10 ms·
New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- pie420 2y agofirst airbnb, and now this, you love to see it. hopefully banning all gambling is next
- BuckYeah 2y agoI’m always amazed by how much some people want the government to control.
- dylan604 2y agoIt's only a natural reaction when nothing else is in control. Unless you think that social media platforms are fine as is. I understand the hesitancy to government control, but at some point, what other mechanism is there? I'm seriously asking.
- yamazakiwi 2y agoThey weren't referring to Social Media Platforms, they were referring to the previous poster talking about AirBnB and Gambling specifically. There are many mechanisms we can rely on, like teaching someone the tradeoffs of a dangerous decision.
- dylan604 2y agoYou say that like addiction is just something that can be taught by parents to overcome. You can attempt to teach your kids to "just say now", but they are kids and are going to rebel against anything they are told they can't do. That's just part of being a kid. Once they do it and become addicted, telling them no is just a useless concept. Part of the problem of laying it at the parent's feet is that there's a much larger than zero chance the parent(s) also shows addictive behavior. To quote the after school special, "I learned it from watching you, all right?" I still go back to the fact that the addictive thing is being intentionally manipulated to increase the addictive properties. It is not natural. It is the thing in and of itself that is the problem. I don't know of any viable rehab potential for social media. I can only imagine the relapse potential would be closer to 100% than for any other drug.
- yamazakiwi 2y agoI don't intend for my one example to fit all issues. Just trying to point out there is more we can do than rely on government legislation.
- hot_gril 2y agoThe other mechanism is parenting and self-control. I'm not too concerned in the long run about which path is chosen for addictive social media; its days are numbered either way.
- jimbokun 2y agoThis puts parents back in control of what their kids are consuming. Without laws like this, it’s extremely difficult for parents to supervise and control their children’s media consumption.
- hot_gril 2y agoI get that in theory a kid could sneak off to use TikTok/Instagram on some friend's device away from home, but that's not what's happening. Parents are handing their kids smartphones with unrestricted access to these apps.
- dylan604 2y agoPeople here keep coming back to the social pressures of not allowing their kids on these platforms. It's one thing to give them a device for being able to keep tabs with locations and being able to get in touch with them, but once they have a device where other parents have allowed their kids on the platforms your kid will be made fun of for not being on there. The parental controls the platforms put on there are non-existent or a mere joke at best (as the recent post about TikTok suggesting porn to minors illustrates). So a parent trying to do things then gets accused of "damaging" their kid by being over restrictive. So, again, what's a parent to do?
- hot_gril 2y agoA kid won't be ostracized for not having a TikTok. I survived not being on Facebook when it was big in middle school, despite a relatively few dull kids making fun. The same will apply to drugs or gambling by high school, so best learn to deal with it. There are lots of good ways to be popular. Unless of course it's a really bad area, in which case your kid will get beaten up for almost no reason anyway. But plenty of parents are addicted to TikTok as well. In which case, wouldn't surprise me if they think the kid needs it too.
- 1986 2y agoAnd I'm always amazed by how much some other people think the free market can do no wrong and should be treated in a completely laissez-faire manner.
- pessimizer 2y agoIf the choice is between the government and the landlord, I choose the government.
- fallingknife 2y agoI'll choose the one that can't come after me with guns
- ihumanable 2y agoI'll choose the one that I can at least vote out.
- fallingknife 2y agoI'll choose the one I can get rid of at will without even having to vote
- ihumanable 2y agoIf you've found a way to participate in society without being constantly surveilled by private companies who frequently leak your most personal information, I'm all ears.
- ihumanable 2y agoEveryone's pro-democracy until people go "hey maybe allowing a few mega corporations to profit off of addicting everyone to dopamine feeds is actually bad for society." The biggest con economists ever pulled was to model people as "rational actors" and then generate an entire worldview off of "if everyone acts in their rational self-interest then this works great." People are almost fundamentally irrational. People are guided by emotion and superstition and a bunch of weird shit that makes it easy for them to get addicted to things that have little to no societal value. If not a government, what force should counter balance that?
- yamazakiwi 2y agoAll gambling for children? Or?
- superkuh 2y agoAnother case of the political use of medical terms in completely unsupported ways for political goals. There is no medical or scientific support for the use of the word "addiction" in this context. It's a meme that's become more dangerous than the problem it imagines. It's not in the DSM 5 or ICD10 and not because they haven't addressed it in committee. They have, as recently as 2020 and found no support for it. And if you say, "gambling" well, yes, that's "gambling disorder" not "gambling addiction" and yes, words matter. Especially in legislation. >“We’ve checked to make sure, we believe it’s constitutional.” It may be constitutional but it certainly isn't scientific. It's closer to the for-profit use of medical ideas in "anti-gay" "de-patterning" camps and the like. Except backed by people with firearms and a tendency to use them without consequence.
- czl 2y ago> Another case of the political use of medical terms in completely unsupported ways for political goals. There is no medical or scientific support for the use of the word "addiction" in this context. Say the language is fixed up replacing addiction with disorder, ... Any other objections?
- superkuh 2y agoThat would be a great first step. My other big objection is that this bill as written applies to all people hosting websites instead of being restricted to just incorporated persons like corporations and institutions like the EU's Digital Markets Act. If it were modified to only apply to incorporated entities then it'd be a solid bill doing net good without any significant violation of individual rights. But as is it applies to all human people that run websites and that makes it a net negative because of the violation of the rights of normal human people.
- zug_zug 2y agoEh, this feels like a bad-faith argument. I think most of us on this site first-hand feel that obsession to update a feed that seems to control us more than we control it. I don't need the DSM's permission to notice that. Whether the ban will work out, open question. But pretending there's no addiction here doesn't pass the smell test.
- yedava 2y agoWe need to think bigger. Having an app on your phone is like having a stranger in your house. The same legal protections that apply to property should apply inside the software that runs on your phone. An app should be at the mercy of the user and should provide easy (and automated) ways to turn off manipulative and surveillance features.
- amadeuspagel 2y agoAn app is at the mercy of the user, who can uninstall at any time, just as you can kick out people out of your home, but you can't turn off "manipulative" behaviour for them.
- yedava 2y agoI can let in a contractor in my house and also ask them not to smoke. They of course have the right to refuse that request and decline my money, but in the real world, contractors usually comply with such requests as smoking is known to harm health. I don't see why the digital world has to be any different. Just because laws and awareness are lagging behind, tech world's toxic practices don't need to get a pass.
- cowgoesmoo 2y ago> They of course have the right to refuse that request and decline my money, but in the real world, contractors usually comply with such requests as smoking is known to harm health. Right, but you're suggesting that they should legally have to comply with this request and can't refuse service.
- koof 2y agoPlease ban it for me too thank you
- bryanlarsen 2y agoHN is my most addictive social media, should this site be banned? :)
- btown 2y agoI see the name "dang" discussed here quite a bit; it seems to be an internal code name for a highly effective algorithm for surfacing relevant content. Whatever it is, it seems to be far more intelligent than any other automated system I've seen. Has HN somehow created a sentient recommendation system?
- arduanika 2y agoNo, it's just a minced oath, as in "dang, that was a good moderation call".
- wizzwizz4 2y agoThe algorithm is actually quite old. While dang is the result of numerous modern innovations, the approach has roots in a 1770 technique due to Johann Wolfgang Ritter von Kempelen de Pázmánd, who is perhaps better known for his work on speech synthesis. While you may see other users talking about "him" in a personal manner, any appearance of sentience is, I assure you, entirely ineluctable.
- Freedom2 2y ago> ineluctable Love to see this word used! Thank you once again HN for being a great place where I can smile every day.
- barbariangrunge 2y agoKarma probably should be
- vundercind 2y agoThe “definitions” section of the bill is a lot more decent than I expected it to be. Page 3 of the bill pdf: https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2023/S7694A https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2023/S7694A
- btown 2y ago> [The definition for Addictive Feed applies] unless any of the following 18 conditions are met, alone or in combination with one another: > ... (b) the recommendation, prioritization, or selection is based on user-selected privacy or accessibility settings, or technical information concerning the user's device; And also: > It shall be unlawful for a covered operator to provide an addictive feed to a covered user unless: > (b) the covered operator has obtained verifiable parental consent to provide an addictive feed to a covered minor. "Hey, kid, activate the Dynamic Feed setting and get a cool badge on your profile!" Or: "Type your parent or guardian's email here; we'll tell them all about how we work to provide you with age-appropriate content, and if they click to upgrade your Dynamic Feed, you'll get a special hat for your avatar!" This seems rife for abuse in practice, but I'd rather this be the case than have overly-broad definitions. (Not a lawyer, this is not legal advice!)
- varispeed 2y agoThat sounds like: lets appear that we are doing something, but make it easy enough to go around so it doesn't hit our bottom line.
- viraptor 2y agoI think it realistically needs an escape hatch. For example some sports / activity groups organise exclusively through Facebook. If Facebook solves the issue by not allowing NY teens any access, then parents may want to override that for that specific purpose. Or the teen may be working on something that integrates with a service providing the addictive feed - it would make sense to allow.
- 2y ago
- zrn900 2y ago[flagged]
- leotravis10 2y agoThis is obviously unconstitutional and it'll be shot down in the courts before it takes effect since this is their version of KOSA among other First Amendment issues. Some context here: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/06/11/nys-safe-for-kids-act-a-lesson-in-how-not-to-regulate-the-internet/ https://www.techdirt.com/2024/06/11/nys-safe-for-kids-act-a-...
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y agoWhat is unconstitutional about it?
- jcranmer 2y agoIt's content-based discrimination, which means it goes straight to strict scrutiny.
- josho 2y agoHow is it discriminating content? It’s not putting restrictions on content that can be shown.
- jcranmer 2y agoIt's discriminating between social media companies purely on the basis of their speech--the recommendation algorithms they choose to use.
- jimbokun 2y agoIf the algorithm constitutes speech by the social media companies, doesn’t that remove their common carrier status? If the speech is theirs, they are responsible for its content.
- jcranmer 2y ago> If the algorithm constitutes speech by the social media companies, doesn’t that remove their common carrier status? They aren't common carriers and never have been.
- sandworm101 2y agoNo feeds from addictive algorithms? No notifications after midnight? Can we please raise the age from 18 to maybe 65?
- out-of-ideas 2y agoshould be for all regardless of age; long as "age" is a required input, there will be incentive to track users one way or another. if its ageless, they have no right to ask for that information (unless they find some other means - which is what we should care about more: stop collecting + tracking users, and parents should be supervising their own kids)
- readthenotes1 2y agoRestricted from to 65, and then also anyone on Medicare, Tricare, or any federally provided medical insurance....
- andrewstuart 2y agoAt a glance this sounds like fast food.
- dylan604 2y agoAre you talking about how they are handling the thing, or the thing itself? If the thing itself, I'd say it is closer to niccotine/bigTobacco more than fast food. These people are intentionally tweaking the algo to make it more addictive just like bigTobacco did.
- ChrisArchitect 2y agoOfficial release: https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-joins-attorney-general-james-and-bill-sponsors-sign-nation-leading-legislation https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-joins-attor...
- prmoustache 2y agoHow can they enforce it?
- aaomidi 2y agoNY is a huge market both for employment and for ads and sales.
- shiroiushi 2y agoThey should ban never-ending scrolling. User interfaces should be required to divide content into discrete pages.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago"NetChoice vice president and general counsel Carl Szabo said in a statement that the law would "increase children's exposure to harmful content by requiring websites to order feeds chronologically, prioritizing recent posts about sensitive topics."" In case anyone was wondering why feeds are not ordered chronologically. Has nothing to do with ads.