12 ms·

> But what is actually being done about it? Serious question: What exactly do you want to see done? I mean real specifics, not just the angry mob pitchfork cal

> But what is actually being done about it? Serious question: What exactly do you want to see done? I mean real specifics, not just the angry mob pitchfork calls for corporate death penalty or throwing Mark Zuckerberg in jail.

dkdcio 1y ago
ban digital advertisement at a federal level and 95% of the underlying problems are solved at the incentive level
- justapassenger 1y ago
  We can also solve global warming problems by banning oil, coal and cows, and solve hunger by banning having kids.
  - Aurornis 1y ago
    “Just ban everything I don’t like as long as it won’t impact anything I do like” is a frequent take on HN these days. Then when states start doing things like adding ID requirements for websites it’s shock and rage as the consequences of banning things (even for under 18s) encounter the realities of what happens when you “just ban” things.
    - opan 1y ago
      I think we can separate the banning of things which affect personal freedom from the rest. Like if oil were "banned", I'm imagining it's not illegal to possess oil, but rather oil companies wouldn't be able to drill it up and sell it anymore. A bit like fazing out asbestos. The ordinary people with asbestos tiles in their basement don't get into trouble, but new house builds can't/won't use that tile anymore. ID requirements seem like the main burden is being put on ordinary people instead of corporations, and by extension seems clearly bad.
      - Aurornis 1y ago
        > Like if oil were "banned", I'm imagining it's not illegal to possess oil, but rather oil companies wouldn't be able to drill it up and sell it anymore. What does that have to do with anything? It doesn’t matter where you ban it, if you turn off oil overnight a lot of people are left stranded from their jobs, sectors of the economy collapse, unemployment becomes out of control. Banning things like this is just fantasy talk that only makes sense to people who can’t imagine consequences or think they don’t care. I guarantee you would change your mind very quickly about banning oil overnight as soon as the consequence became obvious.
        squigz 1y ago
        Who suggested "turning oil off overnight"? What does that even mean? GP (and I) have given you several examples of stuff society learned was harmful and then phased out with regulations/legislation. No, it didn't and does not happen overnight. Why are you acting in such bad faith, trying to disregard people you don't agree with as "not being able to imagine consequences"?
        fzeroracer 1y ago
        I'm curious: Where do you put the line? For example, leaded gas improved car performance and arguably key to economic performance. But it was also incredibly neurotoxic and damaging to society. Do you believe banning it was a bad idea because it resulted in a lot of people losing their jobs?
        warkdarrior 1y ago
        > Do you believe banning [leaded gas] was a bad idea because it resulted in a lot of people losing their jobs? Who lost their job when leaded gas was banned? A web search did not give me any examples.
        fzeroracer 1y ago
        The Ethyl Corporation primarily, they had to quickly diversify and adjust their business model as a result of the US phase out of tetraethyllead. They managed to stem some of the bleeding by simply just...selling the rest to other countries before they instituted their own restrictions on leaded gas (which tells you how ethically sound said business was) but this was a massive change at the time considering just about every vehicle used leaded gas even if it was a slow rollout.
    - terminalshort 1y ago
      It really has turned into a bitter losers bitch fest in here.
  - opan 1y ago
    I was on board until the end. If we don't have kids, we're wiping ourselves out even faster than with climate change. I also wonder with oil if we'd need it for some things still, though maybe it's fine if it's made from something else. Gasoline has some obvious alternatives in most areas, but oil seems to be more than fuel. It's also a lubricant.
  - dkdcio 1y ago
    [dead]
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- vincnetas 1y ago
  There is a substantial opposing force to that "US$790 billion ad market for 2024"
  - dkdcio 1y ago
    yep! it’d be hard, but we’re already at most people nodding their head when you say “social media is addictive, detrimental to individual mental health, and overall negative for society” you just got to get enough people to nod at “…and this is caused by the underlying incentives from digital advertisement” then to “and the most effective course of action is to ban digital advertisement” I truly don’t believe it’s a big leap, especially after a few more years of all this
- Aurornis 1y ago
  > ban digital advertisement at a federal level This is what I meant by angry mob pitchfork ideas. This isn’t a real idea, it’s just rage venting. It’s also wrong, as anyone familiar with the problems in pay-to-play social video games for kids, which are not ad supported, can tell you. These platforms have just as many problems if not more, yet advertising has nothing to do with it. I bet you could charge $10/month for Instagram and the same social problems would exist. It’s a silly suggestion.
  - squigz 1y ago
    Banning advertisement seemed to work for smoking. https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2025/01/22/tc-2024-058903 https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2025/01/22/tc-2... Why do you think it would be ineffective here? I'm also curious on how you think we might tackle these issues.
    - Aurornis 1y ago
      The parent comment called for banning all advertising, not for banning ads promoting social media platforms. They don’t want anyone to be able to advertise anything. Not even your local contractors trying to advertise their businesses that you want to find, because that’s advertising. The tobacco ad ban isn’t relevant to what was claimed.
      - squigz 1y ago
        > The parent comment called for banning all advertising, not for banning ads promoting social media platforms. This wasn't my reading of it, but it does appear that's what GP meant. I don't agree with that. Even so, if you were interested in having a good faith discussion about solutions here, you might have responded to both interpretations. You may consider this me putting forth the suggestion as an answer to your question, if you must.
  - dkdcio 1y ago
    literally the opposite of a pitchfork idea; quite simple, relatively easy to implement, and immediately effective. incentives from advertising is the underlying issue with the addictive nature of these platforms (and much more)
wyre 1y ago
Larger fines, more robust methods for Meta to keep children off their platforms, more robust methods to stop the spread of propaganda and spam on their platforms, for Meta to start prioritizing connection between others instead of attention.
- loosescrews 1y ago
  If you want a company to do something, you do need to ensure that the fine is bigger than the amount of money they made or will make by doing the thing you are trying to discourage. You need there to be a real downside. I don't think any of the fines that have been discussed are anywhere close to the levels that I am talking about.
  - nandomrumber 1y ago
    Don’t corporate fines often come with requirements that the company also discontinue certain activities, start certain other ones, and be able to prove this or that to a regulator?
knuppar 1y ago
> angry mob pitchfork calls > corporate death penalty I don't know man these don't seem very specific. From your whole comment I do agree Mark should be in jail
anthem2025 1y ago
[dead]
slg 1y ago
Amend Section 230 so that it does not apply to content that is served algorithmically. Social media companies can either allow us to select what content we want to see by giving us a chronological feed of the people/topics we follow or they can serve us content according to some algorithm designed to keep us on their platform longer. The former is neutral and deserves protection, but the latter is editorial. Once they take on that editorial role of deciding what content we see, they should become liable for the content they put in front of us.
- ares623 1y ago
  That’s the first reasonable take I’ve seen on this. Thanks for explaining it, I will use it for offline discussions on the subject. It’s been hard to explain.
- FloorEgg 1y ago
  This would be a huge step in the right direction.
- Manuel_D 1y ago
  So Hacker News should lose section 230 protection? Because the content served here isn't served in chronological order. The front page takes votes into account and displays hotter posts higher in the feed.
  - sleight42 1y ago
    And there's also moderator control? Yup. Accountable.
    - Manuel_D 1y ago
      So to be clear, anything other than a 4chan-like unmoderated chronological feed results in loss of section 230 protection? Heck, even 4chan wouldn't qualify, because despite considerably looser content rules they still actually do perform moderation.
cindyllm 1y ago
[dead]
__MatrixMan__ 1y ago
Other shareholders in jail also. If my dog bites somebody, I'm on the hook. It should be no different with companies. We have to create incentives to not invest in troublesome companies. Fines are inadequate, they incentivize buying shares in troublesome companies and then selling them before the harm comes to light.
- mitthrowaway2 1y ago
  Where will you find a jail big enough to simultaneously imprison everyone who invested in S&P 500?
  - paulddraper 1y ago
    Thanks, I have the same question.
  - bdangubic 1y ago
    just 500?
  - __MatrixMan__ 1y ago
    You just go after the top four or five. It's not about proportional punishment, but about ensuring that those with enough power to actually affect outcomes feel a sense of responsibility over those outcomes whether or not they later divest. Blindly letting a CEO commit crimes should itself be a crime, but only if there's something you could've done to prevent it--that's not most shareholders.
flag_fagger 1y ago
Isn’t this what we have RICO for? > she was shocked to learn that the company had a “17x” strike policy for accounts that reportedly engaged in the “trafficking of humans for sex.” There’s no way in hell this isn’t just tacitly incentivized the facilitation of trafficking activities through the site.
worik 1y ago
> Serious question: What exactly do you want to see done? Confiscate their wealth
tehjoker 1y ago
Why not? Those are effective ideas, it’s just impractical because our political system is so insulated from public input.
GOD_Over_Djinn 1y ago
[flagged]
bluefirebrand 1y ago
I think with the harm that these companies are doing, the angry pitchfork mobs are a serious suggestion and not just hyperbole anymore Keep in mind that not very long ago some random person assassinated an insurance CEO and many people's reaction was along the lines of "awesome, that fat cat got what he deserved" Don't underestimate how much of society absolutely loathes the upper class right now. I would bet that many people are one layoff away from calling for execs to get much worse than jail
BrenBarn 1y ago
I don't really get why corporate death penalty and Zuck in jail is not a good idea. It might not be the best idea, but I think it would absolutely be better than what we have now. Even a random-chainsaw-esque destruction of Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Apple would be better than what we have now.
Drupon 1y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932021_Xi_Jinping_Administration_reform_spree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932021_Xi_Jinping_A...
fakedang 1y ago
For one, I'd like the EU to use this as evidence to straight up ban Meta apps. If countries can ban TikTok, why not extend the same privilege to Meta? But then again, the EU are a bunch of vacuous chicken shits incapable of pulling their heads out of their arses, never mind safeguarding their own children.
Refreeze5224 1y ago
Why is the corporate death penalty or Zuckerberg in jail reduced to angry mob ideas? I think both are valid responses to the social harms that Facebook and social media generally have caused.
- cindyllm 1y ago
  [dead]

dkdcio 1y ago

ban digital advertisement at a federal level and 95% of the underlying problems are solved at the incentive level

justapassenger 1y ago
We can also solve global warming problems by banning oil, coal and cows, and solve hunger by banning having kids.
- Aurornis 1y ago
  “Just ban everything I don’t like as long as it won’t impact anything I do like” is a frequent take on HN these days. Then when states start doing things like adding ID requirements for websites it’s shock and rage as the consequences of banning things (even for under 18s) encounter the realities of what happens when you “just ban” things.
  - opan 1y ago
    I think we can separate the banning of things which affect personal freedom from the rest. Like if oil were "banned", I'm imagining it's not illegal to possess oil, but rather oil companies wouldn't be able to drill it up and sell it anymore. A bit like fazing out asbestos. The ordinary people with asbestos tiles in their basement don't get into trouble, but new house builds can't/won't use that tile anymore. ID requirements seem like the main burden is being put on ordinary people instead of corporations, and by extension seems clearly bad.
    - Aurornis 1y ago
      > Like if oil were "banned", I'm imagining it's not illegal to possess oil, but rather oil companies wouldn't be able to drill it up and sell it anymore. What does that have to do with anything? It doesn’t matter where you ban it, if you turn off oil overnight a lot of people are left stranded from their jobs, sectors of the economy collapse, unemployment becomes out of control. Banning things like this is just fantasy talk that only makes sense to people who can’t imagine consequences or think they don’t care. I guarantee you would change your mind very quickly about banning oil overnight as soon as the consequence became obvious.
      - squigz 1y ago
        Who suggested "turning oil off overnight"? What does that even mean? GP (and I) have given you several examples of stuff society learned was harmful and then phased out with regulations/legislation. No, it didn't and does not happen overnight. Why are you acting in such bad faith, trying to disregard people you don't agree with as "not being able to imagine consequences"?
      - fzeroracer 1y ago
        I'm curious: Where do you put the line? For example, leaded gas improved car performance and arguably key to economic performance. But it was also incredibly neurotoxic and damaging to society. Do you believe banning it was a bad idea because it resulted in a lot of people losing their jobs?
        warkdarrior 1y ago
        > Do you believe banning [leaded gas] was a bad idea because it resulted in a lot of people losing their jobs? Who lost their job when leaded gas was banned? A web search did not give me any examples.
        fzeroracer 1y ago
        The Ethyl Corporation primarily, they had to quickly diversify and adjust their business model as a result of the US phase out of tetraethyllead. They managed to stem some of the bleeding by simply just...selling the rest to other countries before they instituted their own restrictions on leaded gas (which tells you how ethically sound said business was) but this was a massive change at the time considering just about every vehicle used leaded gas even if it was a slow rollout.
  - terminalshort 1y ago
    It really has turned into a bitter losers bitch fest in here.
- opan 1y ago
  I was on board until the end. If we don't have kids, we're wiping ourselves out even faster than with climate change. I also wonder with oil if we'd need it for some things still, though maybe it's fine if it's made from something else. Gasoline has some obvious alternatives in most areas, but oil seems to be more than fuel. It's also a lubricant.
- dkdcio 1y ago
  [dead]
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
vincnetas 1y ago
There is a substantial opposing force to that "US$790 billion ad market for 2024"
- dkdcio 1y ago
  yep! it’d be hard, but we’re already at most people nodding their head when you say “social media is addictive, detrimental to individual mental health, and overall negative for society” you just got to get enough people to nod at “…and this is caused by the underlying incentives from digital advertisement” then to “and the most effective course of action is to ban digital advertisement” I truly don’t believe it’s a big leap, especially after a few more years of all this
Aurornis 1y ago
> ban digital advertisement at a federal level This is what I meant by angry mob pitchfork ideas. This isn’t a real idea, it’s just rage venting. It’s also wrong, as anyone familiar with the problems in pay-to-play social video games for kids, which are not ad supported, can tell you. These platforms have just as many problems if not more, yet advertising has nothing to do with it. I bet you could charge $10/month for Instagram and the same social problems would exist. It’s a silly suggestion.
- squigz 1y ago
  Banning advertisement seemed to work for smoking. https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2025/01/22/tc-2024-058903 https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2025/01/22/tc-2... Why do you think it would be ineffective here? I'm also curious on how you think we might tackle these issues.
  - Aurornis 1y ago
    The parent comment called for banning all advertising, not for banning ads promoting social media platforms. They don’t want anyone to be able to advertise anything. Not even your local contractors trying to advertise their businesses that you want to find, because that’s advertising. The tobacco ad ban isn’t relevant to what was claimed.
    - squigz 1y ago
      > The parent comment called for banning all advertising, not for banning ads promoting social media platforms. This wasn't my reading of it, but it does appear that's what GP meant. I don't agree with that. Even so, if you were interested in having a good faith discussion about solutions here, you might have responded to both interpretations. You may consider this me putting forth the suggestion as an answer to your question, if you must.
- dkdcio 1y ago
  literally the opposite of a pitchfork idea; quite simple, relatively easy to implement, and immediately effective. incentives from advertising is the underlying issue with the addictive nature of these platforms (and much more)

wyre 1y ago

Larger fines, more robust methods for Meta to keep children off their platforms, more robust methods to stop the spread of propaganda and spam on their platforms, for Meta to start prioritizing connection between others instead of attention.

loosescrews 1y ago
If you want a company to do something, you do need to ensure that the fine is bigger than the amount of money they made or will make by doing the thing you are trying to discourage. You need there to be a real downside. I don't think any of the fines that have been discussed are anywhere close to the levels that I am talking about.
- nandomrumber 1y ago
  Don’t corporate fines often come with requirements that the company also discontinue certain activities, start certain other ones, and be able to prove this or that to a regulator?

knuppar 1y ago

> angry mob pitchfork calls > corporate death penalty I don't know man these don't seem very specific. From your whole comment I do agree Mark should be in jail

anthem2025 1y ago

[dead]

slg 1y ago

Amend Section 230 so that it does not apply to content that is served algorithmically. Social media companies can either allow us to select what content we want to see by giving us a chronological feed of the people/topics we follow or they can serve us content according to some algorithm designed to keep us on their platform longer. The former is neutral and deserves protection, but the latter is editorial. Once they take on that editorial role of deciding what content we see, they should become liable for the content they put in front of us.

ares623 1y ago
That’s the first reasonable take I’ve seen on this. Thanks for explaining it, I will use it for offline discussions on the subject. It’s been hard to explain.
FloorEgg 1y ago
This would be a huge step in the right direction.
Manuel_D 1y ago
So Hacker News should lose section 230 protection? Because the content served here isn't served in chronological order. The front page takes votes into account and displays hotter posts higher in the feed.
- sleight42 1y ago
  And there's also moderator control? Yup. Accountable.
  - Manuel_D 1y ago
    So to be clear, anything other than a 4chan-like unmoderated chronological feed results in loss of section 230 protection? Heck, even 4chan wouldn't qualify, because despite considerably looser content rules they still actually do perform moderation.

cindyllm 1y ago

[dead]

__MatrixMan__ 1y ago

Other shareholders in jail also. If my dog bites somebody, I'm on the hook. It should be no different with companies. We have to create incentives to not invest in troublesome companies. Fines are inadequate, they incentivize buying shares in troublesome companies and then selling them before the harm comes to light.

mitthrowaway2 1y ago
Where will you find a jail big enough to simultaneously imprison everyone who invested in S&P 500?
- paulddraper 1y ago
  Thanks, I have the same question.
- bdangubic 1y ago
  just 500?
- __MatrixMan__ 1y ago
  You just go after the top four or five. It's not about proportional punishment, but about ensuring that those with enough power to actually affect outcomes feel a sense of responsibility over those outcomes whether or not they later divest. Blindly letting a CEO commit crimes should itself be a crime, but only if there's something you could've done to prevent it--that's not most shareholders.

flag_fagger 1y ago

Isn’t this what we have RICO for? > she was shocked to learn that the company had a “17x” strike policy for accounts that reportedly engaged in the “trafficking of humans for sex.” There’s no way in hell this isn’t just tacitly incentivized the facilitation of trafficking activities through the site.

worik 1y ago

> Serious question: What exactly do you want to see done? Confiscate their wealth

tehjoker 1y ago

Why not? Those are effective ideas, it’s just impractical because our political system is so insulated from public input.

GOD_Over_Djinn 1y ago

[flagged]

bluefirebrand 1y ago

I think with the harm that these companies are doing, the angry pitchfork mobs are a serious suggestion and not just hyperbole anymore Keep in mind that not very long ago some random person assassinated an insurance CEO and many people's reaction was along the lines of "awesome, that fat cat got what he deserved" Don't underestimate how much of society absolutely loathes the upper class right now. I would bet that many people are one layoff away from calling for execs to get much worse than jail

BrenBarn 1y ago

I don't really get why corporate death penalty and Zuck in jail is not a good idea. It might not be the best idea, but I think it would absolutely be better than what we have now. Even a random-chainsaw-esque destruction of Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Apple would be better than what we have now.

Drupon 1y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932021_Xi_Jinping_Administration_reform_spree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932021_Xi_Jinping_A...

fakedang 1y ago

For one, I'd like the EU to use this as evidence to straight up ban Meta apps. If countries can ban TikTok, why not extend the same privilege to Meta? But then again, the EU are a bunch of vacuous chicken shits incapable of pulling their heads out of their arses, never mind safeguarding their own children.

Refreeze5224 1y ago

Why is the corporate death penalty or Zuckerberg in jail reduced to angry mob ideas? I think both are valid responses to the social harms that Facebook and social media generally have caused.

cindyllm 1y ago
[dead]