[dd8601fn]

This reminds me of the TikTok ban that lasted all of twelve seconds.

I’ve been using the internet for longer than I care to admit, and I’ve never seen anything like it.

It was like 300 million junkies all lost their drug supplier at the same time.

[Terr_]

> This reminds me of the TikTok ban that lasted all of twelve seconds.

That timeline has way more to do with the corrupt politicians than consumer behavior.

_______________

Both in the sense that the original semi-bipartisan law should've been ruled unconstitutional [0], and also in how the Republican party turned around and broke portions of that law for months until Trump could ensure the assets were handed to his major donor buddy--and fixing none of the original PRC influence issues. [1]

[0] https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/banning-tiktok-i...

[1] https://www.techdirt.com/2025/12/19/tiktok-deal-done-and-its...

[xg15]

I found it interesting that congress never took issue with any other social media platform, and was fine with TikTok once again as well after it was sold to an American owner.

So looks like politicians never had any problem with the addictiveness of social media, they only have a problem when it's used by foreign adversaries and not by domestic companies...

[XorNot]

Absolutely no one was running it on "social media is harmful". The policy was overtly that it had to be American owned.

[NickC25]

>and also in how the Republican party turned around and broke portions of that law for months until Trump could ensure the assets were handed to his major donor buddy--and fixing none of the original PRC influence issues. [1]

Are you even remotely surprised by that? Honestly.

[thinkingtoilet]

That's literally what it was. These technologies are addicting. Is it as bad or the same as heroin? No. However, they are designed to be addicting.

[shimman]

Well seeing how we are all granted with one single life, maybe we should be more upset at things that take away our valuable time and replace it with things that make us angry? Who's to say that these things aren't worse than heroin? Lots of people would argue otherwise, I'm becoming one of them myself. Heroin only impacts one individual, social media impacts every connected person on the planet.

Mass misery is still misery.

[Anthony-G]

> Heroin only impacts one individual

I have to disagree with this. Having talked to heroin addicts in the past, I was told that the heroin addiction destroyed their relationship with their families and their friends, causing heart-break in the process (particularly for mothers). They use everyone around them so that they could get their next fix: borrowing, constant cajoling and stealing results in alienating them from everyone in their social circle – other than fellow junkies.

When cut off from family and friends, junkies resort to begging, stealing, street prostitution, shop-lifting and other petty crimes, all of which have a negative effect on their community. Some junkies end up committing violent crimes which has a more destructive effect on society. They often end up in debt to their dealers and commit other crimes at their behest.

All these things are much worse when the junkie is a parent or has others depending on them for a safe and secure family life.

Also, in my country (Ireland), heroin junkies also place a huge burden on the health service. Their chaotic lives result in multiple health issues and they take up a significant portion of hospital beds.

[bheadmaster]

We should, but we also shouldn't decide what other people consider proper use of their time

[nathan_compton]

I don't think this is obvious at all. I think its a reasonable function of the state to pursue policies that improve the mental and physical health of its citizens, partly because the negative effects of an unhealthy population are not limited to the individuals who are unhealthy. Liberty is great. I wouldn't want to live anywhere where it wasn't one of the primary goals of a society, but there is no stone tablet from God saying its needs to be the only goal a society can set.

[bheadmaster]

When you say "a society" sets a goal, it always implies a ruling group of people imposing their view of the common good unto everyone.

How do you make sure that whoever makes that choice makes it in a way you yourself will agree with?

[nathan_compton]

I think a mature person accepts some compromise with society at large. How do you make sure your wife always wants to do what you want? You don't. You live with other people, depend on them, pay for them when they are sick or poor (one way or another). You can't escape society. All that the libertarian view appears to do is make everyone miserable with externalities that a properly functioning state would regulate out of existence.

People's lives are ruined by gambling all the time, for instance. It is dumb to pretend like the pleasure a few people get out of it is worth someone betting away his family's welfare. It is ok to just decide "this needs to be regulated." Not everything is some intractible philosophical mystery that no consensus will ever coalesce around. Not every single thing every single person wants needs to be taken seriously.

[fireflash38]

Do you seriously believe that is not happening now? Or that even a libertarian utopia could manage to achieve agreement?

If you're going to get philosophical, go all the way. Why have society at all because it's just people imposing their will on others? Or do you at least agree that there exists a line?

[cmoski]

Not as good as heroin either.

[Nasrudith]

I mean, if I add a bell to a tic tac toe game it is being designed to be addictive. It is triggering positive associative conditioning. I see 'designed to be predicting' as a misleading rhetorical device used to excuse control over speech. The 'fire in a crowded theater' of its age.

[advisedwang]

> the TikTok ban that lasted all of twelve seconds

The TikTok ban successfully forced the sale of the US TikTok operations. I wouldn't be so dismissive of it.

[oldmanhorton]

A year and a half later? Does that really count?

[advisedwang]

Yes. It's a direct consequence. Such things just move slowly.

[pembrook]

> It was like 300 million junkies all lost their drug supplier at the same time.

No, it was not. It was actually nothing like that.

No babies were left to die because their parents were out searching for tiktok clips. I saw no people whoring themselves on the street just to see a few tiktok clips. I heard no stories of children stealing from their own family to get a few scrolls of tiktok. There was no people killing each other just to get a hit of tiktok.

Let's not trivialize something like drug addiction by comparing it to kids procrastinating by watching their TV phone app.

[rjbwork]

I think you're probably vastly discounting the amount of childhood neglect wrought by social media addiction on both the parent and child's parts.

[pembrook]

No, I'm not.

The median child of a social media user (so basically, the median child) is vastly more well off than the median child of a heroin/crack cocaine user and its not even close.

The fact you're suggesting some level of equivalency is wild imo.

Glad I could draw attention to the irrational logic of the current "social media is evil" moral panic.

[ori_b]

True facts. My friend spent an entire day without weed once, and he killed 3 people, and abandoned seven babies. Four of which weren't even his!

[pembrook]

Not sure if you're aware opioids and crack exist.

[port11]

Let’s not pretend like all drugs are equally addictive, or that some tech products aren’t even more so. You’re comparing TikTok to crack, but it’s much more like coming off E, where your life has no sense of pleasure or happiness for weeks/months (anhedonia, I think it’s called), and you’re left on edge for any source of contentment.

[pembrook]

So you believe clinically diagnosable Anhedonia and ecstasy withdrawal is...similar to what happens if a teenager isn't allowed to watch tiktok for a few days...hrmmm.

I'm just astonished how hard all of the supposedly rational engineering minds of hackernews are falling for this classic moral panic. The crowd of mindless pitchforks is cringe.

It must be a cognitive gymnastics that makes people here feel more important. How powerful it must feel to believe your email job can addict and destroy the world...via...javascript scroll effects on...mobile entertainment apps.

I mean, how else do you rationalize the fact that you're paid as much as a heart surgeon to implement react components and reply thumbs up to messages on slack? All this doomsday cosplaying must help square the cognitive dissonance.

[port11]

Come on, that’s not a fair take. Most of us build unimportant and mediocre things at best, but TikTok is especially designed for addiction, shortening of attention spans, and making you come back.

Instagram was supposedly the same, with Meta internally knowing that. They said it themselves, the teenagers couldn’t stop using Instagram even if they wanted to. I mean, isn’t that addiction?

I don’t need to feel important. I’m an addict trying to stay away from my triggers. It’s not Instagram, but I also know how that one feels, because I had an account for years. Of course I’m not saying it’s exactly like a drug — any drug —, but that to dismiss the very real, very negative design of these tools is also folly. They hijack the same brain chemistry, to similar results, and a different scale of recovery.

No, developers aren’t special. Nobody in tech is. But Instagram themselves, in their own document, are basically admitting to behaving like a very capable dealer of a neural drug.