3 ms·

So you would support banning any form of entertainment that people spend more time on than TikTok since it would be above the threshold of addiction?

InvertedRhodium 7mo ago
More or less, yeah. There might be some nuance about the threshold for maladaptive behaviour, but if it’s all or nothing I’ll take all.
- twoodfin 7mo ago
  How would you get around the First Amendment difficulties?
  - bjt 7mo ago
    There are plenty of public interest limitations on free speech. Food labels, cigarette warnings, deceptive ad laws. Regulating addictive social media isn't really an outlier here.
    - twoodfin 7mo ago
      Even commercial speech regulations need a stronger basis than, “People spend a lot of time listening to it.”
      - intended 7mo ago
        The parent comment set up a false choice and then had to adapt to the response calling their bluff. The issue isn’t with reading or consuming content, as was set up in the challenge above. The issue is with designing feeds and surfacing content in ways that take advantage of our brains. As an analogy, loot boxes in video games, and slot machines come to mind. Both are designed to leverage behavioral psychology, and this design choice directly results in compulsive behavior amongst users.
  - InvertedRhodium 7mo ago
    I live in New Zealand, so I don't have to.
maxaw 7mo ago
I didn’t mention time? From Cambridge dictionary: ‘addiction: an inability to stop doing or using something, especially something harmful.’ I am in support of regulating things which are harmful and which people have trouble not doing
- twoodfin 7mo ago
  Like potato chips?
  - fc417fc802 7mo ago
    If a specially designed endless bag of such were aggressively marketed and chemicals to induce appetite added to them then sure.
    - twoodfin 7mo ago
      None of those attributes are necessary beyond those of an ordinary bag of Lays to meet the definition: “things which are harmful and which people have trouble not doing”
      - fc417fc802 7mo ago
        It's a matter of degree. I don't impulsively drive to the store to purchase another bag immediately after finishing the one I have whereas (for example) many people exhibit such behavior when it comes to tobacco. In the case of social media the feed is intentionally designed to be difficult to walk away from and it is endless (or close enough as makes no practical difference). Even if it weren't endless, refreshing an ever changing page is trivial in comparison to driving to the store and spending money.
        twoodfin 7mo ago
        How would you contrast social media with Netflix in this regard?

InvertedRhodium 7mo ago

More or less, yeah. There might be some nuance about the threshold for maladaptive behaviour, but if it’s all or nothing I’ll take all.

twoodfin 7mo ago
How would you get around the First Amendment difficulties?
- bjt 7mo ago
  There are plenty of public interest limitations on free speech. Food labels, cigarette warnings, deceptive ad laws. Regulating addictive social media isn't really an outlier here.
  - twoodfin 7mo ago
    Even commercial speech regulations need a stronger basis than, “People spend a lot of time listening to it.”
    - intended 7mo ago
      The parent comment set up a false choice and then had to adapt to the response calling their bluff. The issue isn’t with reading or consuming content, as was set up in the challenge above. The issue is with designing feeds and surfacing content in ways that take advantage of our brains. As an analogy, loot boxes in video games, and slot machines come to mind. Both are designed to leverage behavioral psychology, and this design choice directly results in compulsive behavior amongst users.
- InvertedRhodium 7mo ago
  I live in New Zealand, so I don't have to.

maxaw 7mo ago

I didn’t mention time? From Cambridge dictionary: ‘addiction: an inability to stop doing or using something, especially something harmful.’ I am in support of regulating things which are harmful and which people have trouble not doing

twoodfin 7mo ago
Like potato chips?
- fc417fc802 7mo ago
  If a specially designed endless bag of such were aggressively marketed and chemicals to induce appetite added to them then sure.
  - twoodfin 7mo ago
    None of those attributes are necessary beyond those of an ordinary bag of Lays to meet the definition: “things which are harmful and which people have trouble not doing”
    - fc417fc802 7mo ago
      It's a matter of degree. I don't impulsively drive to the store to purchase another bag immediately after finishing the one I have whereas (for example) many people exhibit such behavior when it comes to tobacco. In the case of social media the feed is intentionally designed to be difficult to walk away from and it is endless (or close enough as makes no practical difference). Even if it weren't endless, refreshing an ever changing page is trivial in comparison to driving to the store and spending money.
      - twoodfin 7mo ago
        How would you contrast social media with Netflix in this regard?