4 ms·

> with features like “infinite scroll” and persistent alerts used to hook young users > Meta has harnessed powerful and unprecedented technologies Are we talk

> with features like “infinite scroll” and persistent alerts used to hook young users > Meta has harnessed powerful and unprecedented technologies Are we talking about infinite scroll or heroine? It would make more sense to sue Kelloggs over Lucky Charms commercials, but we're all use to them so there's no outrage. It's politically popular to sue big tech and especially Meta. That's the whole story. To be clear, the lawsuit is not about the content on instagram or privacy. They're saying kids spend too much time on Instagram. Let me introduce you to the parental controls that are already on your kid's phone.

swatcoder 3y ago
> It would make more sense to sue Kelloggs over Lucky Charms commercials, but we're all use to them so there's no outrage. Of all the examples you might offer, it's ironic that you chose this one! There's a TON of political history around breakfast cereal composition and advertising as well as ongoing reform campaigns and media criticism. In some cases, this has settled into formal regulations about things like what cereal boxes can look like and when advertisements can run. In other cases, it's involved collective industry "good behavior" meant to forestall regulation. But it continues to a problem because financial incentive always leads to optimizing for whatever can be gotten away with. And yeah, social media companies are maturing as an industry and are now due to play that same perpetual game of government regulation, industry self-policing, and boundary-testing.
- cheriot 3y ago
  > due to play that same perpetual game of government regulation, industry self-policing, and boundary-testing. Does anyone think this stuff works, though? It's an cycle of outrage and performative regulation. I'm not sure the same path in another industry is a good idea. Lucky for parents today there's TV options without commercials.
yieldcrv 3y ago
we’re talking about dopamine production and that’s always what we wind up regulating so, good observation. regulate aspects of these products like heroin
- cheriot 3y ago
  I look forward to the absurd user interface rules that get proposed or even enshrined in federal regulation. It's an impossible task. Alternate path: attach electrodes to kids, measure dopamine levels, and turn off the app if they go too high. Simpler, but less fun: set the max time an app can be open.
- Spivak 3y ago
  This has reached absurdity, everything we do releases dopamine. You would ban all activities humans do for pleasure. If you want the make the case that IG is unhealthy you need to argue along a different axis because the problem with IG and heroine isn't that it makes dopamine.
NegativeK 3y ago
Why does the solution have to be one-sided? Why can't we educate parents about controls and stop Meta from intentionally making their software addictive? Heck, we could even fine Meta and have the money go to efforts to reduce the behaviors they've worked so hard to create.
- cheriot 3y ago
  > stop Meta from intentionally making their software addictive By regulating the existence of a 'next page' button? Curious if you can think of user interface rules that are less absurd.
  - NegativeK 3y ago
    Is that in the article? It's paywalled, and I can't find other mentions of that. I've assumed that the suit is over the fact that Meta intentionally and algorithmically seeks to test what content gets you to stay on their site and feed you more of that. I also don't remember the last time I saw a Next button on Instagram or Facebook. Maybe they have one for children? But if they're still proactively encouraging addictive behaviors, I'm not sure the specific UI element matters as much.
    - cheriot 3y ago
      The lawsuit calls out infinite scroll and notifications. To be fair, I've not read the entire thing. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.419868/gov.uscourts.cand.419868.1.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.41... Whether we're regulating UI elements or a recommendation algorithm... It's one thing to say they're "encouraging addictive behaviors", but what's a rule that identifies what what part of a mobile app needs to change? It's an unproductive path.
    - avocabros 3y ago
      How do we differentiate "addictive" behaviors from "non-addictive"? Is it illegal if people like your product too much? There isn't a clear definition here of where free will comes into play.

swatcoder 3y ago

> It would make more sense to sue Kelloggs over Lucky Charms commercials, but we're all use to them so there's no outrage. Of all the examples you might offer, it's ironic that you chose this one! There's a TON of political history around breakfast cereal composition and advertising as well as ongoing reform campaigns and media criticism. In some cases, this has settled into formal regulations about things like what cereal boxes can look like and when advertisements can run. In other cases, it's involved collective industry "good behavior" meant to forestall regulation. But it continues to a problem because financial incentive always leads to optimizing for whatever can be gotten away with. And yeah, social media companies are maturing as an industry and are now due to play that same perpetual game of government regulation, industry self-policing, and boundary-testing.

cheriot 3y ago
> due to play that same perpetual game of government regulation, industry self-policing, and boundary-testing. Does anyone think this stuff works, though? It's an cycle of outrage and performative regulation. I'm not sure the same path in another industry is a good idea. Lucky for parents today there's TV options without commercials.

yieldcrv 3y ago

we’re talking about dopamine production and that’s always what we wind up regulating so, good observation. regulate aspects of these products like heroin

cheriot 3y ago
I look forward to the absurd user interface rules that get proposed or even enshrined in federal regulation. It's an impossible task. Alternate path: attach electrodes to kids, measure dopamine levels, and turn off the app if they go too high. Simpler, but less fun: set the max time an app can be open.
Spivak 3y ago
This has reached absurdity, everything we do releases dopamine. You would ban all activities humans do for pleasure. If you want the make the case that IG is unhealthy you need to argue along a different axis because the problem with IG and heroine isn't that it makes dopamine.

NegativeK 3y ago

Why does the solution have to be one-sided? Why can't we educate parents about controls and stop Meta from intentionally making their software addictive? Heck, we could even fine Meta and have the money go to efforts to reduce the behaviors they've worked so hard to create.

cheriot 3y ago
> stop Meta from intentionally making their software addictive By regulating the existence of a 'next page' button? Curious if you can think of user interface rules that are less absurd.
- NegativeK 3y ago
  Is that in the article? It's paywalled, and I can't find other mentions of that. I've assumed that the suit is over the fact that Meta intentionally and algorithmically seeks to test what content gets you to stay on their site and feed you more of that. I also don't remember the last time I saw a Next button on Instagram or Facebook. Maybe they have one for children? But if they're still proactively encouraging addictive behaviors, I'm not sure the specific UI element matters as much.
  - cheriot 3y ago
    The lawsuit calls out infinite scroll and notifications. To be fair, I've not read the entire thing. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.419868/gov.uscourts.cand.419868.1.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.41... Whether we're regulating UI elements or a recommendation algorithm... It's one thing to say they're "encouraging addictive behaviors", but what's a rule that identifies what what part of a mobile app needs to change? It's an unproductive path.
  - avocabros 3y ago
    How do we differentiate "addictive" behaviors from "non-addictive"? Is it illegal if people like your product too much? There isn't a clear definition here of where free will comes into play.