40 ms·

I'm skeptical about banning design patterns just because people might overuse them. Growing up, I had to go to the theater to see movies, but that didn't make c

by eggy 8mo ago

I'm skeptical about banning design patterns just because people might overuse them. Growing up, I had to go to the theater to see movies, but that didn't make cliffhangers and sequels any less compelling. Now we binge entire Netflix series and that's fine, but short-form video needs government intervention? The real question is: where do we draw the line between protecting people from manipulative design and respecting their ability to make their own choices? If we're worried about addictive patterns, those exist everywhere—streaming platforms, social feeds, gaming, even email notifications. My concern isn't whether TikTok's format is uniquely dangerous. It's whether we trust adults to manage their own media consumption, or if we need regulatory guardrails for every compelling app. I'd rather see us focus on media literacy and transparency than constantly asking governments to protect us from ourselves. You can't legislate intelligence...

grayhatter 8mo ago
> I'm skeptical about banning design patterns just because people might overuse them. I used to be opposed, now I'm not. I strongly believe human specialization is the important niche humans have adapted, and that should be encouraged. Another equally significant part of human nature is, trust and gullibility. People will abuse these aspects of human nature to give themselves an unfair advantage. If you believe lying is bad, and laws should exist to punish those who do to gain an advantage. Or if you believe that selling an endless, and addictive substance should restricted. You already agree. There's are two bars in your town, and shady forms of alcohol abound. One bar is run by someone who will always cut someone off after they've had too many. And goes to extreme lengths to ensure that the only alcohol they sell is etoh. Another one is run by someone who doesn't appear to give a fuck, and is constantly suggesting that you should have another, some people have even gone blind. I think a just society, would allow people to specialize in their domain, without needing to also be a phd in the effects of alcohol poisoning, and which alcohols are safe to consume, and how much. > Growing up, I had to go to the theater to see movies, but that didn't make cliffhangers and sequels any less compelling. Now we binge entire Netflix series and that's fine, but short-form video needs government intervention? Yes, the dopamine feedback loop of short form endless scrolling has a significantly different effect on the brain's reward system. I guess in line with how everyone shouldn't need to be a phd, you also need people to be able to believe the conclusions of experts as well. > The real question is: where do we draw the line between protecting people from manipulative design and respecting their ability to make their own choices? It's not as linear of a distinction. We don't have to draw the line of where we stop today. It's perfectly fine to iterate and reevaluate. Endless scroll large data source algorithm's are, without a doubt, addictive. Where's the line on cigarettes or now vapes? Surely they should be available, endlessly to children, because where do you draw the line? (It's mental health, cigarettes and alcohol are bad for physical health, but no one (rhetorical speaking) gives a shit about mental health) > If we're worried about addictive patterns, those exist everywhere—streaming platforms, social feeds, gaming, I'd love to ban micro transactions and loot boxes (gambling games) for children. > even email notifications. reductive ad absurdism, or perhaps you meant to make a whataboutism argument? > My concern isn't whether TikTok's format is uniquely dangerous. Camels and Lucky Strike are both illegal for children to buy. > It's whether we trust adults to manage their own media consumption, or if we need regulatory guardrails for every compelling app. We clearly do. Companies are taking advantage of the natural dopamine system of the brain for their advantage, at the expense of the people using their applications. Mental health deserves the same prioritzation and protection as physical health. I actually agree with you, banning some activity that doesn't harm others, only a risk to yourself, among reasonably educated adults is insanely stupid. But that's not what's happening. > I'd rather see us focus on media literacy and transparency than constantly asking governments to protect us from ourselves. I'd rather see companies that use an unfair disparity of power, control, knowledge and data, be punished when they use it to gain an advantage over their consumers. I think dark patterns should be illegal and come with apocalyptic fines. I think tuning your algorithm's recommendation so that you can sell more ads, or one that recommends divisive content because it drives engagement, (again, because ads) should be heavily taxed, or fined so that the government has the funding to provide an equally effective source of information or transparency. > You can't legislate intelligence... You equally can't demand that everyone know exactly why every flavor of snake oil is dangerous, and you should punish those who try to pretend it's safe. Especially when there's an executive in some part of the building trying to figure out how to get more children using it. The distinction requiring intervention isn't because these companies exist. The intervention is required because the company has hired someone who's job is to convince children to use something they know is addictive.
- direwolf20 8mo ago
  etoh in this comment means ethanol, EtOH for short. The other bar sometimes serves methanol which makes people drunk but is severely toxic and makes people go blind.
croes 8mo ago
> You can't legislate intelligence... That’s why we ban harmful things.
mtoner23 8mo ago
Short form video has been a total break from previous media and social media consumption patterns. Personally I would support a ban on algorithmic endless short form video. It's purely toxic and bad for humanity
- dmix 8mo ago
  People are way too comfortable banning things these days. This is where the term 'nanny state' comes from. A subset of the population doesn't have self control? Ban it everyone. Even if it's a wildly popular form of entertainment with millions of creators sharing their lives, who cares we know better.
  - halestock 8mo ago
    > A subset of the population doesn't have self control? Ban it everyone. Even if it's a wildly popular form of entertainment Like gambling?
    - techterrier 8mo ago
      or cigarettes?
      - arethuza 8mo ago
        Or drugs?
        haugis 8mo ago
        Or coffee?
        senbrow 8mo ago
        The drug so popular no one thinks of it as a drug any more.
        mrguyorama 8mo ago
thisislife2 8mo ago
The only reason the US and Europe are targeting TikTok is because they don't own the platform. Facebook and WhatsApp (owned by Meta) are responsible for so much hate politics and social unrest around the world (Facebook and Genocide: How Facebook contributed to genocide in Myanmar and why it will not be held accountable - https://systemicjustice.org/article/facebook-and-genocide-how-facebook-contributed-to-genocide-in-myanmar-and-why-it-will-not-be-held-accountable/ https://systemicjustice.org/article/facebook-and-genocide-ho... ). Amazon, Google and Microsoft helped the Israelis conduct the genocide in Gaza with their AI tools (UN Calls Out Google and Amazon for Abetting Gaza Genocide - https://progressive.international/wire/2025-08-26-un-calls-out-google-and-amazon-for-abetting-gaza-genocide/en/ https://progressive.international/wire/2025-08-26-un-calls-o... ). But all that's OK.
- plagiarist 8mo ago
  The US government would have to demonstrate improving people's lives to get votes if they couldn't campaign entirely on hate politics. Obviously they prefer the hate politics and ragebait attention algorithms. That way they can funnel billions of dollars to themselves and their buddies instead of wasting it on services supporting US citizens.
- morshu9001 8mo ago
  Yeah, I don't like the reason either. They should've just banned TikTok day 1 as reciprocity with China banning our sites. Instead it was allowed until it started promoting wrongthink.
- direwolf20 8mo ago
  The US government banned tiktok because it was the only major platform that didn't censor information and footage of the Gaza genocide, but I don't think the same reason applies to Europe.
kranke155 8mo ago
You should be able to pick your own algorithm. It’s a matter of freedom of choice.
- maxehmookau 8mo ago
  So I choose an entirely chronological one, containing only that content created by my close friends and family. Except, I'll never be given that choice.
  - direwolf20 8mo ago
    The EU thinks you should. It's required for very large online platforms under the Digital Markets Act.
- hahn-kev 8mo ago
  Yeah, I think that's the new thing these days. Companies have always been trying to make things addictive, but now they can target each and every individual. I wonder if we had strong privacy laws, if it were illegal for TikTok to have this private information about you.
zbentley 8mo ago
> It's whether we trust adults to manage their own media consumption, or if we need regulatory guardrails for every compelling app I think there's a wide regulatory spectrum between those extremes--one that all sorts of governments already use to regulate everything from weapons to software to antibiotics. It's easy to cherry-pick examples where regulation failed or produced unexpected bad results. However, doing that misses the huge majority of cases where regulation succeeds at preventing harms without imposing problematic burdens on people. Those successes are hard to see because they're evidenced by bad outcomes failing to happen, things working much as they did before (or getting worse at a slower rate than otherwise might happen). It's harder to point to "nothing changed" as a win than it is to find the pissed-off minority who got denied building permits for reasons they disagree with, or the whataboutists who take bad actions by governments as evidence that regulation in unrelated areas is doomed to failure.
Juliate 8mo ago
> The real question is: where do we draw the line between protecting people from manipulative design and respecting their ability to make their own choices? We do it for alcohol and cigarettes already: taxes, ads & marketing restrictions, health warning mandated communication.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
wackget 8mo ago
> It's whether we trust adults to manage their own media consumption HA!
wackget 8mo ago
You are not acknowledging the fact that the companies producing these addictive apps are very much doing it intentionally. They are specifically making it as engaging as possible because that's how they make money. And they have billions of dollars to sink into making their products as irresistable as possible. The average person has zero chance against all-pervasive, ultra-manipulative, highly-engineered systems like that. It is, quite simply, not a fair fight.
- stronglikedan 8mo ago
  I hate this age of zero personal accountability. It's so easy to just not doomscroll, but I should be allowed if I want to.
  - saithir 8mo ago
    It's also super easy not to use hard drugs, yet that's not a reason to stop restricting them. If something's harmful it should be controlled.
    - landl0rd 8mo ago
      I find it pretty hypocritical that the same people who push for e.g. legal marijuana would go for banning social media apps. Don't get me wrong, I use neither and think both are mentally, physically, and morally corrosive. I would not care to have either present in the community where I live, nor for my future children to use them. That does not mean it is the province of the state to ban them.
      - rzz3 8mo ago
        To give them some credit, they support both positions because they were told to support them by the same people and never put much thought into it.
      - Quarrelsome 8mo ago
        weed isn't designed to be addictive. You'll find most people would be cautious about legalising heroin, meth or crack.
Supermancho 8mo ago
> The real question is: where do we draw the line between protecting people from manipulative design and respecting their ability to make their own choices? Spoiler: There is no line. Societies (or more accurately, communities) attempt to self-regulate behaviors that have perceived net-negative effects. These perceptions change over time. There is no optimal set of standards. Historically, this has no consideration for intelligence or biology or physics (close-enough-rituals tended to replace impractical mandates).
DaanDL 8mo ago
What an unworldly remark. So, we should also not ban hard-drugs then?
- rektomatic 8mo ago
  are hard-drugs a design pattern?
  - direwolf20 8mo ago
    Why should something not be banned just because it's a design pattern? In fact hard drugs are a pattern. There's no molecular fragment that makes something a hard drug. It's a label we apply based on patterns. Not design patterns though since drugs are discovered not designed. In fact we do ban design patterns of drugs. There used to be an industry of slightly altering an illegal drug so it would have the same effect without being the banned chemical. They banned this by banning design patterns: no tryptamines with psychedelic effects, etc.
- sven_8127642 8mo ago
  Yes, many intelligent people DO think we should not ban any drugs/substances and that the best way to deal with them is instead regulate and set up societal structures and frameworks that support the issues around abuse. The science tends to back these ideas up. Banning does not stop people from doing what they want. Education and guard rails are always better than hard control.
- lII1lIlI11ll 8mo ago
  > So, we should also not ban hard-drugs then? Is this a serious question? Have you been asleep since 70s and are not aware on how the War on Drugs has been going?
  - turtlesdown11 8mo ago
    There is a gulf of difference between banning hard drugs and criminalizing their use
- 8mo ago
wasmainiac 8mo ago
> didn't make cliffhangers and sequels any less compelling Apples to oranges. I can’t make meth in my basement as a precursor to some other drug then complain that my target product had a shitty design. Real life experience shows that TikTok is harmfully addictive and therefore it must be controlled to prevent negative social outcomes. It’s not rocket science, we have to be pragmatic based on real life experience, not theory.
- direwolf20 8mo ago
  You're right about the pragmatism but I don't get the meth analogy.
derektank 8mo ago
My preferred solution would be to subsidize tools that allow people to better identify and resist compulsive behaviors. Apps like Opal and Freedom that allow you to monitor your free time and block apps or websites you have a troubled relationship with would probably see more use if everybody was given a voucher to buy a subscription. Funding more basic research into behavioral addictions like gambling, etc (ideally research that couldn’t be used by casinos and sports gambling apps on the other side). Helping fund the clinical trials for next Zepbound and Ozempic.
enaaem 8mo ago
Gambling mechanics are also banned for certain ages and in some countries for everyone. We don’t say that it’s just a game, and people should just control themselves. Without going into the specifics of this case, design pattern intervention have existed for a long time and it has been in most cases desirable.
- morshu9001 8mo ago
  And there are grey areas for gambling that have been settled on, like how video game "loot boxes" were recently reconsidered as gambling in some places (besides just being stupid).
  - direwolf20 8mo ago
    You know it's stupid because you grew up immersed in the message that gambling is bad. Humans don't know that innately. The target audience for these platforms doesn't know it yet. The target audience is still growing up, immersed in whatever message the platform wants to send.
    - morshu9001 8mo ago
      I meant that digital collectibles are stupid
      - direwolf20 8mo ago
        Like Pokémon?
        morshu9001 8mo ago
        Yeah those. The other example I had in mind was csgo skins.
xp84 8mo ago
I am just as uncomfortable with this banning of ideas, or to look at it another way, banning designing it this way simply because it’s effective. I assume this exact same design would not be made illegal if it were terrible at increasing engagement. However I also have to acknowledge that I already can’t stand what TikTok and its ilk have done to attention spans and how addictive they are even across several generations. People just end up sitting there and thumb-twitching while the algorithm pipes handpicked slop into their brains for hours a day. I really don’t want a world where everything is just like this, but even more refined and effective. So, it’s tough to argue that we should just let these sociopaths do this to everyone. Arguably, the best reason for the government to care is that whoever controls this algorithm, especially in a future when it’s twice as entrenched as it is today, has an unbelievably unfair advantage in influencing public opinion.
GorbachevyChase 8mo ago
I don’t think the addictive argument is being made in good faith. Any platform with an infinite scroll feed and titillating content is intentionally made to be like a slot machine. Just keep swiping and maybe you’ll get that little dopamine hit. The idea that TikTok is dangerous, but Twitter, Instagram, porn, alcohol, and Doritos are fine doesn’t come across as an internally consistent argument. I think that the reality is that those who have an actual say in legislation perceive these platforms as a mechanism of social control and weapon. Right now the weapon isn’t in the “right“ hands.
- direwolf20 8mo ago
  All of those things are regulated in the EU, and the EU is better for it.
nunez 8mo ago
More and more businesses are shifting their operations and outreach to IG and TikTok, so deciding how to live in a society is increasingly becoming "live under a rock" or "enter the casino and hope to not get swallowed up by the slop".
cvoss 8mo ago
> people might overuse them ... cliffhangers and sequels I once heard some try to understand pornography addiction by asking if it was comparable to a desire to eat a lot of lemon cookies. To quote Margaret Thatcher, "No. No. No." > Where do we draw the line Just because it's hard to find a principled place to draw the line doesn't mean we give up and draw no line. If you are OK with the government setting speed limits, then you're OK with lines drawn in ways that are intended to be sensible but are, ultimately, arbitrary, and which infringe on your freedom for the sake of your good and the public good. > trust adults Please do not forget the children. > You can't legislate intelligence Your implication is that people who are addicted to TikTok or anything else are unintelligent, dumb, and need to be educated. This is, frankly, an offensive way to engage the conversation, and, worse, naive.
gtowey 8mo ago
It's not about banning design patterns. It's about removing the harmful results they produce. Can you imagine if gambling were allowed to be marketed to children? Especially things like slot machines. We absolutely limit the reach of those "design patterns".
- 7tflutter7 8mo ago
  This argument falls apart in the EU though. Where it's legal for 14 year olds to drink alcohol.
  - morshu9001 8mo ago
    That's not because EU countries want people to make their own decisions, it's because not so many people in EU think alcohol is bad for kids.
    - direwolf20 8mo ago
      And that's because they're much more responsible with alcohol. Americans get introduced to alcohol as a rebellion from oppression the moment they go to college. Germans have it with dinner with their parents sometimes when they're 12. It's like how Facebook got boring when your parents were on it.
      - rkomorn 8mo ago
        Anecdata, but I don't remember my high school friends in Europe being much more (if at all) responsible with alcohol than my US friends were when I went to college there. They just started getting blackout drunk 3 years earlier.
      - deleted 8mo ago
        [deleted]
      - morshu9001 8mo ago
        I don't get that impression from Europeans. Also I've had wine at home since I was 12, but still ended up getting completely wasted the first time I had alcohol in college. Pretty sure anyone who's interested in that will do it at some point, and that's the only way to outgrow it.
andrei_says_ 8mo ago
I'm skeptical about banning sales of tobacco and alcohol products to children because children may (over)use them. Also do we trust adults prescribed oxytocin to manage their use? We are speaking of weaponized addiction at planetary scale.
Refreeze5224 8mo ago
You can regulate power imbalances though, which is what every individual has versus a multinational with vast resources.
Etheryte 8mo ago
You could make the same argument about sugary beverages, that you can't legislate intelligence, yet every country that has imposed a considerable sugar tax has seen benefits across the board. This of course omits a lot of nuance, but the main takeaway remains the same. We all have that monkey brain inside us and sometimes we need guardrails to defend against it. It's the same reason we don't allow advertising alcohol and casinos to kids, and many other similar examples. (Or at least we don't allow it where I'm from, maybe the laws are different where you're from.)
- afarah1 8mo ago
  >every country that has imposed a considerable sugar tax has seen benefits across the board Is there strong evidence for that? The first study that pops up if I search this suggests otherwise, that it could increase consumption of sugar-substitutes and overall caloric intake. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjnut.2025.05.019 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjnut.2025.05.019 >we need guardrails to defend against There is no "we". You say that I and others need it, and you want to impose your opinion by taxing us.
  - Etheryte 8mo ago
    This is honestly a very silly take. You could make the same counterargument about any tax of any kind, or really any law of any kind. Like it or not, we do need both taxes and laws to function as a society.
    - afarah1 8mo ago
      And for most it would be a valid point. Nozick makes the best case for this.
  - loglog 8mo ago
    Your link is _not_ about a country that _actually_ imposed a sugar tax.
turtlesdown11 8mo ago
I'm also skeptical about banning products like opium or methamphetamine, just because people might overuse them.
seydor 8mo ago
The best way for tiktok to respond to this , is to add some "cooling down" delay between videos. The EU commision will boast about this achievement, but effectively tiktok users will spend MORE time on their app.
- direwolf20 8mo ago
  You presume a tiktok user is there to watch a set number of videos, so a delay makes them stay longer. I counter they stay until they're bored.
hollerith 8mo ago
>I had to go to the theater to see movies, but that didn't make cliffhangers and sequels any less compelling. The argument against tiktok (and smartphones in general) is not that experiences above a certain threshold of compellingness are bad for you: it is that filling your waking hours with compelling experiences is bad for you. Back when he had to travel to a theatre to have them, a person was unable to have them every free minute of his day.
ripped_britches 8mo ago
> You can’t legislate intelligence Au contraire
jaco6 8mo ago
[dead]
swiftcoder 8mo ago
> Now we binge entire Netflix series and that's fine I mean, that's specifically fine because we have ample evidence to suggest it's just kind of a shit way to watch shows, and Netflix continually taking their own business model out back and shooting it doesn't really warrant government intervention
WarcrimeActual 8mo ago
I'd go as far as saying every film ever made should have to have a concrete ending and stand on it's own. I am however much less into "freedoms" as I get older and see people become crackheads for apps and the worst form of capitalism possible where market breaking hoarders and resellers get rich denying people both necessities and wants in equal measure. I'm also radical enough to think that it should be illegal to own more than one house, more than one car for every licensed member of a household, and reselling anything for profit. I guess put simply, I hate resellers. I hate hanging threads, and I hate people that design things to constantly leave people wanting or "needing" more.
dlcarrier 8mo ago
To that end, there's no logical reason entertainment exists at all. There's a biological advantage to finding community members entertaining, but anything that broadcasts that entertainment to another community is just exploiting human nature. By the logic of the court decision, anything that is entertaining should be banned, from movies to TV shows to any news that makes any analysis whatsoever.
computerthings 8mo ago
[dead]
D-Machine 8mo ago
Has been really surprising to see HN increasingly turning pro paternalistic censorship and control, and increasingly skeptical about individual agency over the years.
- permo-w 8mo ago
  And yet consistently the arguments you hear against regulation are these "let's pretend there's no such thing as nuance, how can we ever regulate an extreme case of something when we don't regulate minor cases?" arguments that act like no law has ever successfully regulated a nuance and improved people's welfare. Should we also allow heroin in baby food because cliff-hangers are allowed in films? Don't restrict my personal freedom to choose to be addicted to heroin from day 1! I'm not saying these feeds are as bad as heroin for your health, but the difference in addictiveness between cliff-hangers in film and tiktok on your phone is about as big, and I equally think nicotine should be heavily regulated for similar reasons
  - D-Machine 8mo ago
    Yes the argument quality has become poor too, and there is less nuance than before. And like obviously society benefits from some paternalism for things like this, and we really do need to see good, concrete recommendations be proposed. Imagine if HN were discussing the merits of things like "interrupt every X minutes of infinite-scrolling with reminders / popups / forced X/10 minute breaks" or other actual concrete, balanced solutions to such problems. This would introduce the nuance and make things interesting again. But it is increasingly the case I find I need to look elsewhere for such discussions.
    - permo-w 8mo ago
      I absolutely get what you're saying in theory--discussions about how and why are far more valuable than dialectic no yes no yes no yes debates--but in practice for this case, I feel like those how why conversations would perhaps feel a bit redundant? I think almost anyone on the site could quite easily come up with an effective legal method for reducing the addictiveness of short form videos. The issue lies more in the action/inaction of regulators than the makeup of the actions they should take. Then again, this is all recreational anyway, so why not see who can optimise for the absolute best method? I also wonder if these discussions are going on, just further down the thread

by eggy 8mo ago

grayhatter 8mo ago

> I'm skeptical about banning design patterns just because people might overuse them. I used to be opposed, now I'm not. I strongly believe human specialization is the important niche humans have adapted, and that should be encouraged. Another equally significant part of human nature is, trust and gullibility. People will abuse these aspects of human nature to give themselves an unfair advantage. If you believe lying is bad, and laws should exist to punish those who do to gain an advantage. Or if you believe that selling an endless, and addictive substance should restricted. You already agree. There's are two bars in your town, and shady forms of alcohol abound. One bar is run by someone who will always cut someone off after they've had too many. And goes to extreme lengths to ensure that the only alcohol they sell is etoh. Another one is run by someone who doesn't appear to give a fuck, and is constantly suggesting that you should have another, some people have even gone blind. I think a just society, would allow people to specialize in their domain, without needing to also be a phd in the effects of alcohol poisoning, and which alcohols are safe to consume, and how much. > Growing up, I had to go to the theater to see movies, but that didn't make cliffhangers and sequels any less compelling. Now we binge entire Netflix series and that's fine, but short-form video needs government intervention? Yes, the dopamine feedback loop of short form endless scrolling has a significantly different effect on the brain's reward system. I guess in line with how everyone shouldn't need to be a phd, you also need people to be able to believe the conclusions of experts as well. > The real question is: where do we draw the line between protecting people from manipulative design and respecting their ability to make their own choices? It's not as linear of a distinction. We don't have to draw the line of where we stop today. It's perfectly fine to iterate and reevaluate. Endless scroll large data source algorithm's are, without a doubt, addictive. Where's the line on cigarettes or now vapes? Surely they should be available, endlessly to children, because where do you draw the line? (It's mental health, cigarettes and alcohol are bad for physical health, but no one (rhetorical speaking) gives a shit about mental health) > If we're worried about addictive patterns, those exist everywhere—streaming platforms, social feeds, gaming, I'd love to ban micro transactions and loot boxes (gambling games) for children. > even email notifications. reductive ad absurdism, or perhaps you meant to make a whataboutism argument? > My concern isn't whether TikTok's format is uniquely dangerous. Camels and Lucky Strike are both illegal for children to buy. > It's whether we trust adults to manage their own media consumption, or if we need regulatory guardrails for every compelling app. We clearly do. Companies are taking advantage of the natural dopamine system of the brain for their advantage, at the expense of the people using their applications. Mental health deserves the same prioritzation and protection as physical health. I actually agree with you, banning some activity that doesn't harm others, only a risk to yourself, among reasonably educated adults is insanely stupid. But that's not what's happening. > I'd rather see us focus on media literacy and transparency than constantly asking governments to protect us from ourselves. I'd rather see companies that use an unfair disparity of power, control, knowledge and data, be punished when they use it to gain an advantage over their consumers. I think dark patterns should be illegal and come with apocalyptic fines. I think tuning your algorithm's recommendation so that you can sell more ads, or one that recommends divisive content because it drives engagement, (again, because ads) should be heavily taxed, or fined so that the government has the funding to provide an equally effective source of information or transparency. > You can't legislate intelligence... You equally can't demand that everyone know exactly why every flavor of snake oil is dangerous, and you should punish those who try to pretend it's safe. Especially when there's an executive in some part of the building trying to figure out how to get more children using it. The distinction requiring intervention isn't because these companies exist. The intervention is required because the company has hired someone who's job is to convince children to use something they know is addictive.

direwolf20 8mo ago
etoh in this comment means ethanol, EtOH for short. The other bar sometimes serves methanol which makes people drunk but is severely toxic and makes people go blind.

croes 8mo ago

> You can't legislate intelligence... That’s why we ban harmful things.

mtoner23 8mo ago

Short form video has been a total break from previous media and social media consumption patterns. Personally I would support a ban on algorithmic endless short form video. It's purely toxic and bad for humanity

dmix 8mo ago
People are way too comfortable banning things these days. This is where the term 'nanny state' comes from. A subset of the population doesn't have self control? Ban it everyone. Even if it's a wildly popular form of entertainment with millions of creators sharing their lives, who cares we know better.
- halestock 8mo ago
  > A subset of the population doesn't have self control? Ban it everyone. Even if it's a wildly popular form of entertainment Like gambling?
  - techterrier 8mo ago
    or cigarettes?
    - arethuza 8mo ago
      Or drugs?
      - haugis 8mo ago
        Or coffee?
        senbrow 8mo ago
        The drug so popular no one thinks of it as a drug any more.
        mrguyorama 8mo ago

thisislife2 8mo ago

The only reason the US and Europe are targeting TikTok is because they don't own the platform. Facebook and WhatsApp (owned by Meta) are responsible for so much hate politics and social unrest around the world (Facebook and Genocide: How Facebook contributed to genocide in Myanmar and why it will not be held accountable - https://systemicjustice.org/article/facebook-and-genocide-how-facebook-contributed-to-genocide-in-myanmar-and-why-it-will-not-be-held-accountable/ https://systemicjustice.org/article/facebook-and-genocide-ho... ). Amazon, Google and Microsoft helped the Israelis conduct the genocide in Gaza with their AI tools (UN Calls Out Google and Amazon for Abetting Gaza Genocide - https://progressive.international/wire/2025-08-26-un-calls-out-google-and-amazon-for-abetting-gaza-genocide/en/ https://progressive.international/wire/2025-08-26-un-calls-o... ). But all that's OK.

plagiarist 8mo ago
The US government would have to demonstrate improving people's lives to get votes if they couldn't campaign entirely on hate politics. Obviously they prefer the hate politics and ragebait attention algorithms. That way they can funnel billions of dollars to themselves and their buddies instead of wasting it on services supporting US citizens.
morshu9001 8mo ago
Yeah, I don't like the reason either. They should've just banned TikTok day 1 as reciprocity with China banning our sites. Instead it was allowed until it started promoting wrongthink.
direwolf20 8mo ago
The US government banned tiktok because it was the only major platform that didn't censor information and footage of the Gaza genocide, but I don't think the same reason applies to Europe.

kranke155 8mo ago

You should be able to pick your own algorithm. It’s a matter of freedom of choice.

maxehmookau 8mo ago
So I choose an entirely chronological one, containing only that content created by my close friends and family. Except, I'll never be given that choice.
- direwolf20 8mo ago
  The EU thinks you should. It's required for very large online platforms under the Digital Markets Act.
hahn-kev 8mo ago
Yeah, I think that's the new thing these days. Companies have always been trying to make things addictive, but now they can target each and every individual. I wonder if we had strong privacy laws, if it were illegal for TikTok to have this private information about you.

zbentley 8mo ago

> It's whether we trust adults to manage their own media consumption, or if we need regulatory guardrails for every compelling app I think there's a wide regulatory spectrum between those extremes--one that all sorts of governments already use to regulate everything from weapons to software to antibiotics. It's easy to cherry-pick examples where regulation failed or produced unexpected bad results. However, doing that misses the huge majority of cases where regulation succeeds at preventing harms without imposing problematic burdens on people. Those successes are hard to see because they're evidenced by bad outcomes failing to happen, things working much as they did before (or getting worse at a slower rate than otherwise might happen). It's harder to point to "nothing changed" as a win than it is to find the pissed-off minority who got denied building permits for reasons they disagree with, or the whataboutists who take bad actions by governments as evidence that regulation in unrelated areas is doomed to failure.

Juliate 8mo ago

> The real question is: where do we draw the line between protecting people from manipulative design and respecting their ability to make their own choices? We do it for alcohol and cigarettes already: taxes, ads & marketing restrictions, health warning mandated communication.

deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]

wackget 8mo ago

> It's whether we trust adults to manage their own media consumption HA!

wackget 8mo ago

You are not acknowledging the fact that the companies producing these addictive apps are very much doing it intentionally. They are specifically making it as engaging as possible because that's how they make money. And they have billions of dollars to sink into making their products as irresistable as possible. The average person has zero chance against all-pervasive, ultra-manipulative, highly-engineered systems like that. It is, quite simply, not a fair fight.

stronglikedan 8mo ago
I hate this age of zero personal accountability. It's so easy to just not doomscroll, but I should be allowed if I want to.
- saithir 8mo ago
  It's also super easy not to use hard drugs, yet that's not a reason to stop restricting them. If something's harmful it should be controlled.
  - landl0rd 8mo ago
    I find it pretty hypocritical that the same people who push for e.g. legal marijuana would go for banning social media apps. Don't get me wrong, I use neither and think both are mentally, physically, and morally corrosive. I would not care to have either present in the community where I live, nor for my future children to use them. That does not mean it is the province of the state to ban them.
    - rzz3 8mo ago
      To give them some credit, they support both positions because they were told to support them by the same people and never put much thought into it.
    - Quarrelsome 8mo ago
      weed isn't designed to be addictive. You'll find most people would be cautious about legalising heroin, meth or crack.

Supermancho 8mo ago

> The real question is: where do we draw the line between protecting people from manipulative design and respecting their ability to make their own choices? Spoiler: There is no line. Societies (or more accurately, communities) attempt to self-regulate behaviors that have perceived net-negative effects. These perceptions change over time. There is no optimal set of standards. Historically, this has no consideration for intelligence or biology or physics (close-enough-rituals tended to replace impractical mandates).

DaanDL 8mo ago

What an unworldly remark. So, we should also not ban hard-drugs then?

rektomatic 8mo ago
are hard-drugs a design pattern?
- direwolf20 8mo ago
  Why should something not be banned just because it's a design pattern? In fact hard drugs are a pattern. There's no molecular fragment that makes something a hard drug. It's a label we apply based on patterns. Not design patterns though since drugs are discovered not designed. In fact we do ban design patterns of drugs. There used to be an industry of slightly altering an illegal drug so it would have the same effect without being the banned chemical. They banned this by banning design patterns: no tryptamines with psychedelic effects, etc.
sven_8127642 8mo ago
Yes, many intelligent people DO think we should not ban any drugs/substances and that the best way to deal with them is instead regulate and set up societal structures and frameworks that support the issues around abuse. The science tends to back these ideas up. Banning does not stop people from doing what they want. Education and guard rails are always better than hard control.
lII1lIlI11ll 8mo ago
> So, we should also not ban hard-drugs then? Is this a serious question? Have you been asleep since 70s and are not aware on how the War on Drugs has been going?
- turtlesdown11 8mo ago
  There is a gulf of difference between banning hard drugs and criminalizing their use
8mo ago

wasmainiac 8mo ago

> didn't make cliffhangers and sequels any less compelling Apples to oranges. I can’t make meth in my basement as a precursor to some other drug then complain that my target product had a shitty design. Real life experience shows that TikTok is harmfully addictive and therefore it must be controlled to prevent negative social outcomes. It’s not rocket science, we have to be pragmatic based on real life experience, not theory.

direwolf20 8mo ago
You're right about the pragmatism but I don't get the meth analogy.

derektank 8mo ago

My preferred solution would be to subsidize tools that allow people to better identify and resist compulsive behaviors. Apps like Opal and Freedom that allow you to monitor your free time and block apps or websites you have a troubled relationship with would probably see more use if everybody was given a voucher to buy a subscription. Funding more basic research into behavioral addictions like gambling, etc (ideally research that couldn’t be used by casinos and sports gambling apps on the other side). Helping fund the clinical trials for next Zepbound and Ozempic.

enaaem 8mo ago

Gambling mechanics are also banned for certain ages and in some countries for everyone. We don’t say that it’s just a game, and people should just control themselves. Without going into the specifics of this case, design pattern intervention have existed for a long time and it has been in most cases desirable.

morshu9001 8mo ago
And there are grey areas for gambling that have been settled on, like how video game "loot boxes" were recently reconsidered as gambling in some places (besides just being stupid).
- direwolf20 8mo ago
  You know it's stupid because you grew up immersed in the message that gambling is bad. Humans don't know that innately. The target audience for these platforms doesn't know it yet. The target audience is still growing up, immersed in whatever message the platform wants to send.
  - morshu9001 8mo ago
    I meant that digital collectibles are stupid
    - direwolf20 8mo ago
      Like Pokémon?
      - morshu9001 8mo ago
        Yeah those. The other example I had in mind was csgo skins.

xp84 8mo ago

I am just as uncomfortable with this banning of ideas, or to look at it another way, banning designing it this way simply because it’s effective. I assume this exact same design would not be made illegal if it were terrible at increasing engagement. However I also have to acknowledge that I already can’t stand what TikTok and its ilk have done to attention spans and how addictive they are even across several generations. People just end up sitting there and thumb-twitching while the algorithm pipes handpicked slop into their brains for hours a day. I really don’t want a world where everything is just like this, but even more refined and effective. So, it’s tough to argue that we should just let these sociopaths do this to everyone. Arguably, the best reason for the government to care is that whoever controls this algorithm, especially in a future when it’s twice as entrenched as it is today, has an unbelievably unfair advantage in influencing public opinion.

GorbachevyChase 8mo ago

I don’t think the addictive argument is being made in good faith. Any platform with an infinite scroll feed and titillating content is intentionally made to be like a slot machine. Just keep swiping and maybe you’ll get that little dopamine hit. The idea that TikTok is dangerous, but Twitter, Instagram, porn, alcohol, and Doritos are fine doesn’t come across as an internally consistent argument. I think that the reality is that those who have an actual say in legislation perceive these platforms as a mechanism of social control and weapon. Right now the weapon isn’t in the “right“ hands.

direwolf20 8mo ago
All of those things are regulated in the EU, and the EU is better for it.

nunez 8mo ago

More and more businesses are shifting their operations and outreach to IG and TikTok, so deciding how to live in a society is increasingly becoming "live under a rock" or "enter the casino and hope to not get swallowed up by the slop".

cvoss 8mo ago

> people might overuse them ... cliffhangers and sequels I once heard some try to understand pornography addiction by asking if it was comparable to a desire to eat a lot of lemon cookies. To quote Margaret Thatcher, "No. No. No." > Where do we draw the line Just because it's hard to find a principled place to draw the line doesn't mean we give up and draw no line. If you are OK with the government setting speed limits, then you're OK with lines drawn in ways that are intended to be sensible but are, ultimately, arbitrary, and which infringe on your freedom for the sake of your good and the public good. > trust adults Please do not forget the children. > You can't legislate intelligence Your implication is that people who are addicted to TikTok or anything else are unintelligent, dumb, and need to be educated. This is, frankly, an offensive way to engage the conversation, and, worse, naive.

gtowey 8mo ago

It's not about banning design patterns. It's about removing the harmful results they produce. Can you imagine if gambling were allowed to be marketed to children? Especially things like slot machines. We absolutely limit the reach of those "design patterns".

7tflutter7 8mo ago
This argument falls apart in the EU though. Where it's legal for 14 year olds to drink alcohol.
- morshu9001 8mo ago
  That's not because EU countries want people to make their own decisions, it's because not so many people in EU think alcohol is bad for kids.
  - direwolf20 8mo ago
    And that's because they're much more responsible with alcohol. Americans get introduced to alcohol as a rebellion from oppression the moment they go to college. Germans have it with dinner with their parents sometimes when they're 12. It's like how Facebook got boring when your parents were on it.
    - rkomorn 8mo ago
      Anecdata, but I don't remember my high school friends in Europe being much more (if at all) responsible with alcohol than my US friends were when I went to college there. They just started getting blackout drunk 3 years earlier.
    - deleted 8mo ago
      [deleted]
    - morshu9001 8mo ago
      I don't get that impression from Europeans. Also I've had wine at home since I was 12, but still ended up getting completely wasted the first time I had alcohol in college. Pretty sure anyone who's interested in that will do it at some point, and that's the only way to outgrow it.

andrei_says_ 8mo ago

I'm skeptical about banning sales of tobacco and alcohol products to children because children may (over)use them. Also do we trust adults prescribed oxytocin to manage their use? We are speaking of weaponized addiction at planetary scale.

Refreeze5224 8mo ago

You can regulate power imbalances though, which is what every individual has versus a multinational with vast resources.

Etheryte 8mo ago

You could make the same argument about sugary beverages, that you can't legislate intelligence, yet every country that has imposed a considerable sugar tax has seen benefits across the board. This of course omits a lot of nuance, but the main takeaway remains the same. We all have that monkey brain inside us and sometimes we need guardrails to defend against it. It's the same reason we don't allow advertising alcohol and casinos to kids, and many other similar examples. (Or at least we don't allow it where I'm from, maybe the laws are different where you're from.)

afarah1 8mo ago
>every country that has imposed a considerable sugar tax has seen benefits across the board Is there strong evidence for that? The first study that pops up if I search this suggests otherwise, that it could increase consumption of sugar-substitutes and overall caloric intake. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjnut.2025.05.019 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjnut.2025.05.019 >we need guardrails to defend against There is no "we". You say that I and others need it, and you want to impose your opinion by taxing us.
- Etheryte 8mo ago
  This is honestly a very silly take. You could make the same counterargument about any tax of any kind, or really any law of any kind. Like it or not, we do need both taxes and laws to function as a society.
  - afarah1 8mo ago
    And for most it would be a valid point. Nozick makes the best case for this.
- loglog 8mo ago
  Your link is _not_ about a country that _actually_ imposed a sugar tax.

turtlesdown11 8mo ago

I'm also skeptical about banning products like opium or methamphetamine, just because people might overuse them.

seydor 8mo ago

The best way for tiktok to respond to this , is to add some "cooling down" delay between videos. The EU commision will boast about this achievement, but effectively tiktok users will spend MORE time on their app.

direwolf20 8mo ago
You presume a tiktok user is there to watch a set number of videos, so a delay makes them stay longer. I counter they stay until they're bored.

hollerith 8mo ago

>I had to go to the theater to see movies, but that didn't make cliffhangers and sequels any less compelling. The argument against tiktok (and smartphones in general) is not that experiences above a certain threshold of compellingness are bad for you: it is that filling your waking hours with compelling experiences is bad for you. Back when he had to travel to a theatre to have them, a person was unable to have them every free minute of his day.

ripped_britches 8mo ago

> You can’t legislate intelligence Au contraire

jaco6 8mo ago

[dead]

swiftcoder 8mo ago

> Now we binge entire Netflix series and that's fine I mean, that's specifically fine because we have ample evidence to suggest it's just kind of a shit way to watch shows, and Netflix continually taking their own business model out back and shooting it doesn't really warrant government intervention

WarcrimeActual 8mo ago

I'd go as far as saying every film ever made should have to have a concrete ending and stand on it's own. I am however much less into "freedoms" as I get older and see people become crackheads for apps and the worst form of capitalism possible where market breaking hoarders and resellers get rich denying people both necessities and wants in equal measure. I'm also radical enough to think that it should be illegal to own more than one house, more than one car for every licensed member of a household, and reselling anything for profit. I guess put simply, I hate resellers. I hate hanging threads, and I hate people that design things to constantly leave people wanting or "needing" more.

dlcarrier 8mo ago

To that end, there's no logical reason entertainment exists at all. There's a biological advantage to finding community members entertaining, but anything that broadcasts that entertainment to another community is just exploiting human nature. By the logic of the court decision, anything that is entertaining should be banned, from movies to TV shows to any news that makes any analysis whatsoever.

computerthings 8mo ago

[dead]

D-Machine 8mo ago

Has been really surprising to see HN increasingly turning pro paternalistic censorship and control, and increasingly skeptical about individual agency over the years.

permo-w 8mo ago
And yet consistently the arguments you hear against regulation are these "let's pretend there's no such thing as nuance, how can we ever regulate an extreme case of something when we don't regulate minor cases?" arguments that act like no law has ever successfully regulated a nuance and improved people's welfare. Should we also allow heroin in baby food because cliff-hangers are allowed in films? Don't restrict my personal freedom to choose to be addicted to heroin from day 1! I'm not saying these feeds are as bad as heroin for your health, but the difference in addictiveness between cliff-hangers in film and tiktok on your phone is about as big, and I equally think nicotine should be heavily regulated for similar reasons
- D-Machine 8mo ago
  Yes the argument quality has become poor too, and there is less nuance than before. And like obviously society benefits from some paternalism for things like this, and we really do need to see good, concrete recommendations be proposed. Imagine if HN were discussing the merits of things like "interrupt every X minutes of infinite-scrolling with reminders / popups / forced X/10 minute breaks" or other actual concrete, balanced solutions to such problems. This would introduce the nuance and make things interesting again. But it is increasingly the case I find I need to look elsewhere for such discussions.
  - permo-w 8mo ago
    I absolutely get what you're saying in theory--discussions about how and why are far more valuable than dialectic no yes no yes no yes debates--but in practice for this case, I feel like those how why conversations would perhaps feel a bit redundant? I think almost anyone on the site could quite easily come up with an effective legal method for reducing the addictiveness of short form videos. The issue lies more in the action/inaction of regulators than the makeup of the actions they should take. Then again, this is all recreational anyway, so why not see who can optimise for the absolute best method? I also wonder if these discussions are going on, just further down the thread