And society as a whole. Even if you don't participate you don't escape the blast radius of the harm they've caused over the past 10-15 years.
I was astounded hanging out with my friends in person last weekend how every one of them at some point pulled out their phone mid conversation to watch TikTok, or Wordle, or whatever. They thought I was the weird one when I mentioned all social media sites and apps are blocked on my phone. We had an overall good time but these moments stuck out.
The way we do this is just we set a passcode for the others phone but I configure my own settings and she hers. This has been available and worked for us for nearly a decade.
To kill time, sometimes I watch those random "America's Funniest Videos" type videos where it's some random family at home and something funny/weird/etc. happens. I've started noticing that in almost all of them now, everyone is just sitting around staring at a phone. Sometimes an entire family will be in the living room, three on a couch, each in their own little world.
Even my family does the same. It's a very very hard habit to break. Like smoking, except anti-social where smoking was at least social.
50 years ago they'd be reading their own newspapers and magazines.
The name changes but the song remains the same; people have their own interests, even within a family, that aren't shared with others. I wouldn't bore my partner by monologuing about my hobbies, and she likewise. At least we're in the same room together.
Few people would have had their own TVs in their room 30 years ago. That wasn't common. They were huge, expensive, and not remotely interesting enough to capture the attention of most people for prolonged periods. It was common to have family rituals where there was about 2-3 hours of watching TV during/after dinner together. That was when they aired a movie after some news.
Even game consoles, if you could afford them, really wouldn't capture your attention that much. Nobody plays Super Mario every day for hours weeks on end. And at least to us that was just another social activity anyways. We didn't play these by ourselves.
But I think all that misses the point. You would be doing pretty much none of these in place of another social activity. They either were a social activity, or they filled in otherwise dead time.
When you're having dinner with your friends or family and everyone is looking at their phone, that is replacing something. I remember getting playing cards and chatting at the dinner table when I was young. Nowadays people just get out their phone or disappear to other personal devices as soon as they are done eating if there's any dinner ritual left at all.
Depends on where one is from. In my country (U.S.A.), even many lower-middle-class kids tended to have at least a small portable TV (or, more often, the former family TV that had been replaced by a newer one in the living room) in at least their end of the house or apartment, if not their own room, ’way back in the late 1960s to early 1970s. What was common for kids in other countries at that time is, of course, a different matter. As for watching the TV together as a family rather than on separate TV sets: that often depended more on whether the family TV was a newer color model and the kids' room TV was an older black-and-white model --- or, as kids grew older and their viewing preferences changed from their parents’, which shows were on opposite one another. Sometimes it even came down to which room made it easier to watch TV while you were doing homework, talking to a friend who was visiting you from down the street, etc.
That changed into watching youtube now.
I'm talking around $800/night at a beautiful hotel or island resort, perfect scenery, and a couple both scrolling videos.
This is what I keep in my head when I find the urge (and it happens) to pull out my phone and doom scroll around family.
At one point I also had a few of them filtered at the DNS level at home, not to restrict my access but rather to defeat any embedded third party requests that might escape my browser filtering.
I remember going on dates a few years later, 2014/15, and the phone usage during the dates seemed rude and slightly offended me. Now it's so common it's not even really noteworthy.
It's a shame we can't have nice things. An actual non-abusive social medium for people to share things like this - I'd use it. But I see that as soon as there is money on the table, it's a race to the bottom, sooner or later.
Cohost existed, for, a couple years, before they shut down...
I've lived through this entire story before in the video game wars. People said exactly the same things with exactly the same urgency about Mortal Kombat - what kind of sick society do we live in, where greedy corporations sell you the experience of shooting people and ripping their heads off? Perhaps we have to let adults buy these "murder simulators", but only a disturbed, evil person could possibly argue for letting kids do it.
If that sounds crazy to you, the moral panic over social media will sound just as crazy in a decade or two.
That's why we call it addiction when folks struggle with stopping even though they can see the harm in their own actions.
Anyway, sometimes 'panic' is justified. Sports betting has been a total disaster, for example.
From my perspective, this will sound crazy in a decade or two but more like how harmful smoking is and how ridiculous it is we didn't see it soon.
This isn’t a moral panic.
Mortal Kombat did not result in changed behavior in its users. As I recall, The best study on video games only showed that there was some change in behavior for a short time after playing a game, and then children reverted to their baseline.
On the other hand, social media has not survived that scrutiny, with multiple studies show a causal link between anorexia, depression, anxiety, addictive design and social media.
People defended cigarettes too back in the day, and it took years for people to stop smoking cigarettes in public.
Tobacco was not a moral panic.
When social media is a tool of regular people, it's an awesome, awesome tool. But when the companies and people that own the platforms start to see users as tools themselves, for their own sociopolitical ends, that's when they become destructive forces. And there was a clear enshittification line drawn about this time 10 years ago, when the transition from one state to the other got underway.
I fear that we're looking at an attempt to manufacture consent to destroy the tool and not just the malicious function.
Screens are not drugs. They are not somehow uniquely and magically addictive (like drugs actually are). The multi-media is not the problem and not the device to be regulated. The corporate structure and motivations are the problem. This issue literally applies to any possible human perception even outside of screens. Sport fishing itself is random interval operant conditioning in the same way that corporations use. And frankly, with a boat, it's just as big of a money and time sink.
We should not be passing judgements or making laws regulating screens themselves because we think screens are more addictive than, say, an enjoyable day out on the lake. They're not. You could condition a blind person over the radio with just audio. The radio is not the problem and radios are not uniquely addictive like drugs.
We can't treat screens like drugs. It's a dangerous metaphor because governments kill people over drugs.
Without this distinction the leverage this "screens are drugs" perceptions gives governments will be incredibly dangerous as these cases proceed. If we instead acknowledge that it's corporations that are the problem and not something magical about screens then there's a big difference in terms of the legislation used to mitigate the problem and the people to which it will apply. The Digital Markets Act in the EU is a good template to follow with it only applying to large entities acting as gatekeepers.
The issue isn’t with reading or consuming content, as was set up in the challenge above.
The issue is with designing feeds and surfacing content in ways that take advantage of our brains.
As an analogy, loot boxes in video games, and slot machines come to mind. Both are designed to leverage behavioral psychology, and this design choice directly results in compulsive behavior amongst users.
“things which are harmful and which people have trouble not doing”
I don't impulsively drive to the store to purchase another bag immediately after finishing the one I have whereas (for example) many people exhibit such behavior when it comes to tobacco.
In the case of social media the feed is intentionally designed to be difficult to walk away from and it is endless (or close enough as makes no practical difference). Even if it weren't endless, refreshing an ever changing page is trivial in comparison to driving to the store and spending money.
Maybe autoplay and immediately popping up a grid of recommendations should both be legally forbidden as tactics that blatantly prey on a well established psychological vulnerability. I'd likely support such legislation provided that it could be structured in such a way as to avoid scope creep and thus erosion of personal liberties.
In short I think Netflix is closer to a bag of Lays and modern social media closer to the cigarette industry of yore.
Try to take away a kids tablet, a teen's phone, or an adult's phone. They will fight just like an addict.
Some middle ground might be there somewhere. But if forced to choose… the choices for interpreting behavioral engineering funded by $billions in research for over a decade + data harvesting on a scale unprecedented, for the purpose of manipulating users:
Doesn’t sound a lot like fishing to me.
Letting juries rob them just because the jury doesn't like it is nothing more than fascism.
If you're going to pick a law from one of the smallest states in the union, the least you could do is quote the relevant excerpts.
This is a pathetic rebuttal.
New Mexico prosecutors convinced a jury the company enabled child exploitation on its platforms.
The outcome followed laws that enable the jury to conclude as they did! So there you go, laws passed.
Is this Zuckerberg's burner account?
There should be a law banning the addictive practices of these apps. Until there is, fining the companies that make these apps is unjust.
There are laws enabling the judiciary to operate as it has to give plaintiffs a platform in the first place, in the absence of specific laws because legislative bodies are slow to adopt new laws for various excuses.
For example; not hard to pay off a handful of legislators to vote no. Then what? People just suck up living at the mercy of the rich?
Judiciary has leeway to allow such cases and outcomes to bubble up useful context for changes to law. Longstanding precedent and in some cases is codified in law itself.
The lack of a specific legal language banning social media actions is also irrelevant because of similarities to other situations that are enshrined in law. That human biology is susceptible to psychological manipulation is already well understood. Tiny little difference in legal context does not invalidate known truth of biology.
Society doesn't exist in your head alone and has existed for some time. Much of this is not truly new territory.
Stop embarrassing yourself.
Everything else outside of reels is the usual social media fake life facade, and everything amplified to the max for engagement to get it pushed to feeds via "the algorithm" (note: Interactions don't need to be positive to promote it to feeds)
Rewind 30 years or so, how long did the typical New York Times subscriber spend with their paper every day?
Was the Times addictive?
And I won’t even get started on network television for half a century.
Lots of people can get drunk once a month and suffer or cause no real harm. Some people get drunk everyday which is slightly more harmful.
There are many physical products that are today designed to minimize harm and misuse after facing liability historically. So I suppose the direct answer to your question would be "yes, absolutely, and there's a figurative mountain of precedent for it".
There’s somebody out there who’s harmfully addicted to just about anything, from ultramarathons to World of Warcraft.
What’s the limiting principle on liability?
The limiting principle on liability is quite complicated. You'd have to go ask a lawyer. At least in the US (and I believe most of the western world) it has to do with manufacturer intent, manufacturer awareness, viable alternatives, and material harm among other things.
Doritos are designed to taste good and encourage you to eat them to your satisfaction.
The latest Mario game is designed to be playable & fun for as long as you have time and energy to play it.
My Instagram feed is designed to engage me with interesting and relevant content for as long as I have time to scroll.
All three can be used in unhealthy ways, and would be less likely to be so used if they were designed less well to their goals.
Which is “designed to be addictive”?
It doesn't matter if the outcome is the same here what matters is the intent behind the design when considered in the context of the intended usecase. That's in addition to lots of other factors (some of which I listed) plus any relevant legislation plus any relevant case law and that will all be examined in great detail by a court. At the end of the day what is legal and what is not is decided by that process. A large part of the point of employing corporate lawyers is to prevent a situation where your past behavior is examined from arising in the first place.
I'd suggest the essay "what color are your bits" if you're genuinely struggling to understand this concept.
I’m asking what that means.
If your answer is, “Only the lawyers can tell us,” then that’s not particularly satisfying if we want to live in a world where how we choose to spend our time is not under the supervision of some elect.
It's hard to explain black holes, especially in a hackernews text box, but that doesn't make them irrelevant.
At the end of the day it doesn't truly matter if there was intent before we regulate it. If I mix random chemicals/foods/etc and end up with an addictive drug like alcohol, we don't need to try to prove it was intentional before we start considering the harm it causes to society.
Maybe a generational thing, but for most of the latter half of the 20th Century most folks had to “exert special effort to regulate their consumption” of network television. Should there have been lawsuits and regulation of couch potatoes?
Anyway, the way you talk about shorts reminds me of drug addicts who talk about how they can control their consumption. Some can. Many cannot but delude themselves. The way I see people interact with shorts/TikTok/reels is very much not restrained. They're optimised for addictive scrolling in the same way a slot machine is - the fact that some people can use a slot machine without becoming addicted is besides the point.
Good luck with that one. Somebody probably used 18th Century behavioral psychology to try to sell George Washington a horse!
Someone saying that someone shouldn't be able to promote specific harm x is not saying that the idea of 'promotion' of anything in general is necessarily bad, exactly in the same way that we restrict certain harmful things from being sold without being against the idea of selling things in general.
This is the Netflix business model, right now.
Tiktok gets paid for every extra second you spend there.
Also, what you’re describing sounds like when you’ve haven’t spent enough time on the shorts for the content recommendation algorithm to learn your preferences. Which I agree, is unwatchable. I saw it recently when my friend put on YouTube shorts on a guest account (on an Airbnb smart tv). it was bad. But spend enough time and that will change. But best you don’t!
"is it a young people thing": no, obviously not because nothing is.
You're just as prone to addictive behaviours at 20 as at 40 at 80.
There might be some differences as to how you happen to be exposed, perhaps because of how your literal social network is behaving, but that's obviously not intrinsic.
I mean, yes, perhaps "young people" are slightly more likely to be exposed to it via advertising/peers/etc, but anyone with a similar exposure can be a victim.
I think that's all related, is at least partially a matter of what I'm accustomed to, but is largely just an inherent part of how I am.
Then again, I hardly use YouTube, so I don’t think I’m the target audience for this.
Its addicting the same way gambling is addicting. Its ridiculous to say that people who get addicted to it are not neurotypical.
If a company has a product that relies on addiction mechanisms to succeed, that is a different situation, that is a corporate entity exploiting citizens for profit.
Cigarettes are a great example of where we can draw lines in the sand. If you want to smoke them go ahead you have that freedom, but I think companies should be banned from putting nicotine in them. Simple and obvious lines in the sand.
Vapes, whatever, smoke your bubblegum water. Vapes with nicotine? Clearly exploitive behaviour. Yes they can help you quit, but quit what? Nicotine addiction! If it weren't in cigarettes already you wouldn't need to quit it.
Social media is harder to draw lines in the sand for, but I think algorithmic feeds may be one place to target regulation.
This ruling was about liability, in that an entity created a product with risks without disclosing them. It's actually worse, they purposefully engineered the product to be harmful. Thus they are liable for that harm. This is subtly different from banning these products - arguably many products that are sold are harmful, the difference is that they either are not acutely harmful (junk food), or the acute harm is well known (alcohol, cigarettes). Some countries mandate disclosure at sale or on the packaging as well.
It's addictive, but the price of quitting is a few weeks of cravings. It's not like alcohol (which is relatively uncontroversial) or opiates.
Don't let them sell to kids. Include scary images on the box. Whatever you do, the truth is that human beings like their drugs and this one isn't really that bad.
I wish that more people would understand that this was the real success of the policies, and be honest with themselves that it's the only real reason they were enacted. We should obviously offer support for addicts to quit their substances, but I don't think the police should get involved until they're making a nuisance. Criminalize importing and selling cocaine, not possessing it. If there's a homeless drug addict making the neighborhood feel unsafe, arrest them for that and not the drugs.
Says who? Addiction is never rational, that's what makes it addiction. Ffs.
I wish all companies had to provide a non infinite scroll option for their products, YouTube, Facebook, Google, Tiktok
I just worry we left no levers for the public to regulate these entities and this is the worst option of very few options. Who isn't liable under this kind of logic?
Imagine a feed that actually just ends when you run out of posts from people you follow instead trying to endlessly keep your attention by pushing stuff it thinks you might like
If I've read all of the posts from my friends I would prefer to not see anything else, but that doesn't maximize engagement for ad platforms so
I could well see it being so much less effective as to not be a problem. Or maybe they'd be even more effective, and if we caught them explicitly knowing that they were harming children, it would still potentially be tortious.
Your grocery store app does this and gives you personalized coupons. Will everyone who buys groceries get a $100k+ settlement?
Suggest Eric Schlosser's Fast Food Nation. It'll open your eyes.
If it were one building in one state doing this shit, no one would care, and we'd just block or tell people don't go in the building. That doesn't work with digital products that started benign, then had the addictive qualities turned up to 11. That's malice, at scale. If every ice cream parlor, or link in the ice cream supply chain started adulterating ice cream with drugs, regulators would have dropped the hammer at the site of adulteration. Meta et Al have had no such presence forced upon them due to lack of regulation in some jurisdictions, or being left to self implement the regulation, thereby largely neutering the effort.
Most retail environments do design their storefronts, logos, placement of products, even foods have higher than normal sugar, oil, and butter content, all in the service of keeping people coming back for more whether or not it is healthy for them.
How do we draw the line? Without regulations in place how is it fair to say companies are negligent in allowing people to become addicted to their products?
How about, "If it involves exploiting aspects of human psychology that have to be taught to be mitigated it's not allowed?". There. No more marketing. For anyone. As it should have been. My heart to the artists and creatives that'll have to find employment somehow els, because it's clear that we can't both allow for creative, artistic campaigns without big industry going and sinking a psych ward worth of researchers on making themselves indispensable.
Also, I don't find questions of fairness to come into play on the topic of "getting people addicted". If you set out to do that, that's not something we should condone. Also, if you've ever cooked, you damn well know the "oil, butter, and sugar" is not what keeps people coming back to those foods. It's that they're cheap and low cognitive load to generally make. So no, I won't even entertain the question you're asking by putting food manufacturers on the same level as bloody social media. Every time I've seen A/B or marketing tests/focus groups done by the food industry, they at least have a proper psych experimentation setup. Bloody Meta made a regular habit of A/B testing without even getting consent from the parties involved. As far as other stores with marketing and all that jazz? To be quite honest, if you bother to get a psychology degree, and you are weaponizing it against the public, I really think that deserves a life reconsideration. So refer to my first paragraph. You will find no sympathy from me for usage of psychological manipulation tactics against the unawares.
An economy collapsing idea such as this is a non starter and you know it.
24-hour commercial cable news (in the US) is the original sin of addictive media.
People used to spend an awful lot of mindless time watching TV. They weren’t “addicted” in a clinically meaningful sense.
Also fwiw I'm not in favour of regulating social media, but I am in favour of bringing lawsuits to companies who engage in societally harmful behaviour, and punishing them financially.
“I’m so addicted to Firefly!”
That kind of thing?
If you're interested in the topic further, you could consider reading 'Toward the classification of social media use disorder: Clinical characterization and proposed diagnostic criteria', which should shine some more light on what people are referring to as "addiction" in this circumstance :)
If you're interested in the neuroscience, consider reading "Neurobiological risk factors for problematic social media use as a specific form of Internet addiction: A narrative review".
Like, I dunno, really getting into running or yoga or fantasy football?
Where is the line, according to experts in addiction-like behavior?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235285322...
I’m asking why all this fuss about the social media companies and not the video or causal game companies?
Nobody’s ever written a paper about Candy Crush addiction?
Everyone seems very excited to throw Meta and others in the bucket with Big Tobacco, and I don’t see how in the world that makes sense without much stronger clinical evidence on the harms of social media to non-mentally ill people.
Because of the scale of the observed harm.
There is plenty of documented evidence of the harms of social media to otherwise non-mentally ill people, particularly with vulnerable demographics like adolescents and teenagers. At this point you're just playing dumb because you most likely work for big tech and are running interference. They aren't gonna give you a raise for it man, cut it out.
That doesn't mean they are equivalent and must regulated the same way. Scale matters.
We are now saying Meta, YouTube, Snap, and nearly every major media app (maybe Netflix and HBO next!) are liable retroactively for the past when people got addicted to the content on the apps despite that the companies did not violate any regulations at the time
If cable television or restaurants or ice cream start causing harm that we want to deal with, we can vote on that when the time comes.