| ▲ | rkangel 5 hours ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
> who could simply choose not to use it There is an inherently addicting aspect to it though - carefully evolved over the years by optimising for "engagement". One (imperfect) analogy is gambling - anyone can in theory choose not to gamble, but for some people addiction gets in the way and they don't make the choice that can be good for them. So (in the UK) the gambling industry is regulated in terms of how it advertises and what it needs to provide in terms of helping people stop. I don't know if this particular regulation is in anyway effective, but I do think that some regulation is appropriate. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | jacobsimon 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yeah that’s a good counterpoint. I guess it hinges on whether you can define a clear boundary around what is harmful or unharmful social media. Like to me “online shopping addiction” is probably a more realistic and analogous problem to gambling, so maybe online advertising to teens could be regulated, but the jump to child abuse is so far outside Meta’s actual business model that it feels over-reaching to go there. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | xg15 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
I like how everyone on this thread is up in arms about Zuckerberg - until the moment where regulation is mentioned. Then it's suddenly "oh well, they could just, like, not use it, couldn't they?" There is also peer pressure/FOMO. "Choosing not to use it" is not exactly easy if everyone else in your social group uses it - especially for teens. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||