At that scale you would need an AI. Once the AI sees something possibly bad, either you have a real person check it (people would complain about privacy, the mental health of those employees having to see awful things) or you have the AI ban (people would complain about lost accounts)
No matter what instagram does they lose. So I think doing nothing is the right thing. Maybe the parent should have done some parenting.
> Of course not. They're on the platform using it, viewing ads, aren't they?
> I mean, it's a shame that some people die, because they won't be able to view ads, and the negative press might impact other people's opinion of the platform leading to potentially reduced ad view, but, heeeeeyyyyyy it's easy enough to prevent certain platform-hostile opinions from being surfaced too much on the platform, you know? "Vagueries of the Algorithm" and all!
(insert a large rolleyes here)
I'm sure we'll get the Standard Tech Appopollylolly: "We are so, so sorry that you caught us enabling this bad behavior, and we will try to do the work to ensure you don't catch us doing it next time."
> The lawsuit, filed in South Carolina state court last week, accuses Meta’s social media platforms of causing a range of problems in children, including depression, low self-esteem, anxiety and eating disorders. It alleges that Meta uses algorithms to aggressively target adolescents and does not do enough to keep them safe from harm.
Of course it doesn't. Depressed, low self esteem, and anxious? That's their dream user - likely to be online a lot, and easily influenced by Meta's actual customers, those paying to influence the thinking of others. The more people like that Meta can produce out of formerly well adjusted individuals, the more money they make. Their incentives are entirely opposite that of larger society. Healthy, well adjusted, offline individuals are mostly worthless to Meta, because they're likely to be on the platform far less often. You just need enough that the platform looks like it's well adjusted people on it.
I hope the lawsuit succeeds. It's long past time for the social media companies to face the consequences of what they've created for their own short sighted profit numbers.
But for some reason social media is different? I don't see why it would be. Are the people on HN pushing for social media bans also pushing for unionization, banning pharmaceutical commercials, and preventing fast food stores in highschools? Because if they aren't it seems really hypocritical.
As gp correctly put it, they are brokers for human mindshare.
On the topic of social media, I think that there is a widespread belief that we could have tools that give us the social benefits of social media without including all of the toxic manipulative tracking and algorithmic feeds. Unfortunately the market has become dominated by a few maximally greedy companies, which sucks but doesn't have a clear solution.
So what are some tools we have available to remove the profit motive from this situation?
Aren't sugar taxes what led to the use of high fructose corn syrup, which is arguably worse than sugar?
Sugar taxes are consumption taxes that apply to all forms of sugar, including corn syrup.
Correct! They are completely different things. Cheap unhealthy burgers != social media platforms. Just because you can draw an analogy between two things does not make them the same, and so having different opinions about them does not make one a hypocrite.
But the better point to make, as the sibling comments have, is that saying "HN thinks X" is entirely meaningless because HN is not one person.
As to how they're different, I don't see it. This was a chance for proponents to describe how it's different, but nobody has; they've just said it is. All I see is a group of people begging the government to take away a freedom, instead of allowing parents a choice in how they raise their children.
However, I actually do draw a distinction between "things you have to go seek out," and "things that come to you in your home/pocket/etc."
I don't particularly care for gambling, and I'm the sort that goes to Vegas for conferences and doesn't even gamble a penny. But I honestly don't have a huge problem with Vegas existing. I recognize some people enjoy gambling, and... fine, whatever.
I do have a very serious problem with "casino apps" on phones/tablets/etc, and the "loot box" mechanics of games that bring that sort of thing into your pocket - without any of the regulation of Vegas. There are some quite strict limits on "how much you can screw over your customers," and casinos have to abide by them. There are no such limits on slot machine apps, and while you can go to Vegas and come away richer (it wouldn't work if nobody did), there's literally no way to achieve that with app-based gambling machines. You 100% lose all your money.
But to assert that nobody cares about fast food in a thread about social media is still... weird.
From his website - yep called it.
"Brandon Guffey is an unapologetic conservative who shares our passion for faith, family, freedom and life."
He is clearly deflecting the blame here.