[btown]

> [The definition for Addictive Feed applies] unless any of the following 18 conditions are met, alone or in combination with one another:

> ... (b) the recommendation, prioritization, or selection is based on user-selected privacy or accessibility settings, or technical information concerning the user's device;

And also:

> It shall be unlawful for a covered operator to provide an addictive feed to a covered user unless:

> (b) the covered operator has obtained verifiable parental consent to provide an addictive feed to a covered minor.

"Hey, kid, activate the Dynamic Feed setting and get a cool badge on your profile!" Or: "Type your parent or guardian's email here; we'll tell them all about how we work to provide you with age-appropriate content, and if they click to upgrade your Dynamic Feed, you'll get a special hat for your avatar!"

This seems rife for abuse in practice, but I'd rather this be the case than have overly-broad definitions.

(Not a lawyer, this is not legal advice!)

[m463]

Now, with improved >Addictive Feeds< you'll get cool blue messaging bubbles instead of plain green ones!

[varispeed]

That sounds like: lets appear that we are doing something, but make it easy enough to go around so it doesn't hit our bottom line.

[viraptor]

I think it realistically needs an escape hatch. For example some sports / activity groups organise exclusively through Facebook. If Facebook solves the issue by not allowing NY teens any access, then parents may want to override that for that specific purpose. Or the teen may be working on something that integrates with a service providing the addictive feed - it would make sense to allow.

[btown]

My implication is that Facebook will solve this, not by disallowing access to NY teens, but by incentivizing NY teens and their parents to opt into the exact type of addictive feed that they currently have, and in the meantime falling back to non-user-specific recommendations. Also, it appears that a platform can still show content from users/channels that a minor user has explicitly subscribed to, without that counting as an addictive feed.

It's a very de-fanged law, but it's an iterative step in the right direction.

[sdwr]

And honestly, knowledge is half the battle. People seeing "Addictive Feeds" as a dangerous product that needs regulating is worth more than the actual regulations.

I think they're trying to make it go the way of smoking:

- general consensus of harm

- warning labels

- start applying pressure to phase out

[varispeed]

Additionally, why do they allow to call it "Dynamic Feed" and not for what it is: "Addictive Feed"? Seems like doublespeak.