[aprilthird2021]

But so is cable television designed to be addictive. So are most restaurants and ice cream parlors and grocery stores designed to get you to spend more. Most loyalty programs are designed to be addictive to get you to come back, etc. etc.

I just worry we left no levers for the public to regulate these entities and this is the worst option of very few options. Who isn't liable under this kind of logic?

[jfengel]

The personalization component takes this a step above. Making something very broadly appealing is one thing. Targeting what will keep you specifically from turning it off is a whole new level.

[aprilthird2021]

> Targeting what will keep you specifically from turning it off is a whole new level.

Your grocery store app does this and gives you personalized coupons. Will everyone who buys groceries get a $100k+ settlement?

[cmeacham98]

So if social media removed personalization from their algorithms and only applied them broadly across large demographic groups you'd be fine with them? (Genuine question I'm curious)

[jfengel]

Maybe. It's hard to know what kind of world that would result in.

I could well see it being so much less effective as to not be a problem. Or maybe they'd be even more effective, and if we caught them explicitly knowing that they were harming children, it would still potentially be tortious.

[nunez]

This would be great, yeah. Disable infinite scrolling and page caching (so that you’re not infinitely scrolling horizontally) and video autoplay too. Also add opt-out time limits and breaks.

[bluefirebrand]

This would be a substantial improvement yes

Imagine a feed that actually just ends when you run out of posts from people you follow instead trying to endlessly keep your attention by pushing stuff it thinks you might like

If I've read all of the posts from my friends I would prefer to not see anything else, but that doesn't maximize engagement for ad platforms so

[Dumblydorr]

And feeding toxic content to children while doing so.

[conk]

Show me one ice cream parlor that has license psychologists on the payroll for “persuasive design” or GTFO with your bad faith argument.

[CamperBob2]

Any ice cream company that has ever hired a major ad agency.

[wheelerwj]

Not even close and you know it.

[CamperBob2]

You don't know much about the advertising or food businesses, I take it.

Suggest Eric Schlosser's Fast Food Nation. It'll open your eyes.

[salawat]

The problem isn't X domain of business is more scummy than Y. They all are. That's kind of the problem. Tech is just egregious though in it's non-reliance on physical matter, meaning anything that can be digitally rendered is instantly a world scale fucking problem.

If it were one building in one state doing this shit, no one would care, and we'd just block or tell people don't go in the building. That doesn't work with digital products that started benign, then had the addictive qualities turned up to 11. That's malice, at scale. If every ice cream parlor, or link in the ice cream supply chain started adulterating ice cream with drugs, regulators would have dropped the hammer at the site of adulteration. Meta et Al have had no such presence forced upon them due to lack of regulation in some jurisdictions, or being left to self implement the regulation, thereby largely neutering the effort.

[aprilthird2021]

> If it were one building in one state doing this shit, no one would care, and we'd just block or tell people don't go in the building.

Most retail environments do design their storefronts, logos, placement of products, even foods have higher than normal sugar, oil, and butter content, all in the service of keeping people coming back for more whether or not it is healthy for them.

How do we draw the line? Without regulations in place how is it fair to say companies are negligent in allowing people to become addicted to their products?

[megaman821]

Yes, ice cream palors are famous for only using shades of gray and never adorning their products with things like sprinkles.

[munificent]

A match is designed to start fires. So is a flamethrower.

That doesn't mean they are equivalent and must regulated the same way. Scale matters.

[aprilthird2021]

This isn't about regulation. Regulation would be welcomed because you can follow it and avoid liability.

We are now saying Meta, YouTube, Snap, and nearly every major media app (maybe Netflix and HBO next!) are liable retroactively for the past when people got addicted to the content on the apps despite that the companies did not violate any regulations at the time

[bjt]

The nice thing about laws passed by a legislature is that they don't need to have some airtight logic to stop us falling down every slippery slope.

If cable television or restaurants or ice cream start causing harm that we want to deal with, we can vote on that when the time comes.

[hattmall]

Ice cream isn't engineered to be addictive. Ice cream is, for most people, actually enjoyable and costs money. If ice cream were free but you only got a small amount on random visits to the ice cream parlor then it would be engineered to be addictive.

[slopinthebag]

I don't think that is really true though. People aren't becoming addicted to grocery stores, ice cream parlours and restaurants, or even cable television to nearly (any?) degree. None of those are engineered to addict you in nearly the same degree or magnitude.

[twoodfin]

What the best evidence that otherwise psychologically healthy people are becoming clinically addicted to social media?

People used to spend an awful lot of mindless time watching TV. They weren’t “addicted” in a clinically meaningful sense.

[slopinthebag]

I haven't seen anybody making any claims about social media usage leading to clinically meaningful addiction. So why are you asking for evidence of that?

Also fwiw I'm not in favour of regulating social media, but I am in favour of bringing lawsuits to companies who engage in societally harmful behaviour, and punishing them financially.

[twoodfin]

So what the heck are we talking about ITT?

“I’m so addicted to Firefly!”

That kind of thing?

[slopinthebag]

No. It's been established that social media use can produce addiction-like behaviors, that it uses mechanisms similar to gambling and substance addiction, and that a subset of people experience significant impairment as a result of social media consumption. It's still debated if it should be classified as a form of Substance Use Disorder, which is what the term "clinically meaningful" refers to, but the debate is more a matter of classification and semantics, not if the issue exists at all. And not what people are referring to in the context of this case and discussion.

If you're interested in the topic further, you could consider reading 'Toward the classification of social media use disorder: Clinical characterization and proposed diagnostic criteria', which should shine some more light on what people are referring to as "addiction" in this circumstance :)

If you're interested in the neuroscience, consider reading "Neurobiological risk factors for problematic social media use as a specific form of Internet addiction: A narrative review".

[twoodfin]

Ah. “Can produce addiction-like behaviors”!

Like, I dunno, really getting into running or yoga or fantasy football?

Where is the line, according to experts in addiction-like behavior?

[jen20]

> or even cable television to nearly (any?) degree

24-hour commercial cable news (in the US) is the original sin of addictive media.

[slopinthebag]

I'm not seeing any signs of addiction even within an order of magnitude of social media.

[jen20]

Probably not looking in the right places then. The over 50s are a prime candidate (also for Facebook addiction, but largely reposting nonsense from cable news).

[insane_dreamer]

You don’t have a cable TV or ice cream parlor in your pocket dishing it out to you any time you desire wherever you may be.