What would be an actually good faith way of regulating this short of banning it for children (which I’d think is fine). How do you define what is too addictive?

At any given time it seems like whatever is defined as the most addictive is just the one with most market share? For me personally I think most addictive is actually hacker news (god bless you all)

▲

jimmyjazz14 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I really don't think there is a good faith way to regulate it without either violating free speech and/or removing online privacy/anonymity. I strongly believe it should not be regulated, though I would support better educational programs on the dangers of social media usage and other dark patterns (and somewhat related, I would remove most screens from (public) schools).

	▲	imiric 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		What "free speech" exactly? Do you think that such a thing actually exists on platforms controlled by giant corporations? This "free speech" is heavily regulated by opaque algorithms and very specific terms of service. It's "free" as long as it aligns with the company's values and business goals, and your opinions will only reach other people if the algorithm decides that promoting it would drive engagement. There is definitely a risk of governments using this as an excuse to encroach upon civil liberties, as they've done in the past, but this is not a black or white issue. The reality is nuanced and passing regulation requires careful discussion and balancing. I'm sure we can agree that regulating Big Tobacco and Big Pharma was a good thing, and not some civil rights issue, so why is Big Tech different? We can also work on educating people, as you suggest, but it can't be the only solution. Regulating greedy and predatory companies should be a part of it. It's amusing that you would rather support a ban on screens in schools, than regulating companies that make using screens harmful in the first place. It's very reminiscent of the blanket "TVs are bad" argument from past decades.

▲

rudhdb773b 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why regulate? Look at the failure that is the "war on drugs".

The solution is education. The government should be educating society and especially parents on how to protect their children.

Education worked to cut cigarette use, and is starting to lower alcohol consumption as well. It can work for social media without all the negative impacts on civil liberties that come with regulations.

	▲	imiric 11 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> Education worked to cut cigarette use Ah, yes, it was education, and certainly not strong regulation of how cigarettes are produced, marketed, and sold. Educating the youth is why vaping and smoking is not cool anymore.
	▲	techblueberry 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		“Education worked to cut cigarette use” I mean, they banned it from most public locations first.

▲

intended 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The same methods that are used for gambling are a good start.

I know lootboxes in video games are regulated in some countries. Not sure if they are banned in some places, but I do know that they have to show the odds in some places, and in others they have to be deterministic.

The crux of the issue is personalization and behavior psychology. If you move to a boring feed design, you end up addressing most of the current issue.

Another option is to allow for interoperability between social media platforms, which is a competition respecting way of giving people the ability to move to platforms that “work” for them better.

I’d hazard that Civil liberties are not really at risk here, only the bottom line of social media platforms. However, theres enough money to protect the bottom line even if it costs civil liberties.