrow circumstances. Advertising regulations specifically regulate advertising products. Neither of these translate into regulating what can and cannot be said on social media, outside of narrow cases like promotional or sponsored content.
- tempsy 3y agoWho said this had to do with censorship of content? The issue with social media is algorithms have been fine tuned to incite FOMO, narcissism, self-esteem issues, etc., and keep people addicted/endlessly scrolling.
- Manuel_D 3y agoThe above commenter mentioned censorship. Regardless, the usage of algorithms doesn't mean there's a different set of rules the government can use to regulate it. The incentives you mentioned aren't limited to social media. Traditional media also has these same incentives, and tunes their headlines to be more sensational and attention grabbing. For example: https://blog.tjcx.me/p/new-york-times-ab-testing https://blog.tjcx.me/p/new-york-times-ab-testing HN discussion at the time https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26419070 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26419070
- tempsy 3y agoNo idea what you're saying. The NYT A/B testing headlines is not something that impacts teen mental health in the same way that social media impacts mental health.
- Manuel_D 3y agoDoes it? Has there been any research done on the effect of NYT content? This comment reads a lot more like assumptions and stereotypes.
- tempsy 3y agoWe're talking about two different things. You're focused on the legality of this lawsuit. The only thing I'm pointing out is that it isn't very difficult to believe social media has a negative impact on mental health in its current form and is likely the source of teen self-esteem issues, body image issues, and inability to concentrate.
- Manuel_D 3y ago"it isn't very difficult to believe..." is an incredibly weak statement. People believe all sorts of demonstrably false things. I expect much more robust argument than assumptions and speculation. The actual study [1] that kicked off this moral panic, in fact, found that Instagram was more likely to make people feel better than feel worse - despite most media outlets claims the opposite. 1. https://about.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Instagram-Teen-Annotated-Research-Deck-1.pdf https://about.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Instagram-Te...
- scythe 3y agoPractically all social media revenue is derived from advertising, and the lawsuit specifically references advertising regulations. The regulation of advertising would seem to necessarily imply the regulation of any ad-funded social media.
- Manuel_D 3y ago> The regulation of advertising would seem to necessarily imply the regulation of any ad-funded social media. No, it would imply the regulation of advertisements that are displayed on social media not the actual content or algorithms of social media. Advertisements are regulated, the rest of the content people put on social media is not (outside of very narrow things like credible, true, threats). Content doesn't suddenly become saddled with the same regulations as advertisements themselves just because it's hosted on an ad-supported platform.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- swatcoder 3y agoThat may be so, but then historians will write about reckless corporate behavior as the harbinger of that repeal. If you keep pushing the boundaries of what's technically allowed and it has bad ends, you'll eventually see the rules changed to stop you. You and I probably both agree that that a substantial revision to the First Amendment would be terrible, and so what we probably want is for these corporations to act in voluntary consideration of what's socially responsible so that it's not necessary.
- AlecSchueler 3y agoWhat about in the rest of the world where the first amendment doesn't apply?
- CamperBob2 3y agoThese are US-based companies (and there's a reason for that.) If they voluntarily choose to subject themselves to the laws of other countries without constitutional free-speech protections, that's on them.
- RandomLensman 3y agoThey are all in the EU, so there is an example of markets with a different view on free speech from the US.
- AlecSchueler 3y agoYes, it is on them, and they do so subject themselves to our laws because markets like the European market are massive.
- fullshark 3y agoSection 230 more like it
- zeroonetwothree 3y agoSection 230 doesn't stop regulation of social media by the government. Do you know what it actually says?
- fullshark 3y agoIt says basically these internet companies are not publishers so they aren't libel for things that get printed on their platforms. Libel laws was traditionally how publishers have been "regulated" by the gov't / civil courts.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- zeroonetwothree 3y agoMany addictive things are not significantly regulated, e.g. sugar, video games, coffee, reading HN, sex, TV, etc. It's not just a question of addictiveness but also of potential level of harm.