[jimmyjazz14]

I have no love for social media, but I also really don't like the idea of the government regulating how apps are designed, or trying to circumnavigate online privacy to "protect children" which where I see this whole thing going.

On another note, personally I'm not sure I buy the "addictive" argument with social media, maybe its just me but I find social media pretty boring, but I think for a lot of younger people it is something that fills a need for meaning and connection to the world that has been diminished due to a loss of community in our society (which does predate social media).

[ux266478]

> I also really don't like the idea of the government regulating how apps are designed

I agree with this whole heartedly, but the government works on mass-scale patterns. It's essentially their entire job to regulate such things. Wind the clock back 20 years and the regulation seems insane. With how prolific computers have become? How they've been shoehorned into everyone's lives, whether or not they have any business or interest in actually interacting with one? It's a logical necessity.

I don't like it and I don't think this is a real solution. We should instead be looking to wind things down. Less people using less computers in a smaller fraction of their day. That's it. Unfortunately it looks like instead we're just going to be losing all of our computing freedoms while doubling down on the bullshit because Grandma needs email or something.

[troad]

It's wild to me how many people are willing to throw basic civil liberties overboard because they don't like the other guys.

Today's media circus is about addictive social media. Before that it was video games and rock music and D&D clubs. Before that it the Satanic panic of the 80s, gay 'recruitment', Soviet spies. Much before that it was witches and heretics. And so on and so on, forever.

If you have a choice, maybe don't be part of the pitchfork wielding mob? The people with the pitchforks always think they're warriors of justice. They generally aren't. They just tend to make everything worse.

(Plus the economic motivations are so clear here - traditional media hate social media because social media ate the traditional media's cosy entrenched profits, so now social media are to blame for Russia, for Trump, for anxious teenagers... and must immediately be regulated out of existence)

[maxaw]

The big difference is that in many cases the people who support this are the same ones that are addicted. You’re telling addicts to stop their moral panic over their own addiction

[intended]

TLDR: This isn’t a moral panic, and this has been building up for a decade plus now.

Heck no. Year after year after year these issues have been brought up and ignored.

I worked in this damn domain, and have seen better people than me try their best to avoid exactly this outcome, for these exact same firms.

I can give credit to the people at these firms who try to do the right thing, but the firm itself needs to answer in terms of revenue and growth figures.

The fact is that your policy and T&S teams are cost centers, while the quarterly shareholder report is God. There is only one way these incentives line up.

It’s been YEARS of teams within these firms raising the issues of user harms and getting no where.

I remember having T&S folks cry on MY shoulder about how they couldn’t get engineering resources even while working at a FAANG company.

Others talked about how, out of sheer repetition, they developed a protocol for the times an engineering team would inevitably come in to “fix” T&S issues. They knew they would get sidelined, till eventually the PM/engineers/Savior would run into the same problems they had been dealing with forever, and then ask for help.

Public research also has issues - If you want to do actual research on tech, you can’t even get the data.

If you get the data, you also get the NDA, which means your results need to make tech look good, or the report becomes an internal report that will never see the light of day.

[alex1138]

Perhaps but then you get stuff like this https://bradfrost.com/blog/post/facebook-you-needy-sonofabit...

They need to play fair or GTFO

[troad]

You get stuff like... obnoxious notifications?

Duolingo's notifications are borderline emotional blackmail ("don't make the owl sad!"), and Duolingo is a vastly profitable company that expressly targets school-aged children. But because it's not social media, it's... fine?

What does playing fair even mean in this context?

[alex1138]

It's not just that, it's also outright black hat behavior like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4151433

[jauntywundrkind]

It's very maga-coded moment, but tech not government: a transcendent rage demanding only things be broken.

[techblueberry]

Weve stopped worried what unaccountable social media ceos might be doing to manipulate the media environment with mark Z as an advisor to Trump? How is legacy media oppressive but social media algorithms freedom?

Social media is a regulated space, it’s not a free market of ideas, it’s a particular viewpoint shaped by like 5 people. How can you be so skeptical of everything else but be like “stop it guys, Zuck’s got our best interests at heart”

How would like regulating more transparency in social media algorithms violate your right to free speech?

What if we just made it so social media companies had to give you more control of the algorithm?

[kjkjadksj]

At some point we limit your freedom of expression to do things like dump toxic waste up river. This ought to be no different. The poisoning of the american mind for profit.

[twoodfin]

The traditional solution to speech you don’t like is more speech you do like.

[intended]

The traditional solution worked for traditional problems.

I suspect most people don’t remember WHY free speech itself is valued. It’s often treated in a talismanic sense.

At least in America, a good part of the value of Free speech comes because it is a fundamental building block to having a vibrant market place of ideas.

Since no one has a monopoly on truth, our best model is to have a fair competitive market place that allows good ideas to thrive, even if they are uncomfortable.

The traditional risk to the free exchange of ideas was government control; the suppression of trade.

However, in the era we live in, we have evolved to find ways to shape the market through market capture. Through overwhelming the average user, instead of controlling speech. Bannon called this “flooding the zone”.

The traditional solution ensured a working and vibrant marketplace for its era. I don’t know what tools we will develop for the modern era.

Do note, we depend on content moderation to keep forums like HN running. The fundamental power of content moderation is censorship. Without the exercise of these censorial powers, we would not be able to have this discussion.

[techblueberry]

No one is trying to regulate speech. And actually, the traditional solution was a duel to the death.

[twoodfin]

What else could “at some point we limit your freedom of expression” possibly mean?

[troad]

Yes, such a coherent argument: "no one is trying to restrict your speech, and if they were it would be good actually."

There are people who just can't admit to themselves they actually hate free speech. Because they're people who've never needed it. They've never been abolitionists speaking against slavery, or civil rights leaders speaking against apartheid - whether in South Africa or the American South. They've never been gay people fighting for equality, or trans people fighting to survive. They've never been an unfavoured minority - ethnic, religious, sexual, linguistic, what have you. They don't need free speech, so why should you? Everyone else already has all the rights that they could possibly want or need, so as far as they're concerned, all these people are needlessly disruptive to the public order. So they maintain a fiction of collectivism, in reality a majoritarian hegemony, while silencing anyone who'd speak out against it. They can't quite bring themselves to say they oppose free speech, but they act in practice to undermine it.

It is a contemptible stance.

Somewhere out there is a young lesbian in Russia finding her people on social media, a young atheist in Saudi Arabia making friends online. And the majority is as ever ready to throw the most vulnerable under the bus, so that they, the majority, don't need to take a modicum of responsibility for their own idle doomscrolling. And if they need to whip up a moral panic to do so, fine. More efficient that way, helps override people's rationality.

[jimmyjazz14]

Toxic waste is harmful to everyone all the time, social media is maybe harmful to some people some of the time, kinda like peanuts, should we ban peanuts? I'll further add that social media is beneficial to many people as well.

[troad]

And at some point we limit Japanese American freedom of movement for general public safety during a war with Japan. Still no different?

Bad take. Civil liberties matter.

[techblueberry]

This is a completely false equivalence. No one’s trying to regulate an activity they’re trying to regulate the unhinged behavior of trillion dollar companies.

How many people who played DND or video games or music or any of the other things you listed regretted it afterwards? How many people playing DND would say “I wish I was out with my friends because this game is too addictive”. None, because they were with their friends!!

The closest thing would be cigarettes. And while I think cigarettes should be legal normalized and plentiful, I’m aware enough not to attack the movement that marginalized them.

No one is talking about content here, and to emphasize the point, I think no one is really defending social media, for all the examples you gave it was an activity no one understood except the small group of people whom it gave meaning. Everyone understands social media and most people hate it.

And in fact, I might go so far as to say you’re directionally incorrect. Social media is the force that killed speech, that killed the things that made DND and punk music and transgressive video games possible. Social media is the victory of those people who wanted to normalize the abnrormal.

[troad]

>> How many people who played DND or video games or music or any of the other things you listed regretted it afterwards? How many people playing DND would say “I wish I was out with my friends because this game is too addictive”. None, because they were with their friends!!

Lol. Tell me you weren't around for the D&D panic without saying you weren't around for the D&D panic.

This was precisely the argument used. "These kids should be out, running around, climbing trees! They're missing their childhoods! Here's Becky, age 15, to tell us how much happier she is now that she's hanging out with her girlfriends at the park, instead of summoning demons in her parents' basement."

And everyone bought it in exactly the same way that they buy the social media teen panic now. There were developmental psychologists on TV to explain how harmful D&D was to the kids' sensitive developing brains, how it was a gateway drug to all sorts of destructive self-behaviours, how parents were just so gosh dang powerless to do anything about it (all their friends are doing it!), and how the state needed to step in NOW! Sound familiar?

Honestly, you've seen it once, you've seen all there is to see. The social media panic has all the characteristics of any other moral panic. Some unpopular thing is alleged to be hurting children, and if you support it, then you're probably some kind of child abuser. Because we're all so perfectly rational, we all know our suspicions are 'directionally correct', to borrow your beautifully Orwellian turn of phrase. Certainly nothing to do with the ceaseless drum of narratives directed against social media that we imbibe from every external conduit - films, TV, newspapers - and live and breathe and occupy as though it were reality. Hey did you see that Netflix show Adolescence, about the harms of social media? It's fiction, but it really <strike>creates</strike>captures the moment. It's just so directionally correct, you know?

Not like our prejudices can ever be echoed back to us through our own media, in an ever shriller feedback loop. No need to build up any defenses against that sort of thing. Grab those pitchforks.

[techblueberry]

In not sure who you’re arguing against, but you’re arguing against the opposite point I made, the satanic panic of the eighties is like a special interest of mine. Also lol @directionallly correct.

And I’m not asking anyone to ban social media, maybe just regulate some of the behaviors by companies who are creating products 60% of users say that wish were less addictive. The key distinction is insiders. If people playing DND overwhelmingly reported they thought it was harmful, I would say we should ban that too, but they don’t. With DND the only people worried about the harm were outsiders.

https://www.stagwellglobal.com/what-the-data-say-60-of-gen-z...

Maybe just the ever so slightly tiniest bit of friction to the experience, nothing that prevents those from loving the products to continue using them.

Als, I think I would liken my objection to social media less as a moral panic and more in Marx’s “opiate of the masses” framework. But I’m also maybe a bit contrarian here. I think medium-centered moral panics (as opposed to content-centered) were mostly correct. That is to say, going as far back tot he Greeks worrying that the written word would have a negative impact on memory, the fears around television reducing social ties were largely correct.

But here’s an interesting thought experiment for you: with all the previous moral panics you mentioned, the distinction was usually generation. Older generations didn’t understand the new thing and feared it and as the younger generations grew older it was more integrated into their culture.

But social media doesn’t have that pattern, the younger generations seem to hate it as much or more than the older generations. So what is going to change in twenty years to show social media is not that bad, if young people see the harms, maybe even more than older people.

[techblueberry]

Another argument, just because I’m having fun — ask all dnd players what policies or laws the government should put in place to prevent the harm caused by dND and I think consrervstively 99% of them say “what the fuck are you on about.

Ask a similar question to just the folks who say that social media is a net benefit to their lives, and I think you get a litany of responses.

[imiric]

It's ridiculous that you're getting downvoted, you're 100% right. Though it's not unexpected given the forum. Many people here are either directly employed by social media companies and Big Tech, or are inside that bubble. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

The parallels between social media and cigarettes are undeniable. Nicotine and chemicals in tobacco are addictive on their own, yet tobacco companies made cigarettes as addictive as they possibly could. They also advertised to children, and deceived the public with false advertising and disinformation for decades. They were prosecuted for all of this, which put a stop to it in first-world countries, at least. There are still countries with lax regulation where the tobacco industry is engaging in the same tactics they used decades ago, and business is booming. Cigarettes didn't go away. People can still smoke if they want, but it's much more strictly regulated, as it should be.

Nobody was against regulating Big Tobacco, as it was obviously doing more harm than good. And yet whenever regulating social media and Big Tech is brought up, it is a civil liberties and government overreach issue. Give me a break.

[troad]

Just for the record, I am neither directly employed by social media, nor big tech, nor am inside that bubble. And I never have been. My salary includes precisely zero dollars linked social media in any way. But hey, don't let the facts stop you from spinning a good yarn, built on many fine cliches.

Social media sucks. I used to use it, and I do not use it now. And yet regulating it, off the back of a moral panic, is going to be significantly worse than not regulating it. The laws will overreach. This is a sensitive area where the government greatly benefits from overreach, and there's not enough public pushback to prevent it, on account of the moral panic whipped up by traditional media, who also stand to greatly benefit from overreach.

I am completely consistent in my beliefs on this. I was against all the anti-terrorism legislation too, being absolutely confident it would overreach - and I was completely correct, which brings me no satisfaction at all. Terrorism is obviously far more dangerous than all this 'teenagers seeing images online that harm their self-esteem' nonsense.

It's the traditional media that have a direct pecuniary interest in defeating social media, and no one questions their motives. I'm just some guy, but apparently I'm the ExxonMobil Chairman of Cigarettes and Opioids, just because I dare disagree with the narrative being peddled.

It's much easier to pretend like I'm some paid shill than accept that you're taking a huge gamble with your civil liberties when you push for social media laws. If I could somehow segment reality so you get to live in your restricted world, and I get to live in my free one, I would. But unfortunately I'm trapped in this world with you, and your pitchfork mentality consistently affects me, so I have to take on the utterly thankless task of convincing the mob to take a goddamn second to think about the obvious consequences of their own actions.

And then they don't listen. And then ten years later they come back with their tails between their legs, acknowledging I was right, but by then it's far too late to do anything about it. Deeply unsatisfying cycle.

[techblueberry]

I think I would agree with you outside of the specific context we’re living in. I’m not advocating for a patriot act. I’m advocating for arresting or punishing the terrorists who are documenting their acts in e-mail!

I’m not saying you can’t organize an anarchist group, but when you start hoarding weapons of war the FBI should investigate.

I don’t quite understand the fear you have that maybe putting a limit or two on a company who’s market cap rivals small nations is terrorism, because that market cap may start rivaling big nations, and Mark Zuckerberg is already an advisor to the president.

So I’m taking a second to consider the “obvious” consequences of my actions, but we’re living through the consequences of inaction. And if we don’t start taking small steps now, the Orwellian future you fear is coming, and governments will start taking big steps later.

By saying “there’s nothing we can do” you’re forcing the very future you’re trying to prevent, which by the way is already in the works in the form of age verification laws and social media bans for under-18s.

So maybe consider there are some valid concerns folks have before the people with invalid concerns take over.

[imiric]

Notice that I said "many people". I have no way of knowing what your affiliation or agenda is, or even if you're human. That doesn't change the fact that many people here are indeed biased in favor of Big Tech, and at the same time would never admit it. You may simply be a fervent social media user, or have your own reasons for being wrong. :)

Look, do you think that I somehow don't care about my civil liberties? That I wish to live in a nanny state where the government gets to control every facet of my life? Obviously not. But at the same time, it would be foolish to look at the current state of the world without coming to the conclusion that social media has played a significant role in creating it.

FWIW, I'm not opposed to social media in principle. I think it creates spaces where cacophony dominates which ironically does the exact opposite of "connecting people", so I wouldn't be a part of it even if it weren't controlled by giant corporations. But if someone else feels differently, it's their own choice and I respect it. The real problem is the weaponization of these platforms to corrupt democratic processes, spread disinformation, and serve as a playground for companies to conduct mass psychological experiments, and do all kinds of devious shit we're not privy to, which should make it very clear that this technology is doing much more harm than good.

Which brings me back to the core of my argument, and what GP brought up: the undeniable parallels between social media and cigarettes. Do you think that regulating Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, and other industries, was government overreach? Would you rather live in a world where cigarettes are marketed towards children, are pumped full of addicting chemicals (beyond some "safe" limit, whatever that is), and where the Zuckerbergs, Sacklers, and Johnsons of the world get to do what they want? That seems objectively much more harmful to society than whatever erosion of your "liberties" you think is taking place. Governments don't need some big excuse to erode your liberties; they'll do that behind your back regardless. This "free" world you think you live in is an illusion.

Besides, which civil liberties are you particularly defending in regards to social media? Your rights to publish and consume content on platforms controlled by giant corporations? These are not some "public squares", as its CEOs would lead you to believe. Your "free speech" on them is heavily regulated by opaque algorithms and very specific terms of service. There are plenty of other channels you can use to communicate with people without being exploited and manipulated, while enjoying actual freedoms, so why is social media so sacred?

Regulation is a double-edged sword that needs to be carefully balanced. I share your own concerns about government overreach. But it's foolish to have the viewpoint that social media, and Big Tech in general, shouldn't be regulated. This is not "off the back of a moral panic"—it's based on hard evidence of the harm it actually causes. Do these companies actually have to commit genocide before you agree that something has to be done? Which has effectively already happened if you consider Facebook's role in the Myanmar genocide.

[techblueberry]

Do you never wonder if we’ve gone too far though, out of fear of relatively accountable governments manipulating the flow of information, we’ve put like five capitalists in charge of the flow of all information. Sure, there is a danger in giving the government more power, and that danger is not theoretical. But we’re in a dangerous situation right now!

It feels like we’re free soeeching ourselves into the most constrained and controlled free speech environment in history.

If freedom of speech is supposed to do something like create an environment where people can present alternate ideas and speak out against the government, social media is raising the noise floor so much that’s basically impossible.

Aside from that that know one seems concerned that Zuckerberg is on like an advisory panel on AI reporting directly to Trump? The fox is in the hen house.