How do you define a “feed engineered to be addictive”? How do you distinguish between addictive and just good quality?
Will that be bad for "engagement"?
Yes. That's the point.
You aren’t allowed any kind of filtering, or alternative ordering?
Do you always view the ‘new’ feed on hackernews, or do you prefer looking at the front page? I much prefer the front page, for all sorts of reasons. The new feed has all sorts of spam and garbage posts. Reposts, troll bait, etc. The front page usually has much more interesting posts, and definitely posts that have more interesting comments on them.
I don’t want to get rid of the front page, I like the idea of seeing posts ordered by popularity.
Why should you get to decide I am no longer allowed to sort my own feed by popularity, or however I want? I can’t sort things, just because you think I shouldn’t enjoy my feed too much?
I simply said that if I could, that is what I would like to see.
I tried to phrase my comment to convey that I know it is not a popular opinion. I am not surprised that someone would disagree me with, and I am okay with that :)
This whole thread is about attempts to outlaw “addictive” feeds, which is what I take issue with. I don’t like the idea of government having that level of control.
On the other hand, I am also not in the group who says we should make no attempts to help our society deal with the negative effects of addictive feeds. I feel the same way about free speech; I am a huge believer in the absolute necessity for complete free speech, but I also don’t think we can ignore the power and influence of disinformation and/or propaganda. We should absolutely be working on figuring out mitigation tactics that don’t involve prohibiting speech, or prohibiting particular feed algorithms.
This is my usual stance. I have to deal with various regulations (and worse: state-by-state laws) in my business, so I tend to be reflexively anti-regulation.
And yet I find myself saying these things.