"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]