[rkangel]

Which step in this logic do you not accept?

When profit for a company is in conflict with human good, regulation is needed (e.g. health and safety rules)

Facebook causes harm, disproportionately so for younger people

Meta is aware of this, but due to a profit motive does not take serious steps to do anything about it (only token efforts)

Meta (and other social media) needs regulation

[blululu]

As the sister comment to this makes clear: regulation is needed in this area but that specific bill has a ton of problems. We should rewrite it and remove the more privacy infringing aspects.

[jacobsimon]

> Facebook causes harm, disproportionately so for younger people

I think I disagree with this step. Facebook causes a kind of indirect harm here, and is used willingly by teens and parents, who could simply choose not to use it. That's different from, say, a factory polluting a river with toxic chemicals, which needs government regulation. Basically "negative externalities".

[rkangel]

> who could simply choose not to use it

There is an inherently addicting aspect to it though - carefully evolved over the years by optimising for "engagement".

One (imperfect) analogy is gambling - anyone can in theory choose not to gamble, but for some people addiction gets in the way and they don't make the choice that can be good for them. So (in the UK) the gambling industry is regulated in terms of how it advertises and what it needs to provide in terms of helping people stop. I don't know if this particular regulation is in anyway effective, but I do think that some regulation is appropriate.

[jacobsimon]

Yeah that’s a good counterpoint. I guess it hinges on whether you can define a clear boundary around what is harmful or unharmful social media.

Like to me “online shopping addiction” is probably a more realistic and analogous problem to gambling, so maybe online advertising to teens could be regulated, but the jump to child abuse is so far outside Meta’s actual business model that it feels over-reaching to go there.

[xg15]

I like how everyone on this thread is up in arms about Zuckerberg - until the moment where regulation is mentioned. Then it's suddenly "oh well, they could just, like, not use it, couldn't they?"

There is also peer pressure/FOMO. "Choosing not to use it" is not exactly easy if everyone else in your social group uses it - especially for teens.

[jacobsimon]

I’m not saying it’s easy for teens to stop using social media, I’m just saying it doesn’t seem like it should require intervention by the US government to do so. There are many other ways to go about social change.

[xg15]

Which would be?

The harmful effects of social media are a topic of public discussion for at least a decade now, if not more. I think if there were an effective grassroots/civil society way to address this, it would have been found by now.

[jacobsimon]

1. Parental control features on phones and computers

2. Grassroots marketing about potential risks of social media

3. Maybe better parental consent via existing regulations like COPPA

[xg15]

From the article, which quotes an internal study of Facebook itself on this:

> An internal 2019 study titled “Teen Mental Health: Creatures of Habit” found the following:

- “Teens can’t switch off Instagram even if they want to.”

- “Teens talk of Instagram in terms of an ‘addicts narrative’ spending too much time indulging in compulsive behavior that they know is negative but feel powerless to resist.”

- “The pressure ‘to be present and perfect’ is a defining characteristic of the anxiety teens face around Instagram. This restricts both their ability to be emotionally honest and also to create space for themselves to switch off.”

[mrsssnake]

Some regulation yes, throwing information agnostic universal global packet switching network in the trash bin is not the way.

[Aurornis]

> Facebook causes harm, disproportionately so for younger people

> Meta (and other social media) needs regulation

The first obvious flaw in your logic is that you jumped from "Facebook causes harm" to "other social media needs regulation".

It should be obvious why that's broken logic.

The second problem is that this is just the classic "think of the children" fallacy: You point out a problem, say it affects children, and then use that to shut down any debate about regulation. It creates a wide open door for intrusive regulation.

This isn't new. It's been going on for decades. Yet people still walk right into this trap over and over again.

So to answer your question:

> Which step in this logic do you not accept?

The step I don't accept is the real core of the problem: The specifics of the regulation, but you conveniently stopped your logic chain before getting to that.