5 ms·

I think companies should be forced to provide a chat-only version of their app that's totally equivalent otherwise. How many of you only have instagram installe

by 55555 2y ago

I think companies should be forced to provide a chat-only version of their app that's totally equivalent otherwise. How many of you only have instagram installed because you use it to talk with friends, but then sleepwalk into the algorithmic feed/explore page until you suddenly regain consciousness and notice you're wasting your life... The solution is easy: make a chat-only version mandatory. I also think companies should be required to provide tools to strictly control what gets recommended to you. Social media companies think people "like" stuff if they engage with it, but that's only half the story. Those who are struggling with porn addiction or gambling addiction etc need a way to opt-out from any softcore thirst trap content or slots videos, etc.

thih9 2y ago
Perhaps some easy to implement open chat protocol then?
- fragmede 2y ago
  we'll have to see how that goes this time around. there was this brief glorious moment with pidgin and xmpp, but it did not last long. maybe this time will be different
  - politelemon 2y ago
    Having witnessed faang in operation over the past few decades, I hold little to no hope for this. Even after they are dragged unwillingly into interop, the only guarantee is that they will find new and incentive circumvents in ways not yet considered.
- JackSlateur 2y ago
  IRC ? :p
littlecranky67 2y ago
I think the EU DMA exactly did that - requires interop between messengers to allow third parties to send chat messages. Not sure if Instagram messenger is included, but Whatsapp definitely is (I know, instagram is more popular in the US).
- Rinzler89 2y ago
  Also, thanks to EU regs, Meta and Google were forced to allow you to finally disconnect the accounts Facebook-Oculus, Google-Youtube, the way it was in the past. Having single point of failure accounts, like seeing your email account banned because your YouTube videos got Copyright struck was insane. It's clear we can't just leave everything to the free market, when a lot of the internet and digital services end up controlled by a couple of giant players who seem to align on anticonsumer behavior instead of competing for better consumer benefits as we were taught the free market works. Oligopolies need to be reigned in.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    > It's clear we can't just leave everything to the free market We definitely aren't doing that. But these services are enormously hard to get right, work really well, and are entirely opt-in. You're critiquing luxury services, which isn't a strong need for regulation.
    - kelnos 2y ago
      How are Google and YouTube "luxury services"? Billions of people of all walks of life have access to them.
sim7c00 2y ago
Saying apps cause you to waste your time, is giving away your responsibility of your own life to some apps. If you sleepwalk into this, and they 'fix' it, what's to keep you sleepwalking into the next thing? People struggling with addiction should seek professional help if they really struggle rather than waiting for laws to protect them... - this is never going to solve their additions...
- sloowm 2y ago
  I think this is very naive. The whole reason marketing is so lucrative is because the human brain is so easily exploited. That exploitation is to no benefit of society or the individual and an individual practically stands no chance against it. We also don't allow drugs to be distributed and marketed. There are many limitations to cigarette sales and they have shown to be successful. Maybe the next thing someone sleepwalks into is a pleasant conversations with people or coding a great open source project and that is not something that needs to be fixed.
  - sim7c00 2y ago
    It's naive and not naive. The brain is easily exploited mainly due to lack of awareness and education on the matter. It's not inherently exploitable itself. People simply are unaware of it happening. Those who are or become aware, generally get really turned off by it. I do agree, it's naive in the sense that you say, most people do seem unaware for the large part, atleast of the effect it has on them untill its too late (and they complain about it themselves - it's all subjective ofcourse). I don't think the next thing is someone sleepwalking into pleasant conversations with people coding etc. - I would love that, but i don't see a company earning billions from it - so it's unlikely. The reason they get you to sleepwalk into things is because they know you wouldn't consume it when awake. Its not because people naturally sleepwalk all their lives...
Terr_ 2y ago
> The solution is easy: make a chat-only version mandatory. I'm not sure how well that work work given the very fuzzy lines between "enough to connect with peers" versus "everything else". For example, a "show off your pictures" company could obey the letter of the rule but break the spirit, but not allowing the images-being-discussed in the chats, making participation pointless. I think a more-robust approach would be a scheme permitting the development of third-party "frontends" for these services (possibly already permitted by law [0]) with the compromise that they must pass-through any non-personalized ads the service makes available. That way it creates competition of "kid safe" versions--whatever blend of functionality that really means--and companies come under pressure to have a not-too-shitty version of their own. [0] https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/02/was-there-a-trojan-horse-hidden-in-section-230-all-along-that-could-enable-adversarial-interoperability/ https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/02/was-there-a-trojan-horse...
tgv 2y ago
> I think companies should be forced to provide a chat-only version of their app Like WhatsApp? Before TikTok, children would get hundreds of messages per day on WhatsApp. I don't know if/how that changed, but chat-only isn't a solution. Complete prohibition is the only way out.

by 55555 2y ago

thih9 2y ago

Perhaps some easy to implement open chat protocol then?

fragmede 2y ago
we'll have to see how that goes this time around. there was this brief glorious moment with pidgin and xmpp, but it did not last long. maybe this time will be different
- politelemon 2y ago
  Having witnessed faang in operation over the past few decades, I hold little to no hope for this. Even after they are dragged unwillingly into interop, the only guarantee is that they will find new and incentive circumvents in ways not yet considered.
JackSlateur 2y ago
IRC ? :p

littlecranky67 2y ago

I think the EU DMA exactly did that - requires interop between messengers to allow third parties to send chat messages. Not sure if Instagram messenger is included, but Whatsapp definitely is (I know, instagram is more popular in the US).

Rinzler89 2y ago
Also, thanks to EU regs, Meta and Google were forced to allow you to finally disconnect the accounts Facebook-Oculus, Google-Youtube, the way it was in the past. Having single point of failure accounts, like seeing your email account banned because your YouTube videos got Copyright struck was insane. It's clear we can't just leave everything to the free market, when a lot of the internet and digital services end up controlled by a couple of giant players who seem to align on anticonsumer behavior instead of competing for better consumer benefits as we were taught the free market works. Oligopolies need to be reigned in.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  > It's clear we can't just leave everything to the free market We definitely aren't doing that. But these services are enormously hard to get right, work really well, and are entirely opt-in. You're critiquing luxury services, which isn't a strong need for regulation.
  - kelnos 2y ago
    How are Google and YouTube "luxury services"? Billions of people of all walks of life have access to them.

sim7c00 2y ago

Saying apps cause you to waste your time, is giving away your responsibility of your own life to some apps. If you sleepwalk into this, and they 'fix' it, what's to keep you sleepwalking into the next thing? People struggling with addiction should seek professional help if they really struggle rather than waiting for laws to protect them... - this is never going to solve their additions...

sloowm 2y ago
I think this is very naive. The whole reason marketing is so lucrative is because the human brain is so easily exploited. That exploitation is to no benefit of society or the individual and an individual practically stands no chance against it. We also don't allow drugs to be distributed and marketed. There are many limitations to cigarette sales and they have shown to be successful. Maybe the next thing someone sleepwalks into is a pleasant conversations with people or coding a great open source project and that is not something that needs to be fixed.
- sim7c00 2y ago
  It's naive and not naive. The brain is easily exploited mainly due to lack of awareness and education on the matter. It's not inherently exploitable itself. People simply are unaware of it happening. Those who are or become aware, generally get really turned off by it. I do agree, it's naive in the sense that you say, most people do seem unaware for the large part, atleast of the effect it has on them untill its too late (and they complain about it themselves - it's all subjective ofcourse). I don't think the next thing is someone sleepwalking into pleasant conversations with people coding etc. - I would love that, but i don't see a company earning billions from it - so it's unlikely. The reason they get you to sleepwalk into things is because they know you wouldn't consume it when awake. Its not because people naturally sleepwalk all their lives...

Terr_ 2y ago

> The solution is easy: make a chat-only version mandatory. I'm not sure how well that work work given the very fuzzy lines between "enough to connect with peers" versus "everything else". For example, a "show off your pictures" company could obey the letter of the rule but break the spirit, but not allowing the images-being-discussed in the chats, making participation pointless. I think a more-robust approach would be a scheme permitting the development of third-party "frontends" for these services (possibly already permitted by law [0]) with the compromise that they must pass-through any non-personalized ads the service makes available. That way it creates competition of "kid safe" versions--whatever blend of functionality that really means--and companies come under pressure to have a not-too-shitty version of their own. [0] https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/02/was-there-a-trojan-horse-hidden-in-section-230-all-along-that-could-enable-adversarial-interoperability/ https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/02/was-there-a-trojan-horse...

tgv 2y ago

> I think companies should be forced to provide a chat-only version of their app Like WhatsApp? Before TikTok, children would get hundreds of messages per day on WhatsApp. I don't know if/how that changed, but chat-only isn't a solution. Complete prohibition is the only way out.