3 ms·

Aren’t some things just inherent with the product though. These are unhealthy products, they should be allowed to exist for what they are instead of trying to m

Aren’t some things just inherent with the product though. These are unhealthy products, they should be allowed to exist for what they are instead of trying to make them something they’re not. And I say this as a very light social media user, I never enjoyed it and it always felt unhealthy so I just kept off it. As I’ve watch it all unfold, was in college during facebooks college only explosion and now people are on tiktok. It’s clear, people want to be addicted to social media just as bad as zuck wants them addicted to social media. And an instagram without filters is like porn without nudity.

rsynnott 8mo ago
Should they, tho? Laudanum (morphine in alcohol; a lot of ‘patent medicines’/snake oil were basically just laudanum) is an unhealthy product. It is not, in any meaningful sense, allowed to exist these days.
- conductr 8mo ago
  Then ban social media as a whole, cherry picking features to ban is silly. Banning features that only harm young users that probably shouldn’t even be using the app due to their age is misguided. If it’s unhealthy for kids, ban kids use.
  - rsynnott 8mo ago
    "Then ban medicine as a whole, cherry picking medicines to ban is silly." Like, you don't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. _This_ is social media, but probably would not make sense to ban (merely being very irritating is not an adequate reason to ban something).
    - conductr 8mo ago
      > merely being very irritating is not an adequate reason to ban something I think we're talking about it's large scale impact on youth mental health, slightly more reason than 'merely...irritating' I do think it's sad that we have to ban it, because that means parents aren't doing their job - but that's the reality of it
spinningslate 8mo ago
All true but it's a circular argument: these are unhealthy products because they're _designed_ that way. That design is directed from the top - no more so that Facebook/Instagram. Zuckerberg retains a controlling interest in Meta so he can't use the excuse of other public firms where CEOs throw up their hands and say "yeah, but we need to deliver shareholder return - it's out of my hands". Zuckerberg could choose differently. As GP notes, he hasn't - he's gone consistently hard the other way. > It’s clear, people want to be addicted to social media I'd say people are susceptible to addiction rather than wanting it. Suppliers of any addictive product - whether its tobacco, class A drugs, alcohol, gambling or social media - know that. Going too hard the other way into full prohibition is impractical because it starts to impinge on civil liberties: as a capable adult, why shouldn't I be able to smoke/drink/doomscroll instagram if I want? That's why it's dificult; neither extreme liberty nor extreme prohibition is the answer. It's a grey area as GP notes. The trouble is it creates opportunities for people like Zuckerberg to exploit the middle ground and amass huge personal wealth paid for, in part, by the health detriment of those unable to self-regulate the addiction.
- conductr 8mo ago
  I must just lack empathy then. I feel it’s zucks role to build the best wine, whisky, casino game, meth, cigar, etc he can. It’s the consumers job to use it responsibly. They won’t so that’s when it’s time for regulation. Which is probably now/soon. And yes, he gets to amass wealth during this time. I wouldn’t say it’s all been exploitive though. I’d say many people have healthy addictions. Just like the average American who drinks 10 alcoholic beverages a week, every single week. They’re adults, they aren’t alcoholic, they just need a drink, every day they’re not being exploited, it’s a vice of sorts. But it’s an opt-in vice.
  - piva00 8mo ago
    I think that yes, it's a lack of empathy stemming from the belief that everything can ultimately be distilled into personal responsibility. In reality we are not so much in control, our psyche is easily manipulated by nudges, design that leaves you on the cusp of a dopaminic reaction is much more addictive. It's different to develop a vice to being manipulated into developing a vice. Morality should come into play on the latter, otherwise it's a free-for-all to discover the most effective ways to manipulate you into behaviours that are unhealthy but profitable.
4gotunameagain 8mo ago
There is a big difference between a potentially unhealthy product, and intentionally making a product as unhealthy as possible by data driven engagement maximising. Remember the proto social media ? They were a huge time sink, sure, but they were not this hyper optimised slot machine that they are now. Additionally if the product is inherently unhealthy, we should protect underdeveloped frontal cortices from it, as we do with every similar thing (drugs, gambling etc).
- conductr 8mo ago
  I disagree with first point but fully agree with latter. Probably why latter should be the initiative of these 18 wellbeing experts just like how we have with drugs, gambling, tobacco, alcohol. Not by changing the product but by restricting access
sohrob 8mo ago
People want to be addicted to fentanyl after they’ve tried it a few times, does that mean we should legalize that too?
- conductr 8mo ago
  If we feel these are comparable items, then we should treat social media like we treat fentanyl. Not the other way around. I’m not saying they’re similar though. But you used an extreme analogy and took it the wrong way.

rsynnott 8mo ago

Should they, tho? Laudanum (morphine in alcohol; a lot of ‘patent medicines’/snake oil were basically just laudanum) is an unhealthy product. It is not, in any meaningful sense, allowed to exist these days.

conductr 8mo ago
Then ban social media as a whole, cherry picking features to ban is silly. Banning features that only harm young users that probably shouldn’t even be using the app due to their age is misguided. If it’s unhealthy for kids, ban kids use.
- rsynnott 8mo ago
  "Then ban medicine as a whole, cherry picking medicines to ban is silly." Like, you don't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. _This_ is social media, but probably would not make sense to ban (merely being very irritating is not an adequate reason to ban something).
  - conductr 8mo ago
    > merely being very irritating is not an adequate reason to ban something I think we're talking about it's large scale impact on youth mental health, slightly more reason than 'merely...irritating' I do think it's sad that we have to ban it, because that means parents aren't doing their job - but that's the reality of it

spinningslate 8mo ago

All true but it's a circular argument: these are unhealthy products because they're _designed_ that way. That design is directed from the top - no more so that Facebook/Instagram. Zuckerberg retains a controlling interest in Meta so he can't use the excuse of other public firms where CEOs throw up their hands and say "yeah, but we need to deliver shareholder return - it's out of my hands". Zuckerberg could choose differently. As GP notes, he hasn't - he's gone consistently hard the other way. > It’s clear, people want to be addicted to social media I'd say people are susceptible to addiction rather than wanting it. Suppliers of any addictive product - whether its tobacco, class A drugs, alcohol, gambling or social media - know that. Going too hard the other way into full prohibition is impractical because it starts to impinge on civil liberties: as a capable adult, why shouldn't I be able to smoke/drink/doomscroll instagram if I want? That's why it's dificult; neither extreme liberty nor extreme prohibition is the answer. It's a grey area as GP notes. The trouble is it creates opportunities for people like Zuckerberg to exploit the middle ground and amass huge personal wealth paid for, in part, by the health detriment of those unable to self-regulate the addiction.

conductr 8mo ago
I must just lack empathy then. I feel it’s zucks role to build the best wine, whisky, casino game, meth, cigar, etc he can. It’s the consumers job to use it responsibly. They won’t so that’s when it’s time for regulation. Which is probably now/soon. And yes, he gets to amass wealth during this time. I wouldn’t say it’s all been exploitive though. I’d say many people have healthy addictions. Just like the average American who drinks 10 alcoholic beverages a week, every single week. They’re adults, they aren’t alcoholic, they just need a drink, every day they’re not being exploited, it’s a vice of sorts. But it’s an opt-in vice.
- piva00 8mo ago
  I think that yes, it's a lack of empathy stemming from the belief that everything can ultimately be distilled into personal responsibility. In reality we are not so much in control, our psyche is easily manipulated by nudges, design that leaves you on the cusp of a dopaminic reaction is much more addictive. It's different to develop a vice to being manipulated into developing a vice. Morality should come into play on the latter, otherwise it's a free-for-all to discover the most effective ways to manipulate you into behaviours that are unhealthy but profitable.

4gotunameagain 8mo ago

There is a big difference between a potentially unhealthy product, and intentionally making a product as unhealthy as possible by data driven engagement maximising. Remember the proto social media ? They were a huge time sink, sure, but they were not this hyper optimised slot machine that they are now. Additionally if the product is inherently unhealthy, we should protect underdeveloped frontal cortices from it, as we do with every similar thing (drugs, gambling etc).

conductr 8mo ago
I disagree with first point but fully agree with latter. Probably why latter should be the initiative of these 18 wellbeing experts just like how we have with drugs, gambling, tobacco, alcohol. Not by changing the product but by restricting access

sohrob 8mo ago

People want to be addicted to fentanyl after they’ve tried it a few times, does that mean we should legalize that too?

conductr 8mo ago
If we feel these are comparable items, then we should treat social media like we treat fentanyl. Not the other way around. I’m not saying they’re similar though. But you used an extreme analogy and took it the wrong way.