3 ms·

> Why would anyone care about something like this ... Because it is a dangerous addiction [1] with recognised adverse effects on human health. Like sugar, toba

by Rygian 8mo ago

> Why would anyone care about something like this ... Because it is a dangerous addiction [1] with recognised adverse effects on human health. Like sugar, tobacco, or drugs. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46959832 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46959832

rockskon 8mo ago
While I agree it's not a net positive, I find it dangerous to equate all addictions.
- Forgeties79 8mo ago
  He’s not equating all addictions beyond saying they are all addictions and should be treated as such.
  - rockskon 8mo ago
    But that's the problem - different substances require different solutions. You reduce sugar intake, not eliminate it. You eliminate cocaine intake, not just reduce it. Treating social media design as equal to something that can kill people in excess unnerves me.
    - xracy 8mo ago
      It looks to me like you're adding the conflation to "all addictions" because you can clearly distinguish between "sugar" and "cocaine" as both forms of addictions. Why would you not be willing to include "scrolling" as another form of addiction? Just because it's labeled the same way you yourself are demonstrating that we handle that in different ways. Social Media is being treated as "sugar" in this instance instead of as "cocaine".
    - ben_w 8mo ago
      > Treating social media design as equal to something that can kill people in excess unnerves me. As it should, because there's a really obvious "slippery slope" argument right there. But… it can kill people. There is a certain fraction of the population who, for whatever reason, can be manipulated, to the point of becoming killers or of causing injury to themselves. Social media… actually, worse than that, all A/B testing everywhere, can stumble upon this even when it isn't trying to (I would like to believe that OpenAI's experience with 4o-induced psychosis was unintentional). When we know which tools can be used for manipulation, it's bad to keep allowing it to run unchecked. Unchecked, they are the tool of propagandists. But… I see that slippery slope, I know that any government which successfully argues itself the power to regulate this, even for good, is one bad election away from a dictatorship that will abuse the same reasoning and powers to evil ends.
      - DarkUranium 8mo ago
        There's literally a name for using this on purpose: stochastic terrorism. There's also a very good TED talk on this topic from 8 years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFTWM7HV2UI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFTWM7HV2UI
        rockskon 8mo ago
        I've always found the notion of "stochastic terrorism" to be elastic, effectively transforming "speech a given person dislikes" into "danger" so censorship looks like virtue. Not to mention - you have to account for what happens if someone you hate may be in power and could wield any sort of system to stop "stochastic terrorism" against you. This is often dismissed as an abstract what-if, but....given what's been happening with world leaders these days, it should be a central consideration.
        Forgeties79 8mo ago
        You are worried about the “what if” fallout over the multiple world leaders actually engaging in it. Their followers enact violence on their behalf while the leader maintains plausible deniability/enough perceived distance from the act they can never be explicitly blamed. You can be worried about more than one thing but clearly one is a bigger issue than the other right now.
        rockskon 8mo ago
        I never said "multiple". Just the leader in the jurisdiction you live in. And I'm genuinely not sure how to interpret your last sentence. In the US we have a President that is increasingly going after people for their speech, in quite a few cases by using the laws and policies put in place to go after dissent. He is going after colleges and businesses who have "bias against whites" using policies put in place to punish hate speech against minorities and women.
        Forgeties79 8mo ago
    - lII1lIlI11ll 8mo ago
      This is a weird take. Sugar have been killing much more people historically than cocaine.
      - rockskon 8mo ago
        Yes, and without any sugar, the human body cannot function. Literally. You must mean "added sugar", which is different and one I more readily agree with you about.
PlatoIsADisease 8mo ago
Lets do the nanny state! (As I get older, unironically. I want my productive worker bees to be drug free, addiction free, enjoying simple pleasures that do not put me at risk. They pay Social Security. Everything is nice and safe. Freedom? Yeah no thanks, get to work and pay your taxes.)
- rendx 8mo ago
  Thank you from talking about the Holy Freedom, my brother. Looking forward to enjoying further freedoms thanks to laws that protect me from behavior that makes me unfree and in need to constantly control me and my surroundings!
- pixl97 8mo ago
  I mean, lets do the opposite where a large corporation gets people intentionally addicted to drugs and then bilks them for every penny they have until they are husks. Remember, free market comes first!
- ekjhgkejhgk 8mo ago
  The thing is, why do you care? We like it this way. These companies are a cancer and they should be erradicated. You think that attacking these horrible companies is bad for our freedoms, we think our freedoms are fine with it.

by Rygian 8mo ago

rockskon 8mo ago

While I agree it's not a net positive, I find it dangerous to equate all addictions.

Forgeties79 8mo ago
He’s not equating all addictions beyond saying they are all addictions and should be treated as such.
- rockskon 8mo ago
  But that's the problem - different substances require different solutions. You reduce sugar intake, not eliminate it. You eliminate cocaine intake, not just reduce it. Treating social media design as equal to something that can kill people in excess unnerves me.
  - xracy 8mo ago
    It looks to me like you're adding the conflation to "all addictions" because you can clearly distinguish between "sugar" and "cocaine" as both forms of addictions. Why would you not be willing to include "scrolling" as another form of addiction? Just because it's labeled the same way you yourself are demonstrating that we handle that in different ways. Social Media is being treated as "sugar" in this instance instead of as "cocaine".
  - ben_w 8mo ago
    > Treating social media design as equal to something that can kill people in excess unnerves me. As it should, because there's a really obvious "slippery slope" argument right there. But… it can kill people. There is a certain fraction of the population who, for whatever reason, can be manipulated, to the point of becoming killers or of causing injury to themselves. Social media… actually, worse than that, all A/B testing everywhere, can stumble upon this even when it isn't trying to (I would like to believe that OpenAI's experience with 4o-induced psychosis was unintentional). When we know which tools can be used for manipulation, it's bad to keep allowing it to run unchecked. Unchecked, they are the tool of propagandists. But… I see that slippery slope, I know that any government which successfully argues itself the power to regulate this, even for good, is one bad election away from a dictatorship that will abuse the same reasoning and powers to evil ends.
    - DarkUranium 8mo ago
      There's literally a name for using this on purpose: stochastic terrorism. There's also a very good TED talk on this topic from 8 years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFTWM7HV2UI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFTWM7HV2UI
      - rockskon 8mo ago
        I've always found the notion of "stochastic terrorism" to be elastic, effectively transforming "speech a given person dislikes" into "danger" so censorship looks like virtue. Not to mention - you have to account for what happens if someone you hate may be in power and could wield any sort of system to stop "stochastic terrorism" against you. This is often dismissed as an abstract what-if, but....given what's been happening with world leaders these days, it should be a central consideration.
        Forgeties79 8mo ago
        You are worried about the “what if” fallout over the multiple world leaders actually engaging in it. Their followers enact violence on their behalf while the leader maintains plausible deniability/enough perceived distance from the act they can never be explicitly blamed. You can be worried about more than one thing but clearly one is a bigger issue than the other right now.
        rockskon 8mo ago
        I never said "multiple". Just the leader in the jurisdiction you live in. And I'm genuinely not sure how to interpret your last sentence. In the US we have a President that is increasingly going after people for their speech, in quite a few cases by using the laws and policies put in place to go after dissent. He is going after colleges and businesses who have "bias against whites" using policies put in place to punish hate speech against minorities and women.
        Forgeties79 8mo ago
  - lII1lIlI11ll 8mo ago
    This is a weird take. Sugar have been killing much more people historically than cocaine.
    - rockskon 8mo ago
      Yes, and without any sugar, the human body cannot function. Literally. You must mean "added sugar", which is different and one I more readily agree with you about.

PlatoIsADisease 8mo ago

Lets do the nanny state! (As I get older, unironically. I want my productive worker bees to be drug free, addiction free, enjoying simple pleasures that do not put me at risk. They pay Social Security. Everything is nice and safe. Freedom? Yeah no thanks, get to work and pay your taxes.)

rendx 8mo ago
Thank you from talking about the Holy Freedom, my brother. Looking forward to enjoying further freedoms thanks to laws that protect me from behavior that makes me unfree and in need to constantly control me and my surroundings!
pixl97 8mo ago
I mean, lets do the opposite where a large corporation gets people intentionally addicted to drugs and then bilks them for every penny they have until they are husks. Remember, free market comes first!
ekjhgkejhgk 8mo ago
The thing is, why do you care? We like it this way. These companies are a cancer and they should be erradicated. You think that attacking these horrible companies is bad for our freedoms, we think our freedoms are fine with it.