Screens on their own aren’t “uniquely and magically addictive”, but infinitely scrollable short form video delivered through that screen is, because a few companies spent billions on the smartest minds in the world to make it so.

▲

megaman821 2 days ago | parent [-]

So you would support banning any form of entertainment that people spend more time on than TikTok since it would be above the threshold of addiction?

▲

InvertedRhodium 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

More or less, yeah. There might be some nuance about the threshold for maladaptive behaviour, but if it’s all or nothing I’ll take all.

▲

twoodfin 2 days ago | parent [-]

How would you get around the First Amendment difficulties?

▲

bjt 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

There are plenty of public interest limitations on free speech. Food labels, cigarette warnings, deceptive ad laws. Regulating addictive social media isn't really an outlier here.

▲

twoodfin 2 days ago | parent [-]

Even commercial speech regulations need a stronger basis than, “People spend a lot of time listening to it.”

	▲	intended 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		The parent comment set up a false choice and then had to adapt to the response calling their bluff. 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.

▲

InvertedRhodium 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I live in New Zealand, so I don't have to.

▲

maxaw 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I didn’t mention time? From Cambridge dictionary: ‘addiction: an inability to stop doing or using something, especially something harmful.’ I am in support of regulating things which are harmful and which people have trouble not doing

▲

twoodfin 2 days ago | parent [-]

Like potato chips?

▲

fc417fc802 2 days ago | parent [-]

If a specially designed endless bag of such were aggressively marketed and chemicals to induce appetite added to them then sure.

▲

twoodfin 2 days ago | parent [-]

None of those attributes are necessary beyond those of an ordinary bag of Lays to meet the definition:

“things which are harmful and which people have trouble not doing”

▲

fc417fc802 2 days ago | parent [-]

It's a matter of degree.

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.

▲

twoodfin 2 days ago | parent [-]

How would you contrast social media with Netflix in this regard?

	▲	fc417fc802 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		An amusing question. Episodes are much longer and most shows only have one or a few seasons. I don't get the sense that streaming services optimize for difficulty to walk away and do something else any more or less than a good book does. 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.