Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by bbrks 80 days ago
Reels are non-stop dopamine hits, just like TikTok. It's incredibly addictive to scroll through. That is by far the worst part of Instagram for anybody.

Everything else outside of reels is the usual social media fake life facade, and everything amplified to the max for engagement to get it pushed to feeds via "the algorithm" (note: Interactions don't need to be positive to promote it to feeds)
1 comments
twoodfin 80 days ago
Some quick Googling tells me Instagram has something like 3B users who spend an average of around 30 minutes a day in the app.

Rewind 30 years or so, how long did the typical New York Times subscriber spend with their paper every day?

Was the Times addictive?

And I won’t even get started on network television for half a century.

link
wredcoll 80 days ago
"average of 30 minutes" covers a pretty massive range.

Lots of people can get drunk once a month and suffer or cause no real harm. Some people get drunk everyday which is slightly more harmful.

link
twoodfin 80 days ago
So any producer of X should be regulated or otherwise held liable for the injuries of unhealthy individuals who misuse X?
link
fc417fc802 80 days ago
Depends. Was the product intentionally designed to be that way? The addition of caffeine to soda is the closest example that immediately comes to mind but in that case many individuals are specifically seeking the additive.

There are many physical products that are today designed to minimize harm and misuse after facing liability historically. So I suppose the direct answer to your question would be "yes, absolutely, and there's a figurative mountain of precedent for it".

link
twoodfin 80 days ago
What do you mean by “be this way”?

There’s somebody out there who’s harmfully addicted to just about anything, from ultramarathons to World of Warcraft.

What’s the limiting principle on liability?

link
fc417fc802 80 days ago
Are you intentionally being obtuse? It means whether or not the product was intentionally designed to be addictive. What was the intent behind the design? Why were the decisions made? Was there a reasonable alternative that was otherwise functionally equivalent?

The limiting principle on liability is quite complicated. You'd have to go ask a lawyer. At least in the US (and I believe most of the western world) it has to do with manufacturer intent, manufacturer awareness, viable alternatives, and material harm among other things.

link