[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.