[dmix]

People are way too comfortable banning things these days. This is where the term 'nanny state' comes from. A subset of the population doesn't have self control? Ban it everyone. Even if it's a wildly popular form of entertainment with millions of creators sharing their lives, who cares we know better.

[mrighele]

Even most liberal societies tend to ban addictive things. Alcohol, smoking, gambling, drugs, they are regulated almost everywhere, in one form or another.

I think that algorithmic social media should be likewise regulated, with at the very minimum ban for minors.

Note that my focus here on the "algorithmic" part. I'm fine with little or no regulation for social media where your feed is just events in chronological order from contacts that you are subscribed to, like an old bullettin board, or the original Facebook.

Also, I think we should consider companies that provide algorithmic social media responsible for what they publish in your feed. The content may be user generated, but what is pushed to the masses is decided by them.

[wackget]

It's way more complex than "no self control". Social media is addictive by design and is peddled at such scale that it is literally impossible to ignore. It's also backed by billions upon billions of dollars.

Pitting the average person up against that, then blaming them for having "no self control" once they inevitably get sucked in is not a remotely fair conclusion.

[SirMaster]

People keep saying this and yet, I have never used any of these short form video services or really any social media outside of desktop websites like hackernews and reddit. Even on reddit I just subscribe to a few niche and mostly technical subreddits. It seems extremely easy to ignore it all.

[EinigeKreise]

Considering the median amount of time people spend on social media daily, it sure does not seem to be so easy for the average person (as was implied in the comment you replied to). I've got a pretty good self control when it comes to the common vices, but I can't see why that would generalise to everyone else.

[morshu9001]

It's easy for you and me. At the same time, it doesn't seem right to make a business of intentionally going after the people who get addicted to this, like flavored cigs meant to appeal to teenagers. And these social media companies have a paper trail of internal research on user engagement.

But I'm still wary of the motives behind these bans because they seem to be about controlling information, not addiction.

[direwolf20]

You've learned they're bad for you. What if you grew up with it from the age of 3? You'd grow up with a dependence on it and no chance to see that it's bad.

[halestock]

> A subset of the population doesn't have self control? Ban it everyone. Even if it's a wildly popular form of entertainment

Like gambling?

[techterrier]

or cigarettes?

[arethuza]

Or drugs?

[haugis]

Or coffee?

[senbrow]

The drug so popular no one thinks of it as a drug any more.

[mrguyorama]

"One of these things is not like the others..."

What are the harmful effects of a full blown coffee addiction? Headaches?

[direwolf20]

What are the effects of an LSD addiction? Oh you can't, because LSD is anti–addictive. But it's still schedule 1 while coffee is uncontrolled.

[yibg]

Or sugar?

[direwolf20]

Cigarettes are drugs

[Frieren]

> People are way too comfortable banning things these days. This is where the term 'nanny state' comes from. A subset of the population doesn't have self control? Ban it everyone. Even if it's a wildly popular form of entertainment with millions of creators sharing their lives, who cares we know better.

Europe wants to ban algorithmic recommendation. You attack a straw-man: banning all the content from creators. If you have any valid argument you should bring them to the discussion instead of creating imaginary enemies.

Banning harmful design patterns is a must to protect citizens even if it ruffles the feathers of those profiting from their addiction.

[Permit]

> You attack a straw-man: banning all the content from creators.

They didn't say this.

[mylifeandtimes]

> A subset of the population doesn't have self control?

please fix this to

A subset of the population who has not yet reached the age of consent

I think society broadly accepts that there are different expectations for children and adults; the line is currently officially drawn somewhere around 18-21 years old.

[7tflutter7]

But in Europe you can drink at 14. Age of consent is also 14.

So, no, there is no official line at 18-21. Especially in the EU.

[Quarrelsome]

> But in Europe you can drink at 14. Age of consent is also 14.

That is hilariously general. You're conflating a lot of different nations there. In practice; its different depending on the nation, consent is usually 16 and alcohol is ~18.

[7tflutter7]

I was referring to Germany, the largest EU nation. But sure let's look at percentages.

40% of the EU has age of consent 14 or lower. (Germany, Italy, Portugal, etc.) 78% of the EU has it at 15 or lower (France, Sweden, Denmark, etc.)

No 'official line' at 18-21.

[Quarrelsome]

its more complicated than that, the age of consent you're listing doesn't necessarily universally apply and is mostly that low when both people are within that age bracket. In Germany for example the age of consent is effectively 16, its more that there's wiggle room to 14, if both parties are under 21.

[dfxm12]

The videos are the entertainment, not the endless recommendation algorithm.

Additionally, this is not about self control. The claim is that the algorithm is designed to exploit users. Insiders (including a designer of infinite scroll!) have admitted as much going back years: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-44640959

We should be uncomfortable with companies spending huge amounts of money to research and implement exploitative algorithms. We did something about cigarette companies advertising to kids. This action is along those lines.

[haugis]

I see what you're saying, but I would much rather my 9-year old spends an hour on TikTok than an hour smoking Marlboros.

[hollerith]

The choice would not be so clear-out to me. I'd have to think about it.

[hollerith]

"clear-cut"

[dfxm12]

I would much rather people not break things down into false dichotomies. Also, we should strive to give our children at least "good" options, and not settle for "less bad".

[Juliate]

When most of the market using it is abusive, and a source of abuse, preventing the abuse to continue while it's being investigated, or better apprehended by the population/generations at large, makes sense.

[D-Machine]

Hard not to think of the "hard times create strong people, strong people create good times, good times create weak people, weak people create hard times" meme here.

[unethical_ban]

I prefer my water with extra PFAS and my sports bets 10x leveraged. It's my "choice"!

[ekjhgkejhgk]

The thing is, people who live in Europe actually like that companies aren't allowed take advantage of people in every way concievable.

I have an ideia, if you don't like regulation that protects people why don't you fuck off to your own country and advocate for it in whatever dystopian hellhole you came from?

[the_sleaze_]

See:

1. The reactions to banning drunk driving: "It's kind of getting communist when a fella can't put in a hard day's work, put in 11 to 12 hours a day, and then get in your truck and at least drink one or two beers."

2. Mandatory seatbelts: "This is Fascism"

You're going to balk at just about anything that comes down the line - I guarantee it.

[https://www.unilad.com/news/us-news/americans-react-drink-dr...] [https://www.history.com/articles/seat-belt-laws-resistance]

[rglullis]

The "subset of the population" is not small, and there is no easy way to protect the most vulnerable.

> it's a wildly popular form of entertainment with millions of creators sharing their lives

I don't think we should be rewarding those who make a living by creating "content" that serves for nothing but a dopamine rush, and you can bet that those who who put it in the effort to create valuable content would prefer to have one less channel where they are forced to put out content just to satisfy the algorithm overlords.

[krapp]

It shouldn't be the job of governments to decide what content has value and what doesn't.

[rglullis]

It's not about the content, but the format and the economic pressure that corporations exert over everyone.

If you want to distribute short videos on a website that let's you choose what you want after search and deliberately clicking on a button to play it, by all means feel free to do it. But the current Tik-Tok mechanism removes all agency and are an extreme version of mind pollution.

[micromacrofoot]

how do you feel about self control in the face large companies that are spending billions of dollars to intentionally trick you into not having it?

you can't even be aware of what they're doing, because the algorithms they're using to do it are black boxes

youtube algorithms have shown evidence that they've lead to radicalization

would you not draw a line on any of this?