[lmorris84]

> Should we blame Michael S for wasting hours of his life hitting a small button? We could.

Yep we could, and we should. I'm all for personal responsibility, and this feels like setting up a massive excuse for someone wasting their day on Facebook or Reddit. Unlike the Pigeons in the story, you're not locked in a box and are free to not use the internet if you so wish.

[tremguy]

Yes, you are also free to choose your food at the supermarket, but there are still regulations in place to prevent selling of potentially harmful stuff. Although I agree, the author has somewhat missed the point here as Facebook != Internet.

[tikhonj]

That's a great example, actually: there are regulations that prevent actively, unexpectedly harmful stuff. There are no regulations preventing stuff that tastes great, is easy to eat but not entirely healthy.

We should take the same approach to the internet: prohibit the actively harmful (malware, scams) but not "addictive" content.

[TeMPOraL]

Actually, the most addictive content would under this example get banned too - as it should be (or rather, addictive content delivery methods should be). There are no regulations preventing stuff that tastes great, but there are regulations preventing companies from adding addictive substances to the food.

[tremguy]

I think there might be some that apply to your criteria, for example at least in some European countries, sugary foods are controlled by taxation. I mean something like the idea of banning infinite scroll that someone mentioned earlier might be worth considering.