Comment by mtoner23

Even most liberal societies tend to ban addictive things. Alcohol, smoking, gambling, drugs, they are regulated almost everywhere, in one form or another.

I think that algorithmic social media should be likewise regulated, with at the very minimum ban for minors.

Note that my focus here on the "algorithmic" part. I'm fine with little or no regulation for social media where your feed is just events in chronological order from contacts that you are subscribed to, like an old bullettin board, or the original Facebook.

Also, I think we should consider companies that provide algorithmic social media responsible for what they publish in your feed. The content may be user generated, but what is pushed to the masses is decided by them.

It's way more complex than "no self control". Social media is addictive by design and is peddled at such scale that it is literally impossible to ignore. It's also backed by billions upon billions of dollars.

Pitting the average person up against that, then blaming them for having "no self control" once they inevitably get sucked in is not a remotely fair conclusion.

> A subset of the population doesn't have self control? Ban it everyone. Even if it's a wildly popular form of entertainment

Like gambling?

> People are way too comfortable banning things these days. This is where the term 'nanny state' comes from. A subset of the population doesn't have self control? Ban it everyone. Even if it's a wildly popular form of entertainment with millions of creators sharing their lives, who cares we know better.

Europe wants to ban algorithmic recommendation. You attack a straw-man: banning all the content from creators. If you have any valid argument you should bring them to the discussion instead of creating imaginary enemies.

Banning harmful design patterns is a must to protect citizens even if it ruffles the feathers of those profiting from their addiction.

Hard not to think of the "hard times create strong people, strong people create good times, good times create weak people, weak people create hard times" meme here.

> A subset of the population doesn't have self control?

please fix this to

A subset of the population who has not yet reached the age of consent

I think society broadly accepts that there are different expectations for children and adults; the line is currently officially drawn somewhere around 18-21 years old.

The thing is, people who live in Europe actually like that companies aren't allowed take advantage of people in every way concievable.

I have an ideia, if you don't like regulation that protects people why don't you fuck off to your own country and advocate for it in whatever dystopian hellhole you came from?

See:

1. The reactions to banning drunk driving: "It's kind of getting communist when a fella can't put in a hard day's work, put in 11 to 12 hours a day, and then get in your truck and at least drink one or two beers."

2. Mandatory seatbelts: "This is Fascism"

You're going to balk at just about anything that comes down the line - I guarantee it.

[https://www.unilad.com/news/us-news/americans-react-drink-dr...] [https://www.history.com/articles/seat-belt-laws-resistance]

I prefer my water with extra PFAS and my sports bets 10x leveraged. It's my "choice"!

The videos are the entertainment, not the endless recommendation algorithm.

Additionally, this is not about self control. The claim is that the algorithm is designed to exploit users. Insiders (including a designer of infinite scroll!) have admitted as much going back years: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-44640959

We should be uncomfortable with companies spending huge amounts of money to research and implement exploitative algorithms. We did something about cigarette companies advertising to kids. This action is along those lines.

When most of the market using it is abusive, and a source of abuse, preventing the abuse to continue while it's being investigated, or better apprehended by the population/generations at large, makes sense.

The "subset of the population" is not small, and there is no easy way to protect the most vulnerable.

> it's a wildly popular form of entertainment with millions of creators sharing their lives

I don't think we should be rewarding those who make a living by creating "content" that serves for nothing but a dopamine rush, and you can bet that those who who put it in the effort to create valuable content would prefer to have one less channel where they are forced to put out content just to satisfy the algorithm overlords.

how do you feel about self control in the face large companies that are spending billions of dollars to intentionally trick you into not having it?

you can't even be aware of what they're doing, because the algorithms they're using to do it are black boxes

youtube algorithms have shown evidence that they've lead to radicalization

would you not draw a line on any of this?

One way is criminalizing the victims, another is going after the platforms. I'm willing to wager a bet on who will be the ones receiving the enforcements here :)