| ▲ | tokyobreakfast 12 hours ago |
| > 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? |
