5 ms·

"Social media" doesn't just mean Facebook right? It includes sites like Hacker News, yeah?

digiown 8mo ago
I'd draw a line using some of these aspects: - Algorithmic recommendation / "engagement" engineering - Profit/business model - Images/Videos - Real-life identity
- unethical_ban 8mo ago
  Retweet/repost is a part of your first bullet point, and is big in itself. There is a book about the history and present of social media from a few years back that calls out the retweet function as a major clshift in the viral nature of social media and its use to spread (mis) information.
- mrweasel 8mo ago
  The two first I'd get behind, the latter two I just don't think matter too much. Algorithmic, for profit, social media is by far the worst technology ever foisted upon humanity. Even most of the issues with AI/LLMs become moot if we where to remove platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, X and to some extend YouTube. Removing the ability to spread misinformation and fueling anger and device thought would improve society massively. Social media allows Russian and Chinese governments to effect election, they allow Trump to have an actual voice and they allow un-vetted information to reach people who are not equipped to deal with it. It's time to accept that social media was an experiment, it could have worked in an uncommercial settings, but overall it failed. Humanity is not equipped, mentally, to handle algorithmic recommendation and the commercialization of our attention.
- petre 8mo ago
  You'll have bots spreading propaganda in notime if it gets succesful even without those. So the 'algorithmic recommendation' (aka ads and propaganda) don't even have to come from the platform operator.
pipes 8mo ago
One of my main problems with all of this is "what counts as social media". It's a stupidly broad term. Email? SMS? Forums?
- theptip 8mo ago
  I think it’s pretty easy to write a law that doesn’t include email and sms. They have no engagement algorithms. Forums require a little more finesse - but a good starting point is distinguishing upvotes from personalized engagement-based algorithms. Basically I don’t buy that your concern is a problem in practice. Edited to add - here is the guidance for Australia’s law for reference: https://www.esafety.gov.au/about-us/industry-regulation/social-media-age-restrictions/which-platforms-are-age-restricted https://www.esafety.gov.au/about-us/industry-regulation/soci...
riffraff 8mo ago
the approach australia took is a list of prohibited applications. It's not "fair" to a technically minded person, but it's a practical alternative, even if it would obviously lead to a whack-a-mole situation.
- digiown 8mo ago
  It works better here than most other types of blacklists, since networks take time to build up, and the "value" of social media is mostly derived from the fact that you can use it to interact with other people, not the software itself.
tartoran 8mo ago
No, HN is more like a forum. It doesn’t have dark patterns and addictive engineering built in, even if it could itself be addictive. There ‘s been functionality built in to limit time spent on HN for a long time. Look at noprocrast setting for example. Even if HN could be seen as social media it’s not in the same category of destructive social media a la Facebook/Instagram/Tiktok
- SirMaster 8mo ago
  What about Reddit? What about 4chan?
- hn_throwaway_99 8mo ago
  Yeah, agreed. While there are gray areas in the definition, and I can certainly waste an absolute shitload of time on HN and Reddit, both of those sites allow anonymity, and neither provide user-specific personalization (with Reddit you can obviously choose to subscribe to certain subreddits, but that's not done for you, and AFAIK everyone gets the same view and order of stories and comments). What you see in the future is not just inferred from what you clicked on in the past, and that for me is the cardinal sin of most social networks.
- hiprob 8mo ago
  Legally, it doesn't matter. You can talk to people? Social media it is.
  - mjr00 8mo ago
    > Legally, it doesn't matter. You can talk to people? Social media it is. No this isn't true at all, it absolutely does matter legally. Look at Australia's underage social media ban. Twitter was forced to ban children, but Bluesky was not despite being the platforms being effectively the same. Roblox and Discord, no bans despite being an extremely common place for young people to socialize.
    - quotemstr 8mo ago
      There was no objective basis for Australia whitelisting BlueSky. Exempting it from the rules that govern social media built just like it goes to show you that these social media bans aren't about protecting the youth, but stopping the spread of ideas the censors find inconvenient.

I'd draw a line using some of these aspects: - Algorithmic recommendation / "engagement" engineering - Profit/business model - Images/Videos - Real-life identity

unethical_ban 8mo ago
Retweet/repost is a part of your first bullet point, and is big in itself. There is a book about the history and present of social media from a few years back that calls out the retweet function as a major clshift in the viral nature of social media and its use to spread (mis) information.
mrweasel 8mo ago
The two first I'd get behind, the latter two I just don't think matter too much. Algorithmic, for profit, social media is by far the worst technology ever foisted upon humanity. Even most of the issues with AI/LLMs become moot if we where to remove platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, X and to some extend YouTube. Removing the ability to spread misinformation and fueling anger and device thought would improve society massively. Social media allows Russian and Chinese governments to effect election, they allow Trump to have an actual voice and they allow un-vetted information to reach people who are not equipped to deal with it. It's time to accept that social media was an experiment, it could have worked in an uncommercial settings, but overall it failed. Humanity is not equipped, mentally, to handle algorithmic recommendation and the commercialization of our attention.
petre 8mo ago
You'll have bots spreading propaganda in notime if it gets succesful even without those. So the 'algorithmic recommendation' (aka ads and propaganda) don't even have to come from the platform operator.

pipes 8mo ago

One of my main problems with all of this is "what counts as social media". It's a stupidly broad term. Email? SMS? Forums?

theptip 8mo ago
I think it’s pretty easy to write a law that doesn’t include email and sms. They have no engagement algorithms. Forums require a little more finesse - but a good starting point is distinguishing upvotes from personalized engagement-based algorithms. Basically I don’t buy that your concern is a problem in practice. Edited to add - here is the guidance for Australia’s law for reference: https://www.esafety.gov.au/about-us/industry-regulation/social-media-age-restrictions/which-platforms-are-age-restricted https://www.esafety.gov.au/about-us/industry-regulation/soci...

riffraff 8mo ago

the approach australia took is a list of prohibited applications. It's not "fair" to a technically minded person, but it's a practical alternative, even if it would obviously lead to a whack-a-mole situation.

digiown 8mo ago
It works better here than most other types of blacklists, since networks take time to build up, and the "value" of social media is mostly derived from the fact that you can use it to interact with other people, not the software itself.

tartoran 8mo ago

No, HN is more like a forum. It doesn’t have dark patterns and addictive engineering built in, even if it could itself be addictive. There ‘s been functionality built in to limit time spent on HN for a long time. Look at noprocrast setting for example. Even if HN could be seen as social media it’s not in the same category of destructive social media a la Facebook/Instagram/Tiktok

SirMaster 8mo ago
What about Reddit? What about 4chan?
hn_throwaway_99 8mo ago
Yeah, agreed. While there are gray areas in the definition, and I can certainly waste an absolute shitload of time on HN and Reddit, both of those sites allow anonymity, and neither provide user-specific personalization (with Reddit you can obviously choose to subscribe to certain subreddits, but that's not done for you, and AFAIK everyone gets the same view and order of stories and comments). What you see in the future is not just inferred from what you clicked on in the past, and that for me is the cardinal sin of most social networks.
hiprob 8mo ago
Legally, it doesn't matter. You can talk to people? Social media it is.
- mjr00 8mo ago
  > Legally, it doesn't matter. You can talk to people? Social media it is. No this isn't true at all, it absolutely does matter legally. Look at Australia's underage social media ban. Twitter was forced to ban children, but Bluesky was not despite being the platforms being effectively the same. Roblox and Discord, no bans despite being an extremely common place for young people to socialize.
  - quotemstr 8mo ago
    There was no objective basis for Australia whitelisting BlueSky. Exempting it from the rules that govern social media built just like it goes to show you that these social media bans aren't about protecting the youth, but stopping the spread of ideas the censors find inconvenient.