[Mikeb85]

> Your statement is victim blaming.

Really? You're going to equate this to crimes someone perpetuates against another?

For weeks I've seen posts blaming Ukraine for being invaded and having genocide committed against them. That's victim blaming.

Social media users aren't victims of anything except their own inability to limit and moderate usage. Back in the day people would sit in front of the TV, now it's just a different screen. That's on them. Many people also use social media constructively; to do things like run their business, keep in touch with friends and family, etc...

[31098347]

The naïveté of this take is astounding for someone who frequents a technology message board. You’re just going to ignore the part where these services employ A/B tests to make their services more addictive? You’re going to ignore the countless stories about how Facebook knew that the content they boost is bad for mental health and is addictive but they did it anyway? You’re going to ignore .. the entire surveillance capitalism aspect where an entire industry is predicated upon keeping people engaged?

Have a feeling you’d get a long with the Sackler family famously. Christ.

[Forgeties79]

I largely agree with the thrust of your argument, but you need to ease off the throttle a bit man.

[Mikeb85]

And commercial food producers make their products more addictive too... How about the tobacco industry? How about illicit drugs? Porn?

At some point you need to talk about personal responsibility...

[harrylove]

You can be an impartial observer of predator/prey behavior without considering yourself part of either group. But it doesn’t change the fact that there is a predator/prey relationship. In the case of social media, just like many addictions, there are too many variables at play to propose a simple solution like “just stop doing it.” So when you say people (who are indeed targeted) should “just” do the simple solution or else suffer the consequences, that is victim blaming.

[31098347]

> And commercial food producers make their products more addictive too... How about the tobacco industry? How about illicit drugs? Porn?

How about them? They also designed their products to be addictive.

“Personal Responsibility” is just the shield that powerful companies use to avoid being regulated.

Shift the blame to the exploited and make it clear that their problems stem from their moral deficiency. Pretty convenient all told —- the personal responsibility of the architects of these systems and products somehow evaporates.

Personal responsibility cannot overcome AI designed to addict you. These services are not your friends. You are not the customer or the product. Your future behavior is the product. The only way to win is not to play.

[robonerd]

> Personal responsibility cannot overcome AI designed to addict you.

I agree with your general arguments but you're going too far here. Individuals can overcome addiction. That doesn't change the big picture of how additive substances and services effect society as a whole, and I agree corporations use personal responsibility rhetoric to stave off government regulation. But you're going too far by suggesting that individual addicts have no chance of quitting. Many people have quit, proving that it's not impossible. It's good to see the whole forest, but don't forget the trees.

[Forgeties79]

I mean we also shouldn't let a few healthy trees blind us from a generally sickly forest, to continue this metaphor.