6 ms·

EU Commission: addictive design Instagram and Facebook in breach of the DSA

279 points by jeroenhd 4mo ago

jeroenhd 4mo ago
Full title: "Commission preliminarily finds the addictive design of Instagram and Facebook in breach of the Digital Services Act" Edit: for some reason, the URL has been changed. The page I tried to post is here: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_26_1579 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_26_...
- glenstein 4mo ago
  For me right now it's not going to any article, but a kind of general landing page for the Eureopean Commission's "Press Corner" which lists a bunch of articles: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/home/en https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/home/en
- progval 4mo ago
  It's because the page you posted contains this incorrect tag: <link rel="canonical" href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/home/en">
carlosjobim 4mo ago
Nothing was ever said about the addictive design of mainstream TV - because then the rulers controlled the message being streamed into the brains of the population. It is precisely on Facebook and Instagram where you find the only popular movements against the current order in Europe, and the citizen journalists who expose and scrutinize the powers. It's a giant political threat towards those in power. So, how do we keep the good parts and get rid of the bad parts of the free flow of information on social media, where all citizens are invited to broadcast?
- pietervdvn 4mo ago
  I'd say: the fediverse. Everyone can "broadcast" and discuss freely without having a central power that can censor or subtly manipulate the broader discussion.
  - pineapplepizza5 4mo ago
    Or websites. Everyone can "broadcast" via their website.
- rimeice 4mo ago
  > all citizens are invited to broadcast Is this really the way we’re wired after thousands of years of evolution? Even the word broadcast implies something very one way. Pre social media it was very normal to “broadcast” by discussing ideas with friends, family and neighbours, face to face in a civil manner. Good ideas gained traction gradually, bad ideas didn’t get traction because the extremists were too far apart. A nice natural protection against extremes.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 4mo ago
    And Meta have made their social media platforms anti-social. Once upon a time, Facebook was primarily a place to keep up with your friends. But now it's trying to divert you away from people you actually know and instead try to make you consume an endless feed of slop. (A similar thing has happened to X-formerly-Twitter, tragically. Musk and Bier are systematically destroying the usefulness of the site as a social platform.)
  - carlosjobim 4mo ago
    > Is this really the way we’re wired after thousands of years of evolution? No, and we're certainly not wired to have TV or radio being broadcasted in our homes - or sitting still and silent on a bench for the most of our childhoods having to listen to some screeching fool having their weekly psychotic fit. There will never in history be anything more extreme than the government broadcasts, urging young people to go and die in hopeless wars in the most painful and pointless ways we can think of. Whether that's a screeching priest in the pulpit, a psychotic school teacher, some demon at the radio microphone, or reptilians in the TV studio. I agree with your points, but also think you're jumping over an elephant if you compare pre-broadcast days with today, while ignoring the decades of non-social broadcast we had before Facebook and Instagram and such. Atomization is a fact, and the best road out of it might be to connect with other like minded people wherever they are, but it seems that the Internet hasn't lived up to this promise. Why? What have we done wrong?
    - dmoose 4mo ago
      > Atomization is a fact, and the best road out of it might be to connect with other like minded people wherever they are, but it seems that the Internet hasn't lived up to this promise. Why? What have we done wrong? The Internet itself is just a way to transfer information. Humans are the ones manipulating that information for commercial and ideological reasons. I would say as several posters above have implied we have not evolved filters that protect us from this manipulation. Quite the opposite we have biases baked into us that are being actively exploited. What we have done wrong is not find a way to manage this for the benefit of society rather than its harm, sadly that describes much of human history. When an environment exists that amplifies self serving behavior and concentration of power it is not surprising to see it come to reflect the worse rather than best of humanity.
- piva00 4mo ago
  I don't follow, the argument is against the addictive design of the feed algorithms, not the information being shared per se. Nothing in this is geared towards curtailing platforms like social media to exist, it's trying to curtail the design of psychological manipulation for "engagement". Ragebait is the most common case, it makes people interact with content if it enrages them; another common case is to feed kids with slop content that makes them fixated on the platform, scrolling endlessly trying to get the elusive dopamine hit quite similar to the feeling of playing a slot machine. I think framing this as the EU trying to censor platforms because people post content against the current order is a big cynical leap. I can't see how these platforms' current practices need to be defended, what is your reason for doing that? Maybe you have ulterior motives as well?
  - carlosjobim 4mo ago
    > Ragebait Tell me exactly what you mean by "ragebait". Shouldn't things that make people angry be reported on? Should they be swept under the rug? I'm kind of tired of hearing this word being used, without a good explanation. Regarding kids, they shouldn't have uncontrolled access to the Internet, and that's a parenting problem. Just like a parent letting their kid drive their car or drink his whiskey. > I can't see how these platforms' current practices need to be defended, what is your reason for doing that? Some of their practices are good, some are bad. People addicted to TV have existed for decades. It's been a trope forever, the old lady spending her day glued to the TV. Hundreds of millions of people live like this even currently. And just like most people today are a little bit addicted to social media, everybody was a little bit addicted to TV. The evening news broadcast was a very important part of their day. So yes, I think the reason why the people in power are more interested in throttling social media than traditional media - even though they both share the same addiction problem - is because the people in power have much less control over it than they did with traditional media. As for ulterior motives, this is Hacker News, so I fully expect you to believe that I'm secretly a Russian spy, Iranian drone operator, AI bot, Mark Zuckerberg, neo-nazi, scientologist, jew, Elon Musk and bio-lab operator.
    - piva00 4mo ago
      > Tell me exactly what you mean by "ragebait". Shouldn't things that make people angry be reported on? Should they be swept under the rug? I'm kind of tired of hearing this word being used, without a good explanation. Ragebait = fanning flames through misinformation or disinformation. Why do you immediately jump to the conclusion that anything inciting rage is true? I constantly get fed content on Instagram and YouTube with outright lies about my country (verifiable lies, not something I judged as lies) which are intended to cause rage and engagement. That's ragebait. Other kinds of ragebait: creating a whole profile dedicated only to take the most extreme view on issues (on both sides), only to make people angry so they comment or like/interact with the content. > Some of their practices are good, some are bad. People addicted to TV have existed for decades. It's been a trope forever, the old lady spending her day glued to the TV. Hundreds of millions of people live like this even currently. And just like most people today are a little bit addicted to social media, everybody was a little bit addicted to TV. The evening news broadcast was a very important part of their day. When it gets to a device that you are carrying with you 100% of the time it's a whole other level and degree of an issue. You verge into the false equivalency territory, something before was addictive so now that we have something even more addictive it's ok just from precedence? Different levels and degrees demand different solutions. > So yes, I think the reason why the people in power are more interested in throttling social media than traditional media - even though they both share the same addiction problem - is because the people in power have much less control over it than they did with traditional media. That's absolutely cynical and a thought-terminating cliché since it's impossible to contradict you. I understand it's your opinion but it verges into conspiratorial thinking which I don't think anyone can de-escalate you from except for yourself. > As for ulterior motives, this is Hacker News, so I fully expect you to believe that I'm secretly a Russian spy, Iranian drone operator, AI bot, Mark Zuckerberg, neo-nazi, scientologist, jew, Elon Musk and bio-lab operator. Not really but you constantly rehash similar arguments in topics surrounding the EU so I'm trying to figure out what exactly is behind that. Ulterior motives don't need to be that drastic, it can simply be "I don't support the EU as a project" since you never state that but consistently take that side of the argument.
- flumpcakes 4mo ago
  > Nothing was ever said about the addictive design of mainstream TV - because then the rulers controlled the message being streamed into the brains of the population. More outlandish conspiracy theories on hackernews... You are in fact wrong - see the myriad of rules advertising, especially what can be advertised on children's TV. What messages are not being allowed to be 'streamed into the brains of the population' exactly? Are you suggesting, for example, that claims made by the US president should not be shown on TV? Are you suggesting that these are not then analysed and scrutinised by people on TV?
  - khurs 4mo ago
    Speaking from the UK, the state controls the media. There are rules that a few select channels like BBC have to be prominently placed (I.e. Channel 1-4 reserved for them) which means any rival News service is disadvantaged. And presently they are passing new laws to force Youtube and similar to change algorithm's to also make certain UK content providers prominent. UK Media know what they can and cannot talk about- for example Judicial Corruption.
    - deleted 4mo ago
      [deleted]
  - carlosjobim 4mo ago
    > You are in fact wrong - see the myriad of rules advertising, especially what can be advertised on children's TV. That hasn't to do with the addictive design of the broadcast medium, which is what I commented on. There are myriad of advertising rules for social media as well.
- delis-thumbs-7e 4mo ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
  - jeltz 4mo ago
    Not even that, it is just an off-topic rant about government censorship.
- vrganj 4mo ago
  > It is precisely on Facebook and Instagram where you find the only popular movements against the current order in Europe, and the citizen journalists who expose and scrutinize the powers. It's a giant political threat towards those in power. Also known as Russian, Iranian, Israeli and Chinese bot farms. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/22/experts-warn-of-threat-to-democracy-by-ai-bot-swarms-infesting-social-media https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/22/experts-w... https://www.npr.org/2024/07/09/g-s1-9010/russia-bot-farm-ai-disinformation https://www.npr.org/2024/07/09/g-s1-9010/russia-bot-farm-ai-... https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/05/facebook-bot-farm/ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/05/facebook-bot-fa... https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-allies-using-armies-of-bots-to-influence-social-media-discourse-report/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-allies-using-armies-... https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/volunteers-found-iran-s-propaganda-effort-reddit-their-warnings-were-n903486 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/volunteers-found-iran... People calling this stuff "popular movements" and "citizen journalists" are either naive or complicit.
  - carlosjobim 4mo ago
    [flagged]
    - vrganj 4mo ago
      I'm not sure what you mean. I have not accused you of being any of those things, please make sure to read messages you respond to carefully before deflecting to outrage. Those "citizen journalists" threatening "those in power" (e.g. our democratic societies) however? Yeah no shit they're malign actors.
amelius 4mo ago
And what about the addictive design of advertisements that keeps us hooked on consuming more and more stuff? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382310867_Methods_of_Manipulation_Used_in_Advertising https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382310867_Methods_o...
- Telaneo 4mo ago
  We should do something about that too, yes.
- littlecranky67 4mo ago
  Online advertisements should be forbidden as a whole. The attention-stealing and engagement-maximising internet with all it horribly effects only exist, due to advertising. And we know that the world without online ads is perfectly possible and livable, since we all lived through 1996.
  - amelius 4mo ago
    Yeah, but why don't we ever hear any MEPs talk about it like that?
    - philipallstar 4mo ago
      MEPs want to write rules that mean they get to fine rich US companies. Local advertising might be worse for you overall but you'd have to do more work to get less free money.
    - YurgenJurgensen 4mo ago
      They buy ads too. It’d adversely affect their campaign budgets. (Sure, it would adversely affect their competitors’ too, but second-order effects are usually too complex for politicians to understand.)
  - mc32 4mo ago
    True but the whole “influencer” and “creative” industry would collapse overnight. A few large ones would survive on their patreon income, most would collapse and have to get a real job, if those are still around.
chk84us 4mo ago
Only tangentailly related, but, there is an option in Instagram to reset your algorithm. I highly recommend this if you find yourself doom-scrolling. Not sure if it's also in FB on account of me not having an account there.
- logological 4mo ago
  Where, exactly? I browsed through the account settings and didn't see anything obviously relevant. (Could be that whatever option you're talking about is available only to mobile users, whereas I only ever visit Instagram on a desktop.)
  - chk84us 4mo ago
    Not sure about desktop, but on mobile it is under Settings and activity -> (What you see) Content preferences -> Reset suggested content.
    - logological 3mo ago
      Yeah, there don't seem to be any settings by those names in the web version. Or maybe their presence depends not on whether you're using the web vs. mobile client, but rather where you're connecting from geographically. That is, maybe Meta exposes these settings only when necessary to comply with laws or court orders in certain jurisdictions.
- salahadawi 4mo ago
  After resetting my algorithm the content I’m served now is even more clickbaity and trying to forcibly hold my attention
- orrito 4mo ago
  Using instagram in a browser (e.g. firefox as it allows for extension on phone) and then installing an extension like control for instagram or hide reels works great, even better to set the https://www.instagram.com/?variant=following https://www.instagram.com/?variant=following as your main page to enter (or is that only available in europe?). Allows to use instagram as old school social media instead of a scrolling app
TazeTSchnitzel 4mo ago
Forcing social media apps to have a less addictive design is a much better way to protect young people's brains than a social media age limit is (and frankly adults need help here too).
- whiplash451 4mo ago
  I am with you and wish you were right, but good luck forcing Meta to change the key dark design patterns of their products (correctly identified by the regulators as "highly personalised recommendations, autoplay and infinite scroll") This is a step in the right direction, though. It will be a long journey.
  - Frieren 4mo ago
    > good luck forcing Meta When I was a kid there were fines for factories that polluted water. Most of the time they were not found out, and when they did they just paid the fine that it was cheaper than to solve the problem. Regulations changed, factories that polluted water got closed until they fixed the problem. Most factory owners fear the regulation, they are extremely pro-active to avoid breaking the law because the consequences are not worth it. (This trend reversed a decade ago when punishments started to be less harsh and government became more pro-business using the euphemism for corrupt) It is possible to reign in Meta. Parents should be angry enough to bring governments down for letting tech treat their children as products. When citizens are angry change happens and becomes unavoidable.
    - xoac 4mo ago
      Exactly. If social media apps had a configurable old style non-algorithmic feed the problem would be dramatically smaller.
      - Symbiote 4mo ago
        With FBPurity: https://www.fbpurity.com/ https://www.fbpurity.com/ I have Facebook on my desktop computer exactly as it used to be in the 2000s when I signed up: content only from my "friends" and a few chosen sources (a band I like etc). The newsfeed is very slow to load, as to fill the screen the extension must make twenty plus requests while hiding 99% of what Facebook's addiction machine returns.
kittikitti 4mo ago
This is welcome news but I have several friends, family members, or acquaintances that are addicted to social media and have to take psychiatric medication for it. The trouble is, and I'm not sure if the algorithm incentivizes it, but they don't take their pills. They don't even take multivitamins because of whatever idiotic misinformation they're being fed. It becomes a positive feedback loop and anything I and other people try to break it always fails and it feels like social media wants to keep it that way. This is much worse than they're telling us about.
- pembrook 4mo ago
  > are addicted to social media and have to take psychiatric medication for it. I’m sorry but this is just not real. There’s not a single non-quack doctor who will recommend psychiatric medication for “social media addiction,” which is not a real thing and pretty much all of the recent academic literature proves as much. If your doctor is suggesting medication for social media use, you either have much deeper underlying mental health issues, or you need to find a new doctor ASAP and report them for malpractice.
  - khalic 4mo ago
    Really? Would you mind pointing us to all that academic literature? And compulsive behaviour is definitely something that medication can help with.
  - karahime 4mo ago
    Which is exactly the problem with this whole discussion. On the far side, you hear that it's heroin! It's fentanyl! It's alcohol! Facebook groups are the modern opium den! But when actually challenged, it's oh no no, that's a metaphor, it's metaphorical fentanyl, not real fentanyl. People on Instagram are metaphorically injecting metaphorical drugs into their metaphorical veins. It's a poor basis for policy and thought. I would wager 20 francs that none of these people have ever seen a heroin OD. The whole discussion centers around a maximally impactful comparison but the middle of the comparison is hollow.
  - testerteert000a 4mo ago
pembrook 4mo ago
This is the same EU commission pushing chat control and VPN bans and passports to access the internet. Which people on HN hate. Yet, when they couch authoritarian action under the premise of a popular moral panic, suddenly the reaction here is “tie us up and tell us what we’re allowed to see daddy.” I really don’t get it. Do you not see how cheering on this social media moral panic and inflating the idea of a big tech “boogieman” leads to emboldening them to do the much worse authoritarian surveillance state thing? I guess this is the inherent contradiction of left-leaning internet spaces. We want privacy and freedom personally but as self-styled members of the urban elite we unironically believe everyone else is dumber than us. So we don’t want other people to have freedom over what they do and read.
- joe_mamba 4mo ago
  This is just boiling the frog slowly. The DSA will first get them to change the algorithm to "protect the kids" and years later it will get them to change the algorithm to push state propaganda and ban all hateful speech, which will be anyone who complains about the state and its rulers. They're playing the long game. First with the carrot, then with the stick, but the end goal is state tyranny, and control over tech platforms is one of the means. They saw what China managed to achieve with their internet censorship and ID control, and they want exactly that, but with a blue coat of paint sprinkled with yellow stars, and pushing child safety up front is a easy way for the public to be onboard with this capture.
- vrganj 4mo ago
  The EU is an institution that is democratically legitimized at every level (Either through direct elections in the parliament or through elections to the appropriate national government in the case of the Council / Commission). Sure, it's not perfect and sometimes the Conservatives do some messed up lawfare to introduce fucked up things like Chat Control, but at least they were voted in and can be voted out again. Big Tech is some foreign rich dudes being dictators of their little fiefdom doing whatever they can to make themselves even richer. We have zero control over them and what they do to our society in this pursuit. No elections. No recalls. No public votes. The only correct reaction is for the sovereign to assert its sovereignty and lay out some ground rules.
alpineman 4mo ago
Just ban the discovery feed. Search only.
- aurareturn 4mo ago
  Agreed. HN feed is also addictive. EU should ban HN feed and only allow searching for new posts. Quite honestly, I've been addicted to using my air fryer for cooking nowadays. The design is too good and convenient and the food comes out too tasty. I think EU should focus on making them less addictive.
  - inigyou 4mo ago
    HN openly violates GDPR and is proud of it. Why would they follow this?
    - Cider9986 4mo ago
      Your posts are archived really fast once submitted, removing comments would not be an effective approach to improve people's privacy on this site.
  - criddell 4mo ago
    That's hilarious. Are you accusing dang et al of unscrupulously designing HN to maximize time spent on the site?
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
- Cider9986 4mo ago
  That could be their punishment. Also subscribed feed.
timnetworks 4mo ago
I kind of wish they had developers that know how to get a video upload working from the website. Alas, it all must have gotten scrapped for a llama workflow. Website is worse than 15 years ago (code AND contents).
zkmon 4mo ago
While it is genuinely a huge concern, the legal measure are not going to address it. One has to consider the overall picture, not just a corner of it. The ship has sailed. There will be addictive designs, products, services etc. The very theme of a business is centered around keeping the customers addicted. It's just a matter of time, every business on this planet would, with the help of AI, make their products and services extremely addictive.
- millionSBASH 4mo ago
  Do you think people made similar arguments about privacy before the GDPR?
  - edg5000 4mo ago
    Fun sidenote: On a recent Hotmail post on here, I saw a screenshot of hotmail V1 (way before M$ took over). They had a prominent button on their homepage about privacy.
  - jampekka 4mo ago
    GDPR ship has largely sailed too. E.g. the illegal Pay or Okay is widespread, including in Instagram.
- PxldLtd 4mo ago
  I personally think the answer should be mandating user controls of said algorithms. If you have a large social media site that suggests results or provides a feed then you must allow users to configure said feed. The default should be simple, something like time-ordered of followed only with opt in for recommendations. Ideally I'd love to be able to swap algorithms for something open source but setting a standard there rather than just mandating a level of control seems a bigger hurdle. It seems entirely anti-consumer that I am just the behest of whatever Google or Meta decide is most profitable to show me instead of finding important news or entertainment in a way that I want.
  - jameshart 4mo ago
dzink 4mo ago
And yet the Mata price jumped yesterday. For some investors this is apparently a feature.
jhghbj 4mo ago
[dead]
EPWN3D 4mo ago
The addictive design is in service of ads. Instead of regulating software, tax ad revenue to disincentivize building a business model around user profiling and tracking.
- d4ng 4mo ago
  Tax ad revenue. Increase advertising prices. Advertisers pay more to sell their wares. Consumers pay more to consume their wares.
  - YurgenJurgensen 4mo ago
    Vendors won’t see RoI on their ad spend and will stop buying. Simples.
    - d4ng 4mo ago
      Governments see reduction in tax income and GDP and repeal taxes. In UK: Signal "mansion" tax on properties valued above X price to collect recurring Y pounds total tax. Market adjusts valuations based on probability of tax. Number of houses still worth at least X now diminishes. Now cannot collect recurring Y pounds. "Mansion" tax delayed. You have this complex system that has reached some sort of relative equilibrium based on say a set S of ten sorts of tax rates, along with a set F of factors (size millions), with the government's tax revenue R being one of those outputs. Then some guy in the government called G signals to the government and public that he can increase R by X by fiddling with a member of S, or maybe adding a member to S (of size say ten). Is G stupid, or does he just lean towards retaining the public's affection, his relatively low salary, potential under the table payments and whatever networking opportunities his job provides? I lean towards the latter.
    - d4ng 4mo ago
      Vendors now cannot get X pounds with Y pounds advertising outlay to make Z pounds per unit of wares. To continue making Z money per unit of wares, with previous S pounds price charged to consumers per unit, add significantly more than reduction in Y advertising per unit to S to offset reduced "brand" "awareness".
Honali 4mo ago
I think the strongest point is about the mismatch between the product and the mitigation. You can't optimize every surface for "one more minute" and then point to a dismissible time-limit popup as evidence that the user is in control
varispeed 4mo ago
These apps should be banned or be forced to only show feeds from accounts you follow in chronological order, nothing more. Perhaps with some basic search if you want to discover something new, but cumbersome enough so that you don't spend hours on it. I know someone he keeps scrolling the minute they wake up. They are behind on chores, life stuff, but keep scrolling. That wouldn't be too bad in itself if not for sheer amount of misinformation that is being served. Especially health related. Thanks to AI enhanced videos showing parasites everywhere, person now has developed eating disorder and thinks their poor health is due to parasites and not the fact they spend whole day on Instagram. Now they started ordering "supplements" and "courses" those people peddle. I tried to report these accounts, but Meta insist they are no breaching any T&C.
bbqbbqbbq 4mo ago
Honest question. This just holds in the EU right? Is it reasonable to think that Meta will only comply in the EU and keep the same design patterns everywhere else?
tancop 4mo ago
this is the wrong approach. they should enforce a choice between addictive and "ethical" algorithms (or even better allow third party feeds), make them transparent with what kind of data they use to personalize and strictly ban any kind of political bias. things like bluesky fyp should always stay legal and not in a gray area. even if someone comes up with a design thats more addictive than hard drugs people should have the option (but never be forced) to use it. if this is about kids then use california style on device age signals set by parents. i just dont think addiction by itself is something we should be fighting. yes i believe in legalizing all drugs how could you tell.
- sajithdilshan 4mo ago
  I agree with you, for a an adult, the choice should be given and not enforced, it's same with smoking or alcohol consumptions. Both are terrible for your health on the long term, but the side effects are clear and open and people can make an educated decision.
- Tinned_Tuna 4mo ago
  One thing that's potentially different, at least for Facebook, is the network effect. It only takes a few friends to start using Facebook for event planning for people to start missing events or worrying about missing out. That extra pressure cuts against individual choice. Instagram is different, but you can see something similar happen on platforms with a chat feature. If people start to gravitate towards a singular app for talking, coordinating, etc. then there's the potential for resisters to be socially excluded. For most people, feeling socially excluded is a strong motivator. So far, this has mostly resulted in everyone having a fairly broad set of apps with chat features, so I'm not sure the centralizing power is as strong.
  - segfaultex 4mo ago
    The overwhelming majority of local businesses around me don't have websites, just a FB page. If you want to look at upcoming events, specials, restaurant menus, etc. you either have to hope FB doesn't throw up the "you need an acct to see this page" blocker, or sign up.
hash872 4mo ago
Would love to see the overlap between the average anti-Big Tech HN commenter cheering on this regulatory advance, and the average HN commenter who thinks hard drugs should be legalized and that the War on Drugs is bad. Because these are contradictory positions! Either you think people should be free to do things that are addictive or you don't
- Timon3 4mo ago
  No, those positions aren't inherently contradictory. There are plenty of viewpoints that make them consistent.
ransom1538 4mo ago
The US should start fining all EU created software.
- cromka 4mo ago
  On what grounds? Retaliation?
chris_explicare 4mo ago
[dead]
hiire 4mo ago
I truly hope something is done about this. I just came back from a nice short bath at the beach, where a family had their towels set a few meters away from mine. While I was laying there, relaxing, I saw two kids begging their dad to accompany them into the water, while their dad watched Reels and ignored them completely. Not even a response. The kids just wanted to have a fun afternoon and play in the water, but the dad was just scrolling, didn't care at all about his surroundings, probably in the zombie state that these platforms let you in. The kids ended up running to the water on their own, the dad didn't react at all to the situation, zero response (to be fair, I'm not saying he should be alarmed or anything, just a "yeah, go ahead" would've been fine). I may be exaggerating but I really think that these platforms are the tobacco of these decades, I used to be really addicted as a teen as well, now I'm 23 and left most of the platforms for good. Seeing people act like this, even in my group of friends, makes me feel quite weird about the whole situation.
- netsharc 4mo ago
  Man, that age means you're "conscious" life had smartphone/social media in it, according to this (1), if you're born 1999 or later (it's a report from 2012 and mentions teens 13-17), your teenage years probably involved smartphones/social media. As someone older, I wonder what it must be like to grow up since childhood in a world where socializing is done a lot on Facebook/IG comment sections, as well as chasing likes for self-worth. 1) https://www.nielsen.com/insights/2012/young-adults-and-teens-lead-growth-among-smartphone-owners/#:~:text=Interestingly%2C%20teenagers%20between%2013%20and,smartphone%20just%20a%20year%20ago. https://www.nielsen.com/insights/2012/young-adults-and-teens...
  - fallingbananna 4mo ago
    To me it felt no different from socialising nowadays as an adult. Some weren’t on social networks at all, and thus missed out on some of the socialising. But also saved themselves from many cringey trends, FOMO, etc. While some others were on social media 24/7 and basically acted like early influencers.
  - andrewinardeer 4mo ago
deepsun 4mo ago
Last time EU fined Facebook for merging WhatsApp userbase merging with Facebook, that they explicitly forbade. Facebook just paid the fee and moved along. What would be different here?
cdrnsf 4mo ago
Good. We have the benefit of enough hindsight to know that these platforms have had a net negative impact on everything and everyone they touch.
_the_inflator 4mo ago
Hm, I use Facebook twice a year, to thank folks for my b-day greetings and for checking my account. Some with Insta. I am not the least addicted to it. I suspended TikTok, because it is of low value. YouTube is useful - only with the subscription to get rid of all the ads. Sorry, addictive design is once again another strawman. No one forces you to use these crappy apps. Same with the iPhone. Need free time? iPhone will serve you. All Icons colorless? iPhone! Excuses, excuses, excuses. There is a problem, if you see people being sucked into their smartphones - however, you cannot have one without the other. Many public services require a smartphone. Where is the alternative? It is human nature, that's all. Fighting Facebook is so low, absolutely low.
- wackget 4mo ago
  Replace "Facebook" with "heroin" in your argument and see how ridiculous you sound.
  - tough 4mo ago
    Doing heroin twice a year doesn't sound that bad

279 points by jeroenhd 4mo ago

Full title: "Commission preliminarily finds the addictive design of Instagram and Facebook in breach of the Digital Services Act" Edit: for some reason, the URL has been changed. The page I tried to post is here: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_26_1579 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_26_...

glenstein 4mo ago
For me right now it's not going to any article, but a kind of general landing page for the Eureopean Commission's "Press Corner" which lists a bunch of articles: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/home/en https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/home/en
progval 4mo ago
It's because the page you posted contains this incorrect tag: <link rel="canonical" href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/home/en">

carlosjobim 4mo ago

Nothing was ever said about the addictive design of mainstream TV - because then the rulers controlled the message being streamed into the brains of the population. It is precisely on Facebook and Instagram where you find the only popular movements against the current order in Europe, and the citizen journalists who expose and scrutinize the powers. It's a giant political threat towards those in power. So, how do we keep the good parts and get rid of the bad parts of the free flow of information on social media, where all citizens are invited to broadcast?

pietervdvn 4mo ago
I'd say: the fediverse. Everyone can "broadcast" and discuss freely without having a central power that can censor or subtly manipulate the broader discussion.
- pineapplepizza5 4mo ago
  Or websites. Everyone can "broadcast" via their website.
rimeice 4mo ago
> all citizens are invited to broadcast Is this really the way we’re wired after thousands of years of evolution? Even the word broadcast implies something very one way. Pre social media it was very normal to “broadcast” by discussing ideas with friends, family and neighbours, face to face in a civil manner. Good ideas gained traction gradually, bad ideas didn’t get traction because the extremists were too far apart. A nice natural protection against extremes.
- TazeTSchnitzel 4mo ago
  And Meta have made their social media platforms anti-social. Once upon a time, Facebook was primarily a place to keep up with your friends. But now it's trying to divert you away from people you actually know and instead try to make you consume an endless feed of slop. (A similar thing has happened to X-formerly-Twitter, tragically. Musk and Bier are systematically destroying the usefulness of the site as a social platform.)
- carlosjobim 4mo ago
  > Is this really the way we’re wired after thousands of years of evolution? No, and we're certainly not wired to have TV or radio being broadcasted in our homes - or sitting still and silent on a bench for the most of our childhoods having to listen to some screeching fool having their weekly psychotic fit. There will never in history be anything more extreme than the government broadcasts, urging young people to go and die in hopeless wars in the most painful and pointless ways we can think of. Whether that's a screeching priest in the pulpit, a psychotic school teacher, some demon at the radio microphone, or reptilians in the TV studio. I agree with your points, but also think you're jumping over an elephant if you compare pre-broadcast days with today, while ignoring the decades of non-social broadcast we had before Facebook and Instagram and such. Atomization is a fact, and the best road out of it might be to connect with other like minded people wherever they are, but it seems that the Internet hasn't lived up to this promise. Why? What have we done wrong?
  - dmoose 4mo ago
    > Atomization is a fact, and the best road out of it might be to connect with other like minded people wherever they are, but it seems that the Internet hasn't lived up to this promise. Why? What have we done wrong? The Internet itself is just a way to transfer information. Humans are the ones manipulating that information for commercial and ideological reasons. I would say as several posters above have implied we have not evolved filters that protect us from this manipulation. Quite the opposite we have biases baked into us that are being actively exploited. What we have done wrong is not find a way to manage this for the benefit of society rather than its harm, sadly that describes much of human history. When an environment exists that amplifies self serving behavior and concentration of power it is not surprising to see it come to reflect the worse rather than best of humanity.
piva00 4mo ago
I don't follow, the argument is against the addictive design of the feed algorithms, not the information being shared per se. Nothing in this is geared towards curtailing platforms like social media to exist, it's trying to curtail the design of psychological manipulation for "engagement". Ragebait is the most common case, it makes people interact with content if it enrages them; another common case is to feed kids with slop content that makes them fixated on the platform, scrolling endlessly trying to get the elusive dopamine hit quite similar to the feeling of playing a slot machine. I think framing this as the EU trying to censor platforms because people post content against the current order is a big cynical leap. I can't see how these platforms' current practices need to be defended, what is your reason for doing that? Maybe you have ulterior motives as well?
- carlosjobim 4mo ago
  > Ragebait Tell me exactly what you mean by "ragebait". Shouldn't things that make people angry be reported on? Should they be swept under the rug? I'm kind of tired of hearing this word being used, without a good explanation. Regarding kids, they shouldn't have uncontrolled access to the Internet, and that's a parenting problem. Just like a parent letting their kid drive their car or drink his whiskey. > I can't see how these platforms' current practices need to be defended, what is your reason for doing that? Some of their practices are good, some are bad. People addicted to TV have existed for decades. It's been a trope forever, the old lady spending her day glued to the TV. Hundreds of millions of people live like this even currently. And just like most people today are a little bit addicted to social media, everybody was a little bit addicted to TV. The evening news broadcast was a very important part of their day. So yes, I think the reason why the people in power are more interested in throttling social media than traditional media - even though they both share the same addiction problem - is because the people in power have much less control over it than they did with traditional media. As for ulterior motives, this is Hacker News, so I fully expect you to believe that I'm secretly a Russian spy, Iranian drone operator, AI bot, Mark Zuckerberg, neo-nazi, scientologist, jew, Elon Musk and bio-lab operator.
  - piva00 4mo ago
    > Tell me exactly what you mean by "ragebait". Shouldn't things that make people angry be reported on? Should they be swept under the rug? I'm kind of tired of hearing this word being used, without a good explanation. Ragebait = fanning flames through misinformation or disinformation. Why do you immediately jump to the conclusion that anything inciting rage is true? I constantly get fed content on Instagram and YouTube with outright lies about my country (verifiable lies, not something I judged as lies) which are intended to cause rage and engagement. That's ragebait. Other kinds of ragebait: creating a whole profile dedicated only to take the most extreme view on issues (on both sides), only to make people angry so they comment or like/interact with the content. > Some of their practices are good, some are bad. People addicted to TV have existed for decades. It's been a trope forever, the old lady spending her day glued to the TV. Hundreds of millions of people live like this even currently. And just like most people today are a little bit addicted to social media, everybody was a little bit addicted to TV. The evening news broadcast was a very important part of their day. When it gets to a device that you are carrying with you 100% of the time it's a whole other level and degree of an issue. You verge into the false equivalency territory, something before was addictive so now that we have something even more addictive it's ok just from precedence? Different levels and degrees demand different solutions. > So yes, I think the reason why the people in power are more interested in throttling social media than traditional media - even though they both share the same addiction problem - is because the people in power have much less control over it than they did with traditional media. That's absolutely cynical and a thought-terminating cliché since it's impossible to contradict you. I understand it's your opinion but it verges into conspiratorial thinking which I don't think anyone can de-escalate you from except for yourself. > As for ulterior motives, this is Hacker News, so I fully expect you to believe that I'm secretly a Russian spy, Iranian drone operator, AI bot, Mark Zuckerberg, neo-nazi, scientologist, jew, Elon Musk and bio-lab operator. Not really but you constantly rehash similar arguments in topics surrounding the EU so I'm trying to figure out what exactly is behind that. Ulterior motives don't need to be that drastic, it can simply be "I don't support the EU as a project" since you never state that but consistently take that side of the argument.
flumpcakes 4mo ago
> Nothing was ever said about the addictive design of mainstream TV - because then the rulers controlled the message being streamed into the brains of the population. More outlandish conspiracy theories on hackernews... You are in fact wrong - see the myriad of rules advertising, especially what can be advertised on children's TV. What messages are not being allowed to be 'streamed into the brains of the population' exactly? Are you suggesting, for example, that claims made by the US president should not be shown on TV? Are you suggesting that these are not then analysed and scrutinised by people on TV?
- khurs 4mo ago
  Speaking from the UK, the state controls the media. There are rules that a few select channels like BBC have to be prominently placed (I.e. Channel 1-4 reserved for them) which means any rival News service is disadvantaged. And presently they are passing new laws to force Youtube and similar to change algorithm's to also make certain UK content providers prominent. UK Media know what they can and cannot talk about- for example Judicial Corruption.
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
- carlosjobim 4mo ago
  > You are in fact wrong - see the myriad of rules advertising, especially what can be advertised on children's TV. That hasn't to do with the addictive design of the broadcast medium, which is what I commented on. There are myriad of advertising rules for social media as well.
delis-thumbs-7e 4mo ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
- jeltz 4mo ago
  Not even that, it is just an off-topic rant about government censorship.
vrganj 4mo ago
> It is precisely on Facebook and Instagram where you find the only popular movements against the current order in Europe, and the citizen journalists who expose and scrutinize the powers. It's a giant political threat towards those in power. Also known as Russian, Iranian, Israeli and Chinese bot farms. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/22/experts-warn-of-threat-to-democracy-by-ai-bot-swarms-infesting-social-media https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/22/experts-w... https://www.npr.org/2024/07/09/g-s1-9010/russia-bot-farm-ai-disinformation https://www.npr.org/2024/07/09/g-s1-9010/russia-bot-farm-ai-... https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/05/facebook-bot-farm/ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/05/facebook-bot-fa... https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-allies-using-armies-of-bots-to-influence-social-media-discourse-report/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-allies-using-armies-... https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/volunteers-found-iran-s-propaganda-effort-reddit-their-warnings-were-n903486 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/volunteers-found-iran... People calling this stuff "popular movements" and "citizen journalists" are either naive or complicit.
- carlosjobim 4mo ago
  [flagged]
  - vrganj 4mo ago
    I'm not sure what you mean. I have not accused you of being any of those things, please make sure to read messages you respond to carefully before deflecting to outrage. Those "citizen journalists" threatening "those in power" (e.g. our democratic societies) however? Yeah no shit they're malign actors.

amelius 4mo ago

And what about the addictive design of advertisements that keeps us hooked on consuming more and more stuff? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382310867_Methods_of_Manipulation_Used_in_Advertising https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382310867_Methods_o...

Telaneo 4mo ago
We should do something about that too, yes.
littlecranky67 4mo ago
Online advertisements should be forbidden as a whole. The attention-stealing and engagement-maximising internet with all it horribly effects only exist, due to advertising. And we know that the world without online ads is perfectly possible and livable, since we all lived through 1996.
- amelius 4mo ago
  Yeah, but why don't we ever hear any MEPs talk about it like that?
  - philipallstar 4mo ago
    MEPs want to write rules that mean they get to fine rich US companies. Local advertising might be worse for you overall but you'd have to do more work to get less free money.
  - YurgenJurgensen 4mo ago
    They buy ads too. It’d adversely affect their campaign budgets. (Sure, it would adversely affect their competitors’ too, but second-order effects are usually too complex for politicians to understand.)
- mc32 4mo ago
  True but the whole “influencer” and “creative” industry would collapse overnight. A few large ones would survive on their patreon income, most would collapse and have to get a real job, if those are still around.

chk84us 4mo ago

Only tangentailly related, but, there is an option in Instagram to reset your algorithm. I highly recommend this if you find yourself doom-scrolling. Not sure if it's also in FB on account of me not having an account there.

logological 4mo ago
Where, exactly? I browsed through the account settings and didn't see anything obviously relevant. (Could be that whatever option you're talking about is available only to mobile users, whereas I only ever visit Instagram on a desktop.)
- chk84us 4mo ago
  Not sure about desktop, but on mobile it is under Settings and activity -> (What you see) Content preferences -> Reset suggested content.
  - logological 3mo ago
    Yeah, there don't seem to be any settings by those names in the web version. Or maybe their presence depends not on whether you're using the web vs. mobile client, but rather where you're connecting from geographically. That is, maybe Meta exposes these settings only when necessary to comply with laws or court orders in certain jurisdictions.
salahadawi 4mo ago
After resetting my algorithm the content I’m served now is even more clickbaity and trying to forcibly hold my attention
orrito 4mo ago
Using instagram in a browser (e.g. firefox as it allows for extension on phone) and then installing an extension like control for instagram or hide reels works great, even better to set the https://www.instagram.com/?variant=following https://www.instagram.com/?variant=following as your main page to enter (or is that only available in europe?). Allows to use instagram as old school social media instead of a scrolling app

TazeTSchnitzel 4mo ago

Forcing social media apps to have a less addictive design is a much better way to protect young people's brains than a social media age limit is (and frankly adults need help here too).

whiplash451 4mo ago
I am with you and wish you were right, but good luck forcing Meta to change the key dark design patterns of their products (correctly identified by the regulators as "highly personalised recommendations, autoplay and infinite scroll") This is a step in the right direction, though. It will be a long journey.
- Frieren 4mo ago
  > good luck forcing Meta When I was a kid there were fines for factories that polluted water. Most of the time they were not found out, and when they did they just paid the fine that it was cheaper than to solve the problem. Regulations changed, factories that polluted water got closed until they fixed the problem. Most factory owners fear the regulation, they are extremely pro-active to avoid breaking the law because the consequences are not worth it. (This trend reversed a decade ago when punishments started to be less harsh and government became more pro-business using the euphemism for corrupt) It is possible to reign in Meta. Parents should be angry enough to bring governments down for letting tech treat their children as products. When citizens are angry change happens and becomes unavoidable.
  - xoac 4mo ago
    Exactly. If social media apps had a configurable old style non-algorithmic feed the problem would be dramatically smaller.
    - Symbiote 4mo ago
      With FBPurity: https://www.fbpurity.com/ https://www.fbpurity.com/ I have Facebook on my desktop computer exactly as it used to be in the 2000s when I signed up: content only from my "friends" and a few chosen sources (a band I like etc). The newsfeed is very slow to load, as to fill the screen the extension must make twenty plus requests while hiding 99% of what Facebook's addiction machine returns.

kittikitti 4mo ago

This is welcome news but I have several friends, family members, or acquaintances that are addicted to social media and have to take psychiatric medication for it. The trouble is, and I'm not sure if the algorithm incentivizes it, but they don't take their pills. They don't even take multivitamins because of whatever idiotic misinformation they're being fed. It becomes a positive feedback loop and anything I and other people try to break it always fails and it feels like social media wants to keep it that way. This is much worse than they're telling us about.

pembrook 4mo ago
> are addicted to social media and have to take psychiatric medication for it. I’m sorry but this is just not real. There’s not a single non-quack doctor who will recommend psychiatric medication for “social media addiction,” which is not a real thing and pretty much all of the recent academic literature proves as much. If your doctor is suggesting medication for social media use, you either have much deeper underlying mental health issues, or you need to find a new doctor ASAP and report them for malpractice.
- khalic 4mo ago
  Really? Would you mind pointing us to all that academic literature? And compulsive behaviour is definitely something that medication can help with.
- karahime 4mo ago
  Which is exactly the problem with this whole discussion. On the far side, you hear that it's heroin! It's fentanyl! It's alcohol! Facebook groups are the modern opium den! But when actually challenged, it's oh no no, that's a metaphor, it's metaphorical fentanyl, not real fentanyl. People on Instagram are metaphorically injecting metaphorical drugs into their metaphorical veins. It's a poor basis for policy and thought. I would wager 20 francs that none of these people have ever seen a heroin OD. The whole discussion centers around a maximally impactful comparison but the middle of the comparison is hollow.
- testerteert000a 4mo ago

pembrook 4mo ago

This is the same EU commission pushing chat control and VPN bans and passports to access the internet. Which people on HN hate. Yet, when they couch authoritarian action under the premise of a popular moral panic, suddenly the reaction here is “tie us up and tell us what we’re allowed to see daddy.” I really don’t get it. Do you not see how cheering on this social media moral panic and inflating the idea of a big tech “boogieman” leads to emboldening them to do the much worse authoritarian surveillance state thing? I guess this is the inherent contradiction of left-leaning internet spaces. We want privacy and freedom personally but as self-styled members of the urban elite we unironically believe everyone else is dumber than us. So we don’t want other people to have freedom over what they do and read.

joe_mamba 4mo ago
This is just boiling the frog slowly. The DSA will first get them to change the algorithm to "protect the kids" and years later it will get them to change the algorithm to push state propaganda and ban all hateful speech, which will be anyone who complains about the state and its rulers. They're playing the long game. First with the carrot, then with the stick, but the end goal is state tyranny, and control over tech platforms is one of the means. They saw what China managed to achieve with their internet censorship and ID control, and they want exactly that, but with a blue coat of paint sprinkled with yellow stars, and pushing child safety up front is a easy way for the public to be onboard with this capture.
vrganj 4mo ago
The EU is an institution that is democratically legitimized at every level (Either through direct elections in the parliament or through elections to the appropriate national government in the case of the Council / Commission). Sure, it's not perfect and sometimes the Conservatives do some messed up lawfare to introduce fucked up things like Chat Control, but at least they were voted in and can be voted out again. Big Tech is some foreign rich dudes being dictators of their little fiefdom doing whatever they can to make themselves even richer. We have zero control over them and what they do to our society in this pursuit. No elections. No recalls. No public votes. The only correct reaction is for the sovereign to assert its sovereignty and lay out some ground rules.

alpineman 4mo ago

Just ban the discovery feed. Search only.

aurareturn 4mo ago
Agreed. HN feed is also addictive. EU should ban HN feed and only allow searching for new posts. Quite honestly, I've been addicted to using my air fryer for cooking nowadays. The design is too good and convenient and the food comes out too tasty. I think EU should focus on making them less addictive.
- inigyou 4mo ago
  HN openly violates GDPR and is proud of it. Why would they follow this?
  - Cider9986 4mo ago
    Your posts are archived really fast once submitted, removing comments would not be an effective approach to improve people's privacy on this site.
- criddell 4mo ago
  That's hilarious. Are you accusing dang et al of unscrupulously designing HN to maximize time spent on the site?
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
Cider9986 4mo ago
That could be their punishment. Also subscribed feed.

timnetworks 4mo ago

I kind of wish they had developers that know how to get a video upload working from the website. Alas, it all must have gotten scrapped for a llama workflow. Website is worse than 15 years ago (code AND contents).

zkmon 4mo ago

While it is genuinely a huge concern, the legal measure are not going to address it. One has to consider the overall picture, not just a corner of it. The ship has sailed. There will be addictive designs, products, services etc. The very theme of a business is centered around keeping the customers addicted. It's just a matter of time, every business on this planet would, with the help of AI, make their products and services extremely addictive.

millionSBASH 4mo ago
Do you think people made similar arguments about privacy before the GDPR?
- edg5000 4mo ago
  Fun sidenote: On a recent Hotmail post on here, I saw a screenshot of hotmail V1 (way before M$ took over). They had a prominent button on their homepage about privacy.
- jampekka 4mo ago
  GDPR ship has largely sailed too. E.g. the illegal Pay or Okay is widespread, including in Instagram.
PxldLtd 4mo ago
I personally think the answer should be mandating user controls of said algorithms. If you have a large social media site that suggests results or provides a feed then you must allow users to configure said feed. The default should be simple, something like time-ordered of followed only with opt in for recommendations. Ideally I'd love to be able to swap algorithms for something open source but setting a standard there rather than just mandating a level of control seems a bigger hurdle. It seems entirely anti-consumer that I am just the behest of whatever Google or Meta decide is most profitable to show me instead of finding important news or entertainment in a way that I want.
- jameshart 4mo ago

dzink 4mo ago

And yet the Mata price jumped yesterday. For some investors this is apparently a feature.

jhghbj 4mo ago

[dead]

EPWN3D 4mo ago

The addictive design is in service of ads. Instead of regulating software, tax ad revenue to disincentivize building a business model around user profiling and tracking.

d4ng 4mo ago
Tax ad revenue. Increase advertising prices. Advertisers pay more to sell their wares. Consumers pay more to consume their wares.
- YurgenJurgensen 4mo ago
  Vendors won’t see RoI on their ad spend and will stop buying. Simples.
  - d4ng 4mo ago
    Governments see reduction in tax income and GDP and repeal taxes. In UK: Signal "mansion" tax on properties valued above X price to collect recurring Y pounds total tax. Market adjusts valuations based on probability of tax. Number of houses still worth at least X now diminishes. Now cannot collect recurring Y pounds. "Mansion" tax delayed. You have this complex system that has reached some sort of relative equilibrium based on say a set S of ten sorts of tax rates, along with a set F of factors (size millions), with the government's tax revenue R being one of those outputs. Then some guy in the government called G signals to the government and public that he can increase R by X by fiddling with a member of S, or maybe adding a member to S (of size say ten). Is G stupid, or does he just lean towards retaining the public's affection, his relatively low salary, potential under the table payments and whatever networking opportunities his job provides? I lean towards the latter.
  - d4ng 4mo ago
    Vendors now cannot get X pounds with Y pounds advertising outlay to make Z pounds per unit of wares. To continue making Z money per unit of wares, with previous S pounds price charged to consumers per unit, add significantly more than reduction in Y advertising per unit to S to offset reduced "brand" "awareness".

Honali 4mo ago

I think the strongest point is about the mismatch between the product and the mitigation. You can't optimize every surface for "one more minute" and then point to a dismissible time-limit popup as evidence that the user is in control

varispeed 4mo ago

These apps should be banned or be forced to only show feeds from accounts you follow in chronological order, nothing more. Perhaps with some basic search if you want to discover something new, but cumbersome enough so that you don't spend hours on it. I know someone he keeps scrolling the minute they wake up. They are behind on chores, life stuff, but keep scrolling. That wouldn't be too bad in itself if not for sheer amount of misinformation that is being served. Especially health related. Thanks to AI enhanced videos showing parasites everywhere, person now has developed eating disorder and thinks their poor health is due to parasites and not the fact they spend whole day on Instagram. Now they started ordering "supplements" and "courses" those people peddle. I tried to report these accounts, but Meta insist they are no breaching any T&C.

bbqbbqbbq 4mo ago

Honest question. This just holds in the EU right? Is it reasonable to think that Meta will only comply in the EU and keep the same design patterns everywhere else?

tancop 4mo ago

this is the wrong approach. they should enforce a choice between addictive and "ethical" algorithms (or even better allow third party feeds), make them transparent with what kind of data they use to personalize and strictly ban any kind of political bias. things like bluesky fyp should always stay legal and not in a gray area. even if someone comes up with a design thats more addictive than hard drugs people should have the option (but never be forced) to use it. if this is about kids then use california style on device age signals set by parents. i just dont think addiction by itself is something we should be fighting. yes i believe in legalizing all drugs how could you tell.

sajithdilshan 4mo ago
I agree with you, for a an adult, the choice should be given and not enforced, it's same with smoking or alcohol consumptions. Both are terrible for your health on the long term, but the side effects are clear and open and people can make an educated decision.
Tinned_Tuna 4mo ago
One thing that's potentially different, at least for Facebook, is the network effect. It only takes a few friends to start using Facebook for event planning for people to start missing events or worrying about missing out. That extra pressure cuts against individual choice. Instagram is different, but you can see something similar happen on platforms with a chat feature. If people start to gravitate towards a singular app for talking, coordinating, etc. then there's the potential for resisters to be socially excluded. For most people, feeling socially excluded is a strong motivator. So far, this has mostly resulted in everyone having a fairly broad set of apps with chat features, so I'm not sure the centralizing power is as strong.
- segfaultex 4mo ago
  The overwhelming majority of local businesses around me don't have websites, just a FB page. If you want to look at upcoming events, specials, restaurant menus, etc. you either have to hope FB doesn't throw up the "you need an acct to see this page" blocker, or sign up.

hash872 4mo ago

Would love to see the overlap between the average anti-Big Tech HN commenter cheering on this regulatory advance, and the average HN commenter who thinks hard drugs should be legalized and that the War on Drugs is bad. Because these are contradictory positions! Either you think people should be free to do things that are addictive or you don't

Timon3 4mo ago
No, those positions aren't inherently contradictory. There are plenty of viewpoints that make them consistent.

ransom1538 4mo ago

The US should start fining all EU created software.

cromka 4mo ago
On what grounds? Retaliation?

chris_explicare 4mo ago

[dead]

hiire 4mo ago

I truly hope something is done about this. I just came back from a nice short bath at the beach, where a family had their towels set a few meters away from mine. While I was laying there, relaxing, I saw two kids begging their dad to accompany them into the water, while their dad watched Reels and ignored them completely. Not even a response. The kids just wanted to have a fun afternoon and play in the water, but the dad was just scrolling, didn't care at all about his surroundings, probably in the zombie state that these platforms let you in. The kids ended up running to the water on their own, the dad didn't react at all to the situation, zero response (to be fair, I'm not saying he should be alarmed or anything, just a "yeah, go ahead" would've been fine). I may be exaggerating but I really think that these platforms are the tobacco of these decades, I used to be really addicted as a teen as well, now I'm 23 and left most of the platforms for good. Seeing people act like this, even in my group of friends, makes me feel quite weird about the whole situation.

netsharc 4mo ago
Man, that age means you're "conscious" life had smartphone/social media in it, according to this (1), if you're born 1999 or later (it's a report from 2012 and mentions teens 13-17), your teenage years probably involved smartphones/social media. As someone older, I wonder what it must be like to grow up since childhood in a world where socializing is done a lot on Facebook/IG comment sections, as well as chasing likes for self-worth. 1) https://www.nielsen.com/insights/2012/young-adults-and-teens-lead-growth-among-smartphone-owners/#:~:text=Interestingly%2C%20teenagers%20between%2013%20and,smartphone%20just%20a%20year%20ago. https://www.nielsen.com/insights/2012/young-adults-and-teens...
- fallingbananna 4mo ago
  To me it felt no different from socialising nowadays as an adult. Some weren’t on social networks at all, and thus missed out on some of the socialising. But also saved themselves from many cringey trends, FOMO, etc. While some others were on social media 24/7 and basically acted like early influencers.
- andrewinardeer 4mo ago

deepsun 4mo ago

Last time EU fined Facebook for merging WhatsApp userbase merging with Facebook, that they explicitly forbade. Facebook just paid the fee and moved along. What would be different here?

cdrnsf 4mo ago

Good. We have the benefit of enough hindsight to know that these platforms have had a net negative impact on everything and everyone they touch.

_the_inflator 4mo ago

Hm, I use Facebook twice a year, to thank folks for my b-day greetings and for checking my account. Some with Insta. I am not the least addicted to it. I suspended TikTok, because it is of low value. YouTube is useful - only with the subscription to get rid of all the ads. Sorry, addictive design is once again another strawman. No one forces you to use these crappy apps. Same with the iPhone. Need free time? iPhone will serve you. All Icons colorless? iPhone! Excuses, excuses, excuses. There is a problem, if you see people being sucked into their smartphones - however, you cannot have one without the other. Many public services require a smartphone. Where is the alternative? It is human nature, that's all. Fighting Facebook is so low, absolutely low.

wackget 4mo ago
Replace "Facebook" with "heroin" in your argument and see how ridiculous you sound.
- tough 4mo ago
  Doing heroin twice a year doesn't sound that bad