this is the wrong approach. they should enforce a choice between addictive and "ethical" algorithms (or even better allow third party feeds), make them transparent with what kind of data they use to personalize and strictly ban any kind of political bias.

things like bluesky fyp should always stay legal and not in a gray area. even if someone comes up with a design thats more addictive than hard drugs people should have the option (but never be forced) to use it. if this is about kids then use california style on device age signals set by parents.

i just dont think addiction by itself is something we should be fighting. yes i believe in legalizing all drugs how could you tell.

> ban any kind of political bias.

This sentence has no meaning in a modern context. The US government has declared bike lanes to be "DEI". Everything is political.

"Choice" doesn't work. Everyone is under information and attention span overload. There isn't time to research what goes into the food you eat much less everything else going on in your life.

One thing that's potentially different, at least for Facebook, is the network effect. It only takes a few friends to start using Facebook for event planning for people to start missing events or worrying about missing out. That extra pressure cuts against individual choice.

Instagram is different, but you can see something similar happen on platforms with a chat feature. If people start to gravitate towards a singular app for talking, coordinating, etc. then there's the potential for resisters to be socially excluded. For most people, feeling socially excluded is a strong motivator. So far, this has mostly resulted in everyone having a fairly broad set of apps with chat features, so I'm not sure the centralizing power is as strong.

Open sourcing the algorithm and showing the weights used to generate the feed each time would be great.

> choice between addictive and "ethical" algorithms

A few years ago I would have agreed with this sentiment however after watching many adults (and children) fall into addictive AI slop alternate reality hell holes, I just want it to stop. Likewise, I prefer not to live in a society that enables drug addicts to walk the streets and used needles to litter the pavements every 10cm like empty Coke bottles.

We regulate things we know will be abused, and we are often the better for it. Social media is no different.

The choice already exist: don't use social media like Instagram and TikTok. Yet everyone keep choosing it despite being addictive.

So you can't really trust people, even less teenagers, to make a disciplined choice of not using an addictive algorithm.

I agree with you, for a an adult, the choice should be given and not enforced, it's same with smoking or alcohol consumptions. Both are terrible for your health on the long term, but the side effects are clear and open and people can make an educated decision.

> i just dont think addiction by itself is something we should be fighting.

People who say this do not understand how powerful biology is. Nor do they understand that they are putting people with certain genetics more at risk.

"Choice" to people genetically prone to addiction is a trap. So unless you want to figure out the polygenetics of addiction and then have everyone tested for their genetics so they know there risk I will say I strongly disagree with your viewpoint, because there is no informed risk and you are promoting suffering with our beliefs.

The choice already exists: migrate to bluesky, pinksky, mastodon, pixelfed. Create repost bots to start the network effect with content from Instagram. Clearly label the repost bots and choose accounts that aren't reposted yet.

> strictly ban any kind of political bias.

Any attempt to ban political bias will reveal huge political bias.

Now I don’t mean all political biases are equal, or that all biases are absolutely wrong. Of course my biases are better™. But this days it looks like even stating that genocides are bad™ is not as consensual as it used to be in Europe over the last few decades, so what do I know.