← Back to context

Comment by reaperducer

3 hours ago

Seems difficult to stomp out effectively

So just give up because something is hard? Sounds like the tech industry and its never-ending quest for low-hanging fruit.

"We've tried nothing, and we're all out of ideas."

I'm sorry if my comment came off dismissive, I was just remarking the idea of banning social media seems like we're going down the wrong alley. I like other commenter's ideas of outlawing the underlying tech. I'm more-so just asking how to make a distinction between a post on Reddit (commonly called social media) and a post on Stack-Overflow (not commonly referred to as social media). Discord vs Teams...etc.

I think user 0x5FC3 correctly identifies the root of the issue, and any (if implemented) regulation should be based on the algorithmic serving, but I hold a firm belief that you cannot and should not try to outlaw math. From my first glance at this issue, it seems tricky

  • It still reads like a bunch of deflection, which is the usual response from industries from big oil to fast food to tobacco to pharmaceuticals.

    Delay delay delay and continue reap the profits in the meantime by making people talk in circles instead of addressing the problem. Let Q4 figure it out, just keep the Q2 gravy train rolling.

    Also, nobody is trying to outlaw math. That's just a silly hyperbolic talking point.

    • Mate understand I am not the industry trying to deflect, I am a human asking how to clearly define 'social media' to encapsulate all of the sites we consider 'social media' without damaging perfectly fine applications, or if we can come up with a better solution than 'ban it all'.

      HN is usually pretty good about brainstorming as a group on topics like these, and I value the insights of others.

      I'm a SysAdmin. I'm not about to write the law, just trying to partake in the discussion

      Also, the comment I referred to was quite literally talking about banning the use of algorithms to serve content. I'll ask you what that is, if it's not banning math?

    • Saying “ban social media” is a lot like saying to solve lung cancer we must “ban cigarette lighters” when lighters are actually quite useful outside of smoking cigarettes and banning lighters doesn’t really fix the problem.

> So just give up because something is hard?

No, but a good first step would be to widely acknowledge that the problem is hard. And thus is not solvable by a quick fix of a type "let's ban <something>". Otherwise we will keep trying quick fixes and local optimizations that will be just as quickly subverted by the deep pocketed incumbents.