| ▲ | poncho_romero 12 hours ago |
| I hope this goes through. Trillion dollar companies are waging a war on our attention, using everything at their disposal to make these apps addictive. It isn't a fair fight and the existence of infinite feeds is bad both for people and democracy. Regulating consumer products that cause harm to millions is nothing new. |
|
| ▲ | jameson 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| As a person working at social media I support this as well. I'm a hypocrite. I admit, but the pay is too good to find alternative. Terms like "DAU" or "engagement" is common in our field and the primary objective is how to make users spend more time on our platform. We don't take safety or mental health seriously internally but only externally for PR reasons. CEOs won't change that because the more time user spends on the platform, the more ad revenue it brings. Only way is to regulate it. |
| |
| ▲ | gsk22 16 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | This is so sad to read. Knowing that the people actively making every aspect of life more monetized and addictive are acutely aware of the harm they create, yet are motivated by such base selfishness that they can ignore all that for the paycheck. | |
| ▲ | deaux 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > . I'm a hypocrite. I admit Great, admission is the first step. > but the pay is too good to find alternative. Yet then you immediately undo it! Try "I'm too greedy". You're the actor with the free will here. The subject of the sentencd shouldn't be "the pay". That is just an amount, a sum, that exists - neither too high nor too low. That is all in the eye of the beholder. |
|
|
| ▲ | erxam 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I do so too. Dark patterns should never be acceptable. The amount of paid shills opposing this is a good indicator that it's the right move. |
|
| ▲ | s_dev 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I installed a Firefox plugin that makes YouTube shorts display as normal videos. I was genuinely shocked how much of a difference it made to my habits. |
| |
|
| ▲ | woodpanel 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | ben_w 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I imagine there was a similar argument a century ago about how if alcohol kills your marriage, it wasn't a very strong marriage. I wonder if we'll get speakeasies where people can get endogenous dopamine kicks from experiencing dark patterns? | |
| ▲ | joe_mamba 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This. If all it took was a $300k ad campaign on tiktok to get the population of a country(Romania in this case to be specific) to vote for a shady no-name candidate that came out of nowhere, instead of the well known candidates of the establishment, that should tell you the politics of your country betrayed its electorate so badly that they would rather commit national suicide instead of voting the establishment again to screw them over for the n-th time. Tiktok only exposed that, it didn't cause that. I'm not saying social media isn't cancerous and shouldn't be regulated, because it is and it should, I'm saying that in this specific case it's a symptom of a much bigger existing disease and not the root cause of it. What I'm mostly afraid of now, is that the lesson governments took from this is not that social media should be regulated and defanged of data collection and addictiveness, but instead that governments should keep and seize control of said data collection and addictiveness so they can weaponize it themselves to advance their agendas over the population. Case in point, the now US-controlled tiktok does more data harvesting than when it was Chinese owned.[1] At least China couldn't send ICE to your house using that data. [1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tiktok-new-terms-of-service-pri... | | |
| ▲ | cbg0 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > tiktok only exposed that, it didn't cause that Actually both can be true. | | |
| ▲ | joe_mamba 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | Not in this case. Romanian people hated their corrupt politicians since way before tiktok was invented, so much so, that it's not even a partisan issue, all of them are equally unpopular. Tiktok only acted as release valve for that pent-up anger, but it's not the cause of it. The cause is 35+ years of rampant theft and corruption leading to misery and cases of death of innocent people. So blaming of tiktok is a convenient scapegoat for Romania's corrupt establishment to legitimize themselves and deflect their unpopularity as if it's caused by Russian interference and not their own actions. NO, Russian interference just weaponized the massive unpopularity they already had. So here's a wild idea on how to protect your democracy: how about instead of banning social media, politicians actually get off their kiddie fiddling islands, stop stealing everything not nailed to the ground and do right by their people, so that the voters don't feel compelled to pour gasoline on their country and light it on fire out of spite just to watch the establishment burn with it. Because when people are educated, healthy, financially well off and taken care of by their government who acts in their best interest, then no amount of foreign social media propaganda can convince people to throw that all away on a dime. But if your people are their wits end and want to see you guillotined, then that negative capital can and will be exploited by foreign adversaries. Like how come you don't see Swiss or Norwegians trying to vote Russian puppets off TikTok to power and it's not because they have more control on social media than Romania. This isn't a Romanian problem BTW, many western countries see similar political disenfranchisement today, and why you see western leaders rushing to ban or seize control of social media and free speech, instead of actually fixing their countries according to the pains of the voters. |
| |
| ▲ | tzs 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That only worked though because Romania is using a voting method for President that is completely terrible for countries that have several viable political parties. They use a two-round system to elect their President that works like this: 1. If a candidates gets more than 50% in the first round they are the winner, and there is no second round. 2. If there is no clear winner in the first round, the top two from the first round advance to the second round to determine the winner. In that election there were 14 candidates. 6 from right-wing parties, 4 from left-wing parties, and 4 independents. The most anyone got in the first round was 22.94%, and the second most was 19.18%. Third was 19.15%. Fourth was 13.86%, then 8.79%. With that many candidates, and with there being quite a lot of overlap in the positions of the candidates closer to the center, you can easily end up with the candidates that are more extreme finishing higher because they have fewer overlap on positions with the others, and so the voters that find those issues most important don't get split. You can easily end up with two candidates in the runoff that a large majority disagree with on all major issues. They really need to be using something like ranked choice. | | |
| ▲ | Izkata 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Ranked choice is very similar to what you just described, has the same downsides, and is much more difficult to understand. What you want is approval voting which has all of the upsides ranked choice claims to have, none of the downsides, doesn't have multiple rounds, and is trivial to understand. On top of that approval voting has an additional benefit where voting third-party/moderates doesn't feel like throwing any vote away so you can just include them and they're much more likely to win. | |
| ▲ | joe_mamba 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >That only worked though because Romania is using a voting method for President that is completely terrible for countries that have several viable political parties. [...] They really need to be using something like ranked choice. Firstly, there's many forms of elections, each with their own pros and cons, but I don't think the voting method is the core problem here. Let's assume Norway would have the exact same system and parties like Romania. Do you think Norwegians would have been swayed by a an online ad campaign to vote a Russian puppet off tiktok to the last round? Maybe the education level, standard of living of the population and being a high trust society, is actually what filters malicious candidates, and not some magic election method. Secondly, what if that faulty election system, is a actually a feature and not a bug, inserted since the formation of modern Romania after the 1989 revolution, when the people from the (former) commies and securitatea(intelligence services and secret police) now still running the country but under different org names and flags, had to patch up a new constitution virtually overnight, so they made sure to create a new one where they themselves and their parties have an easier time gaming the system in their favor to always end up on top in the new democratic system, but now that backdoor is being exploited by foreign actors. | | |
| ▲ | tzs 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Let's assume Norway would have the exact same system and parties like Romania. Do you think Norwegians would have been swayed by a an online ad campaign to vote a Russian puppet off tiktok to the last round? > Maybe the education level, standard of living of the population and being a high trust society, is actually what filters malicious candidates, and not some magic election method. My point isn't about filtering malicious candidates. My point is that a "top two advance to runoff if no one wins the first round" system often does a poor job in the face of a plethora of candidates of picking a winner with majority support. Yes, there are many forms of elections each with their own pros and cons, and that is one of the main cons of that system (and of one round systems where the winner is whoever gets the most votes even if it is not a majority). Consider an election with 11 candidates and where there is one particular issue X that 80% of the voters go one way on and 20% the other way. The voters will only vote for a candidate that goes their way on X. 9 of the candidates go the same was as 80% of the voters, and the other 2 go the other way. All the candidates differ on many non-X issues but voters don't feel strongly on those. They will pick a candidate that agrees with them on as many of those as they can, but would be OK with a winner that disagrees with them on the non-X issues as long as they agree on X. This results in the vote being pretty evenly split among the candidates that agree on X. The 9 candidates that agree with the 80% that go one way on X then end up with about 8.9% of the vote each, and the 2 that go the other way end with 10% each. Those two make it to the runoff and wins. Result: a winner that would lose 80-20 in a head to head matchup against any of the 9 who were eliminated in the first round. Note I didn't say that the 2 on the 20% side of issue X were malicious. They just held a position on that issue the 80% disagree with. Such a system is also more vulnerable to manipulation like what happened with TikTok in Romania, because with a large field of candidates with roughly similar positions you might not need to persuade a large number of people to vote for an extreme candidate to get that candidate into the runoff. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | mym1990 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Eh, its not like it is happening overnight. Its like a cancer that slowly spreads without much notice and then one day the democracy collapses and its too late to do anything about it. | |
| ▲ | thinkingtoilet 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | No. It's us humans that aren't very strong to begin with. To not admit it is to deny reality at this point. | |
| ▲ | dataflow 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Ah yes, let's destroy all the weak democracies; they're not strong to begin with. | |
| ▲ | lm28469 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's like saying ww2 started because of a few grams of lead and ended because of a few kilo of uranium You'd be technically true but your missing 99.9% of the point, you can't dilute these complex topics in such dumb ways and use it as an argument |
|
|
| ▲ | 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | tokyobreakfast 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > Trillion dollar companies are waging a war on our attention, using everything at their disposal to make these apps addictive. Or you could just shut the phone off and/or not install the app. It's a simple solution, really, and one that is available at your disposal today at no cost. |
| |
| ▲ | ahhhhnoooo 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Just stop using heroin. Just stop eating fast food. Just stop going to the casino. Just don't smoke anymore. We know plenty of things are quite bad for us, and yet we find them difficult to stop. Somewhat famously difficult to stop. I think telling people, "just don't..." trivializes how difficult that is. | | |
| ▲ | tokyobreakfast 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's a phone. Put it in the trash. You will not go through physiological withdrawal symptoms. The amount of people in here right now clamoring for legislation to keep them away from electronics which they themselves purchased is mind-bogglingly insane. | | |
| ▲ | ahhhhnoooo 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Oooooof. Can I recommend you spend some time developing some empathy? The world is complicated. People's lives are complicated (and often meditated by their phones). People's emotional and social wellbeing is complicated, and simply ghosting all your social groups on a random Tuesday is likely to cause significant problems. | | |
| ▲ | lII1lIlI11ll an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > People's emotional and social wellbeing is complicated, and simply ghosting all your social groups on a random Tuesday is likely to cause significant problems. You are in a great place in your life, if your most significant problem is caused by not liking a stupid meme and a breakfast photo your friends posted on a random Tuesday... | |
| ▲ | randomNumber7 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's already annoying to buy drugs just because some % of people get too addicted. Now you also want to forbid doomscrolling? | | |
| ▲ | happytoexplain 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes. To be clear, the implication of this comment is that you would like to deregulate addictive drugs...? | | |
| ▲ | lII1lIlI11ll an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I would assume any sane person would have them regulated the same way as alcohol and tobacco so that people who want them could at least get those compounds clean and not die because their "heroin" turned out to be some mixture of fentanyl with god-knows-what. | |
| ▲ | randomNumber7 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If ~20% of users get an addiction problem I think its not that clear it should be forbidden for everyone. If basically everyone who takes it for a while gets addicted and dies of course it should be forbidden. So I would argue that cigaretts should not be allowed but we could discuss cocaine. |
|
| |
| ▲ | tokyobreakfast 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | happytoexplain 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | Why write like this? This is what sick internet communities look like. Mocking people for their account age, advocating for hating people for the sin of being addicted to social media. This is antisocial behavior, and we should do everything in our power to eject it from the small remaining pockets of sanity on the internet. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | benbristow 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think it's really bigger than that. I'm hooked myself scrolling reels, but I go to the pub after work and see retired or 50-70 year old men (barely know how to work a phone) scrolling through them as well. That's when you know they're addicting as anything. Can't go anywhere nowadays in public without hearing someone scrolling through reels who don't know how to behave themselves in public by turning down the volume or wearing earphones. | |
| ▲ | shimman 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If it's so easy to do this, then it should also be easy to not make addictive apps right? Why are multi billion dollar companies unable to make a compliant app? They clearly have no issues paying for labor and since this is software, the labor is the true cost for compliance. Are they unable to hire devs that are unethical or what? Shesh, maybe we should start fining individual developers too if companies aren't able to do it themselves. | |
| ▲ | MBCook 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | And what about the increasing number of things in society that basically demand you have a phone to participate? | |
| ▲ | happytoexplain 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This is unrealistic. | | |
| ▲ | tokyobreakfast 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's unrealistic to not install TikTok? Laws are not created to be malleable about the population's trivial mental illnesses. We don't need new laws on the books because some people are incapable of turning their phones off. They have addictive personalities and will fulfill this by other means, while everyone high-fives claiming success. | | |
| ▲ | ahhhhnoooo 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | For many people, it is unrealistic to uninstall Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, TikTok, Reddit, Instagram, Bluesky, whatever the fuck else all at the same time. I'm proud of you that you are as disconnected as you are. I'm the same -- ditched my addictive social media accounts back in like 2011 -- but not everyone is like us. | | |
| ▲ | chickensong 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | > but not everyone is like us There will never be anything close to uniformity, so we must decide if we cripple freedom to protect the weak while increasing bureaucracy and authoritarianism, or allow natural selection to take its course while improving treatment of symptoms. I'm empathetic to the struggle of addiction, which is a real and terrible thing, but I don't think we should create vague nanny laws as a solution. Even if you're an addict, personal responsibility is still a thing. | | |
| ▲ | TFYS 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > allow natural selection to take its course while improving treatment of symptoms. I have a feeling natural selection will take its course at the level of nations, with nations that do protect their weak surviving and the ones that let profit extractors exploit and abuse theirs dying off. | | |
| ▲ | kbelder 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | Darwinism exists at the level of nations, but I think you may have the outcome exactly backwards. | | |
| ▲ | TFYS 23 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I don't think so, because it's not only the truly weak that get exploited and abused in an "every man for himself" system. It'll also destroy the lives of many who could become strong in an environment that protects them when they're weak. |
|
| |
| ▲ | happytoexplain 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >cripple freedom to protect the weak This is an exaggeration intended to provoke. >allow natural selection to take its course This is hideous. >I'm empathetic to the struggle of addiction You are very strongly implying that this is untrue. | | |
| ▲ | chickensong 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > This is an exaggeration intended to provoke. No, I consider adding laws that ban a simple navigation technique as overreach and a reduction in freedom. To me it feels like banning candy bars because some people eat way too many candy bars. My intention wasn't to provoke, and you shouldn't make statements based off assumptions of someone else's thoughts. My intention is to point out that there's no one-size-fits-all solution, and that there are negatives associated with the top-down legal approach. I want to promote personal and societal responsibility instead of banning every harmful thing. > This is hideous. Yes, humans and life in general are filled with terrible things. Doom scrolling was created by us. We allow irresponsible and uncoordinated people to drive cars. > You are very strongly implying that this is untrue. So I'm lying because I don't think banning scrolling is the best solution? And you say I'm the one provoking... Have a nice day. |
| |
| ▲ | ImPostingOnHN 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > we must decide if we cripple freedom to protect the weak Well, we do want to protect the weak (that's a function of society, after all), and I'm totally okay with removing infinite scrolling from social media apps (or "crippling freedom" as you put it). I don't see any significant benefit it provides to individuals or society. Indeed, it has a negative impact on both. So it sounds like a win/win. | | |
| ▲ | chickensong 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's not that infinite scrolling is good, I'm just not a fan of the legal solution because it sets precedent and is yet another law. I'm not an anarchist, I think some laws are needed, but I want society to be more engaged and responsible for our collective future, not helpless and dependent on laws and government to save us from ourselves. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | trymas 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Let’s make crack/heroin legal then. Why waste space on the law books about population’s trivial illnesses (addiction). | |
| ▲ | happytoexplain 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Don't put words in my mouth. I called your comment unrealistic, holistically. |
|
| |
| ▲ | ben_w 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > It's a phone. Put it in the trash. Dude, it's 2025. A few years ago, I accidentally left my phone at home when I went to work, and when I arrived I found that because I no longer had my 2FA device, I couldn't do any work until I went home again and picked it up. I'm fine without doomscrolling. I've gone from the minimum possible service with internet, to pure PAYG with no internet, and I'm fine with that. But society has moved on, and for a lot of people, phones are no longer an option. And for a meaningful fraction of people, somehow, I don't get it either, TikTok is the news. Not metaphorically, it's actually where they get news from. | | |
| ▲ | tokyobreakfast 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Dude, it's 2025. Actually, it's 2026 and has been for six weeks. > A few years ago, I accidentally left my phone at home when I went to work, and when I arrived I found that because I no longer had my 2FA device, I couldn't do any work until I went home again and picked it up. Sounds like a personal problem. There are many other 2FA authenticators available. Yubikey, TOTP tokens, smart cards, etc. Using a smartphone (which can lose power at any time) for critical authentication was a silly idea to begin with. I would refuse anything work-related on my personal phone. | | |
| ▲ | ben_w 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Actually, it's 2026 and has been for six weeks. D'oh. But fair. > There are many other 2FA authenticators available. Specified by job, so no choice in this matter. > I would refuse anything work-related on my personal phone. Quite reasonable as a general rule, though my then-employer only required the 2FA app and nothing else, and in this case it would've just meant "get an additional phone". | |
| ▲ | sensanaty 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | We were literally not given the choice in the matter, in the case of $JOB. Plenty of people complained about having to use their phones to access the buildings, but that was the policy. I suspect the next thing you're going to say is along the lines of "then just switch jobs", though. | | |
| ▲ | Izkata 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | > I suspect the next thing you're going to say is along the lines of "then just switch jobs", though. I mean even that might not work out. We just switched to MS Teams last year and Microsoft uses a push-based app, not TOTP or other offline keys like we'd used before. And Teams just seems to be getting more popular... | | |
| ▲ | kuschku 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Microsoft can actually use TOTP, Push, or offline keys. Which of them are available depends on what your company has configured. If the push version is configured, it's possible it has also installed an MDM profile on your device. Avoid that, or your phone will get wiped when you leave the company in the future. |
|
| |
| ▲ | theshackleford 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > I would refuse anything work-related on my personal phone. What a wonderful privileged position you hold. If only everyone could afford to tell their employer to pound sand in the same heroic manner you have undertaken. So brave. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | danny_codes 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The brain is part of your physiology. And people do go through withdrawal symptoms when they stop using social media that’s been designed for addiction. |
|
| |
| ▲ | baq 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Engineering addiction should be a punishable offense. It already is if you’re a chemist. | |
| ▲ | happytoexplain 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | "Just" is the all time champion weight lifter of the English language. | |
| ▲ | manuelmoreale 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You could say that about literally every single type of addictive behavior present on the face of the planet. You could just stop smoking and/or not buying cigarettes. You could just stop drinking and/or stop buying alcohol. It's a completely pointless observation. There's a reason why these are addictions. | |
| ▲ | kelseyfrog 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Drug stores should stock morphine available without age restriction and if you don't want it, just don't buy it. | | |
| ▲ | tokyobreakfast 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | ben_w 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Endogenous drugs, exogenous drugs. Same effect on the brain, and in some cases the actual literal same substances. The difference is that endo-/exo- prefix, the former is made in your body, the latter is supplied from outside. We have been learning how to induce certain experiences, which correspond to certain substances, for a long time; we're getting more competent at it; this includes social media A/B testing itself to be so sticky that a lot of people find it hard to put down; this is bad, so something* is being done about it. * The risk being "something should be done; this is something, therefore it should be done" | |
| ▲ | kelseyfrog 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes. The amount of emotional deregulation apparent in your response only advances my point. |
|
| |
| ▲ | stodor89 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | "If you're homeless, just buy a house" ahh statement | |
| ▲ | 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | Findecanor 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | People start using these apps and sites to stay in touch with friends and with current events — and those things are real needs. People should not be exploited for them. | |
| ▲ | sensanaty 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The whole point is that these companies are spending a lot of cash making sure that their products are as addicting as possible to as many people as possible, so "just" shutting the phone off isn't a viable strategy. It's as idiotic a statement as saying "Just stop smoking" around the time when big tobacco was lobbying politicians and bribing scientists and doctors to straight up lie about the deleterious effects of tobacco. It's engineered in such a way as to make it basically impossible for a large swathe of the population to "just not use" the apps. | |
| ▲ | 2OEH8eoCRo0 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Or the people can decide how their society functions. This learned (or lobbied) helplessness of never changing any laws and we are just stuck with this way of life is silly. | |
| ▲ | camillomiller 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Honestly, at this point, just ** OFF to all the useful idiots that just relentlessly block any possible solution to the overbearing power of social media companies with this crooked vision of individual responsibility. They are trying to block a harmless mechanism, that has proven to be addictive, and that companies have willfully exploited for this very reason, proceeding to wreak havoc to various facets of society while concentrating never before seen levels of wealth in the process. Wealth that in many case makes them more powerful than the government that should regulate them, which in many cases drank the kool-aid of self-policing these companies have gleefully distributed and lobbied for for years.
So, enough with this fine principled arguments about slippery slope that don't exist. What is your comment good for, if not for maintaining a status quo that makes these companies even reacher at the expense of everyone? |
|