While there have been some studies on the negatives of social media like nicotine vaping, it is not that bad as what we currently give people the choice to consume and I think we should swing even further towards more freedom of choice even if it negatively effects people long term.
Although, the whole "They have people who's sole job is to make sure Facebook users are on the platform for as long as humanly possible" part makes me the most skeptical.
Psychologists running studies on users: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/06/28/facebook...
Then of course there's this guy: https://theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/18/facebook-cambridge-...
I think all this is terrible-- the world ends up becoming landmine after landmine of companies trying to pull you in and get your money-- but lets keep in mind it's nothing new or unique. Just standard business in an free market economy.
Instead, they chose to implement the minimum legal requirements of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), which prevents companies from collecting certain information from kids under 13, and kids who are under 13 just lie about their age. Facebook has really good data, collected for advertising, to know that kids are signing in, and do not make an effort to stop it, beyond a stern "Don't lie to us" phrasing in their TOS.
I think the point made here, especially with Disneyland, Candy, and Television is that children are targeted and manipulated for profiteering. And that's surprisingly legal.
But it is not ethical. Each company has a choice. I hope public opinion will see FB as unethical and unforgivable in the future.
Instead, they chose to implement the minimum legal requirements set by the FDA with a tiny number on tucked-away table. CocaCola has really good data on how much sugar their drinks have and they do not make an effort to really surface it to people assuming they are acting in their own interest, will read the label, and that will be enough to deter them from drinking a third can.
And the same can be said about pretty much any other company. They all implement "the bare minimum" required by law if it potentially affects their numbers.
> I think the point made here, especially with Disneyland, Candy, and Television is that children are targeted and manipulated for profiteering. And that's surprisingly legal.
Yes, but is it that surprising? We can't expect companies to regulate themselves.
> But it is not ethical. Each company has a choice. I hope public opinion will see FB as unethical and unforgivable in the future.
I agree, though I also think Facebook is a much lesser concern than other companies out there. That's not to say it should be put to the side or nothing can be done before something is done about big Tobacco, big Pharma or even big Sugar. I just think comparing it to a drug company is disingenuous, and lessens the urgency of dealing with companies dealing with proven, dangerous physical addiction.
Do we blame TV makers for wanting to sell additional techniques?
Facebook seems to conduct its business in a relatively ethical way, it certainly doesn't seem to go out of its way to make it addictive, they're preocupied with making it more functional - they're adding features constantly.
I'm not saying we should make these sorts of things illegal, but to require the industry to display proper warnings, to actively give money to organizations that work against them (such as how tobacco companies must pay for anti smoking commercials), seems like a logical step forward.