EU: Facebook and Instagram's Infinite Scroll May Break Digital Rules

[I7guy]

No, but it does reduce harm levels.

Citation needed here.

This has also been shown when advertising is reduced or constrained, as well as access.

That’s not regulating bars, it’s regulating the liquor industry which is not what I said although it’s a good point.

I wish folks could appreciate that a desirable endgame for society and real human "people" is not to just let business run fully amok and have the chips fall where they may.

I wish folks would understand Excessive regulation is very bad for the advancement of society.

All of this is in our control.

People and our societies have made markets and allow and enable things to be as they are. We can also change them for the better and we should.

Better is highly subjective.

 

[tonmischa]

If you're going to try to enforce this, then get rid of vapes. Get rid of energy drinks. Get rid of booze.

Why are some people always thinking that regulation is the same as a ban?
Regulation means „changing some aspects of it“, not „getting rid of it“.

 

[Happy_John]

Lots of fair comparisons to tobacco companies and the reveal of the addictive nature of their product. We are entering the phase where this should not be a secret to anyone. At some point personal responsibility has to kick in just as it is when someone decides to light up their first cigarette.

But the popularity of smoking didn't significantly drop because of "personal responsibility". It dropped because of bans in smoking in public places / offices and hospitality, it dropped by severely limiting cigarette advertising and it dropped fundamentally by denormalizing smoking as socially acceptable.

All of these things came from.... regulation, not from individual exercises in personal responsibility.

Smoking really is the poster child for the benefits of effective regulation.

 

[Will Co]

I'm going to get hate for this but this just shows how out of touch the EU is:

"did not adequately assess the risks of their addictive design on the physical and mental wellbeing of users, including minors and vulnerable adults."

While I know addictive design is a thing, you can't expect every app maker out there to do some kind of risk assessment, it's just ridiculous to even think about it. The onus is on the end user to regulate themselves with whatever hobby they have.

Why is the onus on the end user? Solely on the end user? You don't think that an app creator or the platform that publishes them should encourage or even require better behaviour of their developers?

 

[GrumpyOldGuy52]

So games should not try and be fun and addictive? Can you and everyone else not see the flaw in this reasoning?

You don't see what you said there, do you? You just supported what you're arguing against. Let me break it down for you...

Loot boxes in games like Fortnite, etc., have been found to be addictive because they work the same as gambling. It reached the point where various countries (and states in the US, because Congress is full of people sucking at the corporate lobbyists' teats) have instituted laws and regulations around loot boxes. That's because of how addictive they are. As a gamer (currently working through Forza Horizon 6 and Metroid Prime 4), I don't think a game isn't fun if it isn't addictive, but as a high school teacher and parent, I've seen how addiction works with games like Fortnite. It's very, very obvious.

So...how is doomscrolling (when we know from internal Meta documents that they are creating the apps to prey on peoples' addictive tendencies) any different here? There's no flaw in the reasoning.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Why is the onus on the end user? Solely on the end user? You don't think that an app creator or the platform that publishes them should encourage or even require better behaviour of their developers?

Right?

I mean, theoretically, this should be an area of MAJOR advantage for Apple with their walled garden and the rules they could be imposing on iOS Apps.

The problem, of course, is that they are all in on "Services Revenue" and they've been benefiting ENORMOUSLY from Apps being addictive. They have fundamental conflicts of interest in this space.

This is an version of the issue addressed by the old Upton Sinclair quote:

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

 

[vantelimus]

Additional regulating bars on bars and liquor stores is not going to make alcoholism go away.

It won't make alcoholism go away, but it could reduce the number of people who succumb to it. Short of that, the regulations do reduce the deleterious effects on innocent bystanders. That's why most states have laws which close bars and liquor stores during certain hours. It's why bars can be held liable for serving customers past the point of visible intoxication.

Effects of dram shop liability and enhanced overservice law enforcement initiatives on excessive alcohol consumption and related harms: Two community guide systematic reviews - PubMed

According to Community Guide rules of evidence, the number and consistency of findings indicate strong evidence of the effectiveness of dram shop laws in reducing alcohol-related harms. It will be important to assess the possible effects of legal modifications to dram shop proceedings, such as...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

No one expects human nature to go away by passing laws. The laws exist to abate the nuisance and harm of human nature.

 

[NightFox]

So games should not try and be fun and addictive? Can you and everyone else not see the flaw in this reasoning?

That (mis)use of 'addictive' to mean enjoyable and something you look forward to doing again has become commonplace, but what we're talking about here is actual obsession-level clinical addiction. It's the difference between looking forward to a cold beer at the end of a hot day and being at the pub door when it opens every morning.

 

[sahajesh]

I'm going to get hate for this but this just shows how out of touch the EU is:

"did not adequately assess the risks of their addictive design on the physical and mental wellbeing of users, including minors and vulnerable adults."

While I know addictive design is a thing, you can't expect every app maker out there to do some kind of risk assessment, it's just ridiculous to even think about it. The onus is on the end user to regulate themselves with whatever hobby they have.

I’m all for the EU telling these fkrs where to go - I don’t live in the EU and unfortunately some of our citizens told them where to go, 10 years ago.

 

[GrumpyOldGuy52]

The problem, of course, is that they are all in on "Services Revenue" and they've been benefiting ENORMOUSLY from Apps being addictive. They have fundamental conflicts of interest in this space.

Yep! Let's remember… Jobs didn't let his kids have iPads.

I've said this before, and now I'll say it again: These corporations are training us to think we need something we don't. We don't need social media (seriously, if they're really your friend, you can text or call them on their birthday, right?); we don't need phones that can handle AI on-device; we don't need tablets that are so fast the OS can't even keep up; and we certainly don't need to inure ourselves to the doomscroll. Go out and touch grass.

 

[triumvirate]

There are ways to make things SUPER addictive on purpose ... in ways that fully overwhelm many human abilities to resist, restrict and control themselves.

This is way beyond "developing life skills" for many people.

Honestly, sometimes I wonder if many of you have had any real experience with folks buried by addictions of any form.

Please try to open up your perspective and understand there can be things going on that don't impact you (thankfully!) and show compassion and curiosity here.

I’ve directly experienced it throughout my life in myself and others. And I understand these companies are predators for addictive brains and do everything they can to deepen the rabbit hole. It is disgusting.

Even in the midst of the horror show that lifestyle brings I still knew it was ultimately my choice to keep it up. There can be compassion but also boundaries and accountability without being accused of heartlessness or inexperience.

I’m not saying I personally know the final answer to this but the mindset itself is something that cannot be regulated away. It has to be uprooted and that is ultimately a personal decision. Meta should be regulated but if a person does not change, the behavior will simply transfer to the next thing, which is the foundational issue. Bandaids are a useful tool but they don’t fix the problem.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I’ve directly experienced it throughout my life in myself and others. And I understand these companies are predators for addictive brains and do everything they can to deepen the rabbit hole. It is disgusting.

Even in the midst of the horror show that lifestyle brings I still knew it was ultimately my choice to keep it up. There can be compassion but also boundaries and accountability without being accused of heartlessness or inexperience.

I’m not saying I personally know the final answer to this but the mindset itself is something that cannot be regulated away. It has to be uprooted and that is ultimately a personal decision. Meta should be regulated but if a person does not change, the behavior will simply transfer to the next thing, which is the foundational issue. Bandaids are a useful tool but they don’t fix the problem.

I feel like you went in a full circle by the end here.

One can't simply necessarily "change" if something is sufficiently addictive.

I will agree with you that it's disgusting that things are made to BE as addictive as possible.

What can I tell you is this: Market forces will not fix this.

They are being handsomely rewarded, financially, by doing all of this unsavory stuff.

 

[Happy_John]

I’ve directly experienced it throughout my life in myself and others. And I understand these companies are predators for addictive brains and do everything they can to deepen the rabbit hole. It is disgusting.

Even in the midst of the horror show that lifestyle brings I still knew it was ultimately my choice to keep it up. There can be compassion but also boundaries and accountability without being accused of heartlessness or inexperience.

I’m not saying I personally know the final answer to this but the mindset itself is something that cannot be regulated away. It has to be uprooted and that is ultimately a personal decision. Meta should be regulated but if a person does not change, the behavior will simply transfer to the next thing, which is the foundational issue. Bandaids are a useful tool but they don’t fix the problem.

I see it as the other way around. Like smoking, an individual personal decision is very likely to be ineffective until this behaviour is not the dominant default behaviour in society.

You need a wider environment that doesn’t actively sabotage the personal intention.

 

[I7guy]

Yep! Let's remember… Jobs didn't let his kids have iPads.

Don’t think that’s the low bar you present it to be.

I've said this before, and now I'll say it again: These corporations are training us to think we need something we don't.

Your right. I don’t need an iPad. But it makes my day more efficient and I spend less time on managing certain business aspects.

We don't need social media (seriously, if they're really your friend, you can text or call them on their birthday, right?);

Need as in air, food or water? Correct “we” don’t “need” social media. But it serves a useful place in many peoples lives. And no, social media makes it rewarding and fun to communicate with family on the other side of the world. Do I “need” it? No. Is it a useful tool? Sure. And like other useful tools, tools can be used in other ways as well. Some foreshadowed, some not.

we don't need phones that can handle AI on-device;

Again, that pesky word need. We also don’t need phones with browsers. We can take this to the extreme of where we should draw the line with what society needs to function.

we don't need tablets that are so fast the OS can't even keep up; and we certainly don't need to inure ourselves to the doomscroll. Go out and touch grass.

You’re certainly not speaking for me here. Computers have been a part of societies life for 100 years? Maybe we don’t even need light bulbs. Let’s go back to whale blubber.

 

[I7guy]

I feel like you went in a full circle by the end here.

One can't simply necessarily "change" if something is sufficiently addictive.

I will agree with you that it's disgusting that things are made to BE as addictive as possible.

What can I tell you is this: Market forces will not fix this.

They are being handsomely rewarded, financially, by doing all of this unsavory stuff.

You know the thousands of posts on MR arguing the DMA and control. Seems l like addication as well, but different from doom scrolling. Maybe doom-posting. But I see no difference in the end result. People’s time go to one thing or another, for whatever the reason. I spend about 5 minutes a month on facebook, so for me that’s not a draw but yet here we are arguing about another nuance of something EU.

 

[chrono1081]

You don't see what you said there, do you? You just supported what you're arguing against. Let me break it down for you...

Loot boxes in games like Fortnite, etc., have been found to be addictive because they work the same as gambling. It reached the point where various countries (and states in the US, because Congress is full of people sucking at the corporate lobbyists' teats) have instituted laws and regulations around loot boxes. That's because of how addictive they are. As a gamer (currently working through Forza Horizon 6 and Metroid Prime 4), I don't think a game isn't fun if it isn't addictive, but as a high school teacher and parent, I've seen how addiction works with games like Fortnite. It's very, very obvious.

So...how is doomscrolling (when we know from internal Meta documents that they are creating the apps to prey on peoples' addictive tendencies) any different here? There's no flaw in the reasoning.

I'm not misunderstanding anything, I said what I said and stand by what I said. What kind of line can you draw between addictive gameplay and "too much addiction"? You can't draw that line.

 

[Happy_John]

I'm not misunderstanding anything, I said what I said and stand by what I said. What kind of line can you draw between addictive gameplay and "too much addiction"? You can't draw that line.

The line is pretty clear. Define what you mean by “addictive” and “addiction”.

 

[NightFox]

I'm not misunderstanding anything, I said what I said and stand by what I said. What kind of line can you draw between addictive gameplay and "too much addiction"? You can't draw that line.

The line is drawn between wanting more and needing more, when withdrawal leads to psychological/behavioural issues

 

[Ctrlos]

Ban the Algorithms. Help everyone.

2006 social media wasn’t addictive.

 

[GrumpyOldGuy52]

I'm not misunderstanding anything, I said what I said and stand by what I said. What kind of line can you draw between addictive gameplay and "too much addiction"? You can't draw that line.

Where are you quoting "too much addiction" from? I didn't write that.

Define "addictive gameplay." If we're talking psychologically, gameplay can't be addictive. As NightFox points out, wanting more (I want to put in an hour on Forza later today) is much different than needing more (if I get to jump on the Xbox, it probably won't be till late; I'll probably go to bed before). That's where the line is, and, for some, the need is real.

 

[StanleyOmar]

I'm going to get hate for this but this just shows how out of touch the EU is:

"did not adequately assess the risks of their addictive design on the physical and mental wellbeing of users, including minors and vulnerable adults."

While I know addictive design is a thing, you can't expect every app maker out there to do some kind of risk assessment, it's just ridiculous to even think about it. The onus is on the end user to regulate themselves with whatever hobby they have.

Risk assessment? Maximum addictiveness is the end goal of all of their design changes! And hasn't Meta been accused in the past of knowing the risks and simply not caring?

 

[GrumpyOldGuy52]

I've clearly touched a nerve or two. All I'm missing now is a response from a spy with a predilection for German alcohol, and my bingo card will be complete.

The amount of corporate apologists here is sad. I hate to break it to you all, but, as much as you love Apple and Meta, they will never love you back.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I think a lot of the issue here is that some are either unable or unwilling to understand that truly addictive substances or designs or patterns simply can't be overcome with will power.

Don't we all want mental health and well being for our fellow humans?

At least above "letting Meta do whatever it wants" for goodness sake?

 

[StanleyOmar]

Maybe the parents should be more involved in their kids lives instead of blaming the government

These companies spend billions targeting kids and young people generally, with addictiveness being their primary design focus, but people want to blame parents – with all of the other things they need to be concerned about – for losing that battle. This will never make sense to me.

 

[I7guy]

I've clearly touched a nerve or two. All I'm missing now is a response from a spy with a predilection for German alcohol, and my bingo card will be complete.

The amount of corporate apologists here is sad. I hate to break it to you all, but, as much as you love Apple and Meta, they will never love you back.

The amount of corporate aspersers are just as said. People who want to strangle corporations with burdensome regulations because they believe these companies get away with stuff. Nobody needs an Apple product so if one doesn’t like the business practices use your agency.