We can all agree that the internet was great and now it is less great, but the second someone articulates a very, very simple rule, the "well ackchyually" crew comes out of the woodwork.

Infinite scroll is very obviously unnecessary. It is very obviously intended to keep people on an app longer than they would otherwise use it. You can lazy load into a finite scroll. Just make people click something every once in a while.

▲ an0malous an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Should all buttons require a confirmation dialog to prevent people from making decisions too hastily? Should we ensure all interactions have at least 100ms of latency so users don’t get mesmerized by a smooth experience? Maybe we should set a max color saturation so nothing looks too enticing. We also don’t really need box shadows or gradients, they’re clearly meant to mesmerize users into making bad decisions.

What an absurd and pointless precedent to set.

▲

kelseyfrog 34 minutes ago | parent [-]

Either all buttons should require a confirmation or no buttons should. There is no in-between. There is no good judgement. There is no middle ground. All or nothing. It's black or white!

	▲	iamnothere 18 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, buttons should only require confirmation if it’s a Required Confirmation Button as defined by Section 23554, but not if it’s an Exempt Button as defined by Section 23587. Of course, this only applies to Apps With Some Required Buttons as defined in Section 48994; Apps Always Requiring Confirmation as defined in Section 48985(b) must always request confirmation for every button. This applies only to Registered App Developers as defined in Section 15324. Unregistered App Developers should refer to Section 39406 for requirements.

▲ ahnick an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What's very obviously unnecessary is the need for a law to police this. You can just not use things you don't like. This need to project one's own morality upon others will be the source of endless conflict.

▲

semilin 5 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Absolutely. While we're at it, why should asbestos be regulated? You can just not go in buildings that have it.

▲

mindwok 21 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

This isn't useful advice for addictive things that have high short term reward and high long term regret though. Especially so when the other party has a strong incentive to keep you trapped in that loop of regret.

	▲	kelseyfrog 5 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Exactly. Also, for responders, let's skip past the "if addicts didn't want to use them they wouldn't," and go straight to framing it as a moral failing implying that they deserve it.

▲ crubier 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Just make people click something every once in a while

But why? This is EU Cookies Banner level of state interference making UX worse for everyone just because some lawmaker doesn't like something.

▲ scoofy 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

"Some lawmaker" is democracy. The point is that people are pissed off about the addictive UX, same as cigarettes, and candy. If you want to make a serious argument, just argue that you should be able to opt out, which is an entirely reasonable position.

	▲	iamnothere 17 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Democracy is bound by the limits of the Constitution, outside of an amendment or a revolution.

▲ Insimwytim an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

As many have said before:

  it's basically malicious compliance. They're supposed to be super annoying ... Instead of complying, they choose this obnoxious practice so they could continue ... monitoring every action a visitor does.

  You don't need a cookie banner to be allowed to create Cookies. You only need them if you're using them for something like tracking. [1]

  Regulators didn't enforce cookie banners. Cookie banners are a form of malicious compliance. When you complain about them, you are doing the lobbying work of ad companies for free. The correct solution is to just not spy on people, and the problem is that the EU didn't go far enough and just ban the behavior altogether. [2]

  Cookie pops are malicious compliance to regulations that legitimately protect consumers. You’ve cherry picked one bad side effect to throw out all the ways the EU is way ahead of anyone else in protecting consumers [3]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29529148

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38299135

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46552795

	▲	ahnick 44 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The EU Council are some of the worst offenders when it comes to annoying cookie banners. All regulation and compliance do is make things more burdensome for new entrants, which inevitably allows big companies to build moats that don't have competition. The side effect of passing such legislation was easily foreseeable and yet the EU did it anyway. There are legitimate reasons for companies to track and if you felt that the tracking was malicious, then don't do business with the company. The regulation was never needed.

▲ Paracompact an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

When it came time for website owners to decide whether they (1) would remove unnecessary cookies, (2) receive consent from their users for extra cookies via reasonable banners, or (3) circumvent consent from their users for extra cookies via dark-patterned banners...

... virtually no website owners opted for (1), a minority opted for (2), and most opted for (3). Yet every technolibertarian thinks (3) is the law's doing and not the consequence of other technolibertarians.

▲ asadotzler an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Those cookie banners are not because some lawmaker didn't like something. Those banners are malicious compliance with democratically created rules. You can certainly not like those rules, even be vehemetly opposed to them, without resorting to child-like claims while completely failing to learn why these banners even exist.

Argue like an adult. You're better than that childish nonsense.

▲ peder an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Infinite scroll is very obviously unnecessary

All the different flavors of yogurt in the grocery store are unnecessary. We only need 2.

▲ iamnothere 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Well if it’s unnecessary, by all means it should be banned. Unnecessary things should all be banned. CA legislators first!

▲

johnea an hour ago | parent [-]

As a leftist, I'd be really happy to see most CA legislators banned. Let's start with Gavin, and his pro-utility, anti-consumer CPUC.

Now that that problems solved, let's just ban meta, the twit-verse, and twerk-tik completely. The whole asocial media industry is just a giant waste of time and space.

One has to winder if the whole thing wasn't bootstrapped as a feed industry for the mental illness industry...

	▲	iamnothere 35 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I have similar contempt for these politicians and for the affected companies. But as a leftist, surely you must understand that these centrist wonks want this creeping regulation as a tool against you just as much as anyone. Being the idiots that they are, they blame their lack of control over social media for their continued losses, and not their absolute failure at governance. But they hate you just as much as (maybe more than) those on the right, as is clear any time a left-leaning candidate starts to gain ground politically.