Remix.run Logo
twoodfin 2 days ago

In what sense do you mean Instagram is “addictive” to a neurotypical adult?

samrus a day ago | parent | next [-]

I feel like this is a somewhat bad faith argument becuase its shifting blame onto the user.

Its addicting the same way gambling is addicting. Its ridiculous to say that people who get addicted to it are not neurotypical.

maxaw 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don’t know a single person who after exposure to short form video has not had to exert special effort to regulate their consumption.

dolebirchwood 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Is this a young people thing? I'm 40. I have never liked Shorts. What am I supposed to get out of 10 seconds of video? And all the sudden jump-cuts, and big obnoxious one-word-at-a-time subtitles... They're all literally unwatchable.

maxaw 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I watched my 78yo step mother become addicted to reels so older people are definitely not immune. But she was able to go cold turkey as she only communicated with her sister over instagram so it wasn’t a problem to just continue with WhatsApp. Young people real life networks are too enmeshed with instagram to have the same option.

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!

nunez 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Same here. In fact, I uninstalled the YouTube app because there was no way to disable Shorts within it while I can use browser extensions to do so in Safari. (I pay for Premium.)

Then again, I hardly use YouTube, so I don’t think I’m the target audience for this.

wredcoll 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Please, I beg you, stop and think about these things.

"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.

fc417fc802 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I find casinos unpleasant but plenty of people obviously don't. I also find games with a narrow FoV unpleasant; I was never able to enjoy DotA 2 because of this and League was only just barely tolerable. Similarly I detest modern web design and gravitate towards sites with an HN or spreadsheet style information dense layout.

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.

twoodfin 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Really? I watch a lot of long-form YouTube while doing the dishes, and occasionally poke at the Shorts. Some funny, mostly dumb and I move on.

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?

bigDinosaur 2 days ago | parent [-]

If you mean 'should network TV be allowed to use behavioural psychology to manipulate people into being couch potatoes' then the answer is yes, that should be regulated against.

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.

twoodfin 2 days ago | parent [-]

Using behavioral psychology in commercial speech should be illegal?

Good luck with that one. Somebody probably used 18th Century behavioral psychology to try to sell George Washington a horse!

bigDinosaur 2 days ago | parent [-]

You dropped the second half of my sentence which pointed to a specific harm. You consequently argued against something which I didn't say. You are not arguing in good faith and this 'conversation' has clearly run its course as you are not capable of engaging the actual points someone is making.

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.

twoodfin 2 days ago | parent [-]

OK, sorry, so using behavioral psychology to encourage an audience to stay on the couch watching TV for prolonged periods should be illegal?

This is the Netflix business model, right now.

maxaw 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

The difference is that the media is 30 seconds not 2 hours so the feedback loop is shorter and the content pool is far far far deeper because it is user submitted so the content recommendation algorithms become so effective , and the experience so compelling, that it becomes addictive. And as a wise man once said “a difference in scale is a difference in kind”

twoodfin 2 days ago | parent [-]

I’m actually strongly sympathetic to this argument, but I’d love to see some actual clinical research that suggests algorithmic short form video has mental and physiological effects that (say) video games do not.

wredcoll 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Netflix makes the same profit whether you watch 30 minutes or 30 hours a month.

Tiktok gets paid for every extra second you spend there.

twoodfin 2 days ago | parent [-]

Netflix certainly doesn’t think about their subscriber audience that way.

bbrks 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Reels are non-stop dopamine hits, just like TikTok. It's incredibly addictive to scroll through. That is by far the worst part of Instagram for anybody.

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)

twoodfin 2 days ago | parent [-]

Some quick Googling tells me Instagram has something like 3B users who spend an average of around 30 minutes a day in the app.

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.

wredcoll 2 days ago | parent [-]

"average of 30 minutes" covers a pretty massive range.

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.

twoodfin 2 days ago | parent [-]

So any producer of X should be regulated or otherwise held liable for the injuries of unhealthy individuals who misuse X?

fc417fc802 2 days ago | parent [-]

Depends. Was the product intentionally designed to be that way? The addition of caffeine to soda is the closest example that immediately comes to mind but in that case many individuals are specifically seeking the additive.

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".

twoodfin 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

What do you mean by “be this way”?

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?

fc417fc802 2 days ago | parent [-]

Are you intentionally being obtuse? It means whether or not the product was intentionally designed to be addictive. What was the intent behind the design? Why were the decisions made? Was there a reasonable alternative that was otherwise functionally equivalent?

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.

twoodfin 2 days ago | parent [-]

This is begging the question.

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”?

fc417fc802 2 days ago | parent [-]

No, it is not begging the question. Can you point to where I presupposed my own conclusions? You are (I suspect disingenuously) pretending not to understand intent.

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.

twoodfin 21 hours ago | parent [-]

You said it mattered if a product was “designed to be addictive”.

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.

wredcoll 20 hours ago | parent [-]

The line between "addictive" and "fun" is tricky. That doesn't make it umimportant or nonexistant.

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.

2 days ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]