While it is genuinely a huge concern, the legal measure are not going to address it. One has to consider the overall picture, not just a corner of it.

The ship has sailed. There will be addictive designs, products, services etc. The very theme of a business is centered around keeping the customers addicted. It's just a matter of time, every business on this planet would, with the help of AI, make their products and services extremely addictive.

▲

PxldLtd 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I personally think the answer should be mandating user controls of said algorithms. If you have a large social media site that suggests results or provides a feed then you must allow users to configure said feed.

The default should be simple, something like time-ordered of followed only with opt in for recommendations. Ideally I'd love to be able to swap algorithms for something open source but setting a standard there rather than just mandating a level of control seems a bigger hurdle.

It seems entirely anti-consumer that I am just the behest of whatever Google or Meta decide is most profitable to show me instead of finding important news or entertainment in a way that I want.

▲

jameshart 4 hours ago | parent [-]

The entire advertising industry is predicated on the principle of preempting personal preferences with paid placements. (Sorry, didn’t start out that sentence expecting to alliterate it all but it just came out like that).

Literally every ad you see is a business deciding ‘instead of showing you what you came here to see, here’s something else, which I am showing you only to benefit my business.’

I’m not sure what limiting principle you can apply to limit the ability of businesses to show users other things the user might be interested in that wouldn’t also basically ban advertising too.

	▲	Telaneo 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> I’m not sure what limiting principle you can apply to limit the ability of businesses to show users other things the user might be interested in that wouldn’t also basically ban advertising too. That's a baby I'm happy to lose along with its bathwater.

▲

forgetfreeman 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"The ship has sailed."

Then torpedo the damn thing and set fire to the shipyard that built it. Nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, about the predatory nature of Big Tech is inevitable or required for society to function. Suggesting we all just accept it is ridiculous, especially when we can trivially get rid of it with nothing more complicated than applying life-altering punitive damages to the C-suite, board, and majority shareholders.

▲

4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

millionSBASH 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Do you think people made similar arguments about privacy before the GDPR?

	▲	edg5000 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Fun sidenote: On a recent Hotmail post on here, I saw a screenshot of hotmail V1 (way before M$ took over). They had a prominent button on their homepage about privacy.
	▲	jampekka 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		GDPR ship has largely sailed too. E.g. the illegal Pay or Okay is widespread, including in Instagram.