Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
EU: Facebook and Instagram's Infinite Scroll May Break Digital Rules
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Hey, those burdensome regulations… always getting in the way. Let the corporations do what they want, amiright?
How are those microplastics treating you? Don't want burdensome regulations about people's health getting in the way of progress now, do we? 🙄
turbineseaplane
macrumors Penryn
I just don’t get it.
Corporations are literally just legal constructs we’ve created and allowed.
How they somehow got on the same footing of importance and consideration as actual human beings is totally beyond me.
With good reason. Just as software often suffers 'feature bloat' over time, politicians pandering to constituencies and bureaucrats trying to justify their jobs or 'feel important' can bring about regulatory bloat. Many people work in industries where they see the burden of regulatory inefficiency first hand. Some regulation is necessary, but we don't want the cure to be worse than the disease.
Like campaign ad.s for politicians?
At some point, if they're to get better, they need to, although as you allude to there's more to it. Some of what you describe sounds like fast food, video gaming and participation in some online forums.
Some people do have to live their lives differently due to individual risk. I avoid alcohol like the plague and regard it with low-grade contempt...but I'm not trying to take it away from you.
Not everything is supposed to be 'achieved.' By way of analogy, I'm chunky and I come from a chunky family; there are plenty of people I care about affected by obesity. But I'm not trying to force McDonald's to only serve health food.
It's a bad analogy. If I sit at a cafe between a person eating a double-cheeseburger and a person using a phone to Facebook, I don't get a 2nd hand heart attack or depression. Much of the push for smoking bans was about protecting other people from 2nd hand smoke, not bullying smokers into smoking less for their own (or future generations') good.
Good question. In the U.S., we rely on regulation to protect us from things we can't reasonably know about - like tapeworm larvae in beef, or perhaps toxins, etc. If my wife buys meat at the store, we can't know if there's E. coli or hepatitis A contamination.
But we can read labels and see # servings and amount of fat and carb.s/serving.
No, but have you seen children's breakfast cereals? There's a reason in the popular comic strip Calvin & Hobbes the kid's caricature preferred cereal is 'chocolate-frosted sugar bombs.'
There is no 'we.' There are factions, often opposed to each other. In the U.S., 'we' often referred to ourselves as in a chronic 'culture war.' Donald Trump's presidency is deeply divisive - so were Obama's, George W. Bush's and Bill Clinton's. What happens with regulation is a faction, often a minority, manages to gain some power and influence and impose their views on everyone.
That there is no 'we' is clear from the debate in this forum thread - free markets vs. obligate 'social responsibility' under a nanny state.
Yes, but it is ironic...or a choice to live in a world where obesity-producing foods are tolerated because people value everyone having liberty and choice more than a healthier society with less liberty and choice?
To be fair, when you restrict the techniques the tech. is built with/around, you end up removing some products, some 'choices,' from the market, and that restricts what users have the option to do. We could say the same about meth. and crack, of course.
I'm retired from a career in inpatient mental health; I saw a lot of addiction. People brought in on court-ordered commitments for severe psychotic breaks from meth., crack or 'spice' or severe alcoholics after suicide attempts are on another level from your typical 'doom-scroller,' but I get your point.
You make a key point...there is presumably a line to be drawn through a gray area between 'choice' and 'high risk out-of-control compromised free will' options, and most of us on either side of this debate hold that view in some way. So...most of us I think would oppose legalizing meth. use, but what about a McDonald's double quarter pounder combo.?
---------
One problem with regulation is that it's done by a government that will likely be strongly at odds with your personal views at times. Do you loath Donald Trump? Did you disagree with the U.K. 'Brexit' departure from the E.U.? And regulation is often imposed by unelected bureaucrats in such a way that the idea the government is accountable to the voting public carries little weight.
At least when talking about adults in the E.U., people have the option to 'vote with their feet.'
Last edited:
It sure is addictive. I have seen so many parents that scroll endlessly watching Facebook and insta reels. If they are not without the phone for an hour, they're on the verge of becoming hysterical.
The Supreme Court said so in 2010. <points at Citizens United v. FEC>
turbineseaplane
macrumors Penryn
I have a super far right wing friend, and even he was against that when it happened.
We both knew the implications and sure enough it is playing out exactly as concerned.
turbineseaplane
macrumors Penryn
We are actually having a pretty thoughtful discussion in the thread and on this topic.
I certainly recommend you go back and read through some of it.
I think you might appreciate that this is a little different than a usual EU thread and situation.
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
Strawman. Some regulations are necessary to preserve the efficacy of society. you went from taking an example of doom scrolling to no regulations at all. That’s why this is a straw man argument.
So you’re equating “doom scrolling” with microplastics? See comment above. People have to be responsible for their own agency. Microplastics in drinking water do not allow that, doom scrolling “addictions” is a self inflicted behavior.
Yes. Absolutely. And the fact that you can't see it shows me that I'm arguing with a wall.
Good afternoon.
sw1tcher
macrumors 604
Epic Games was sued and had to pay $245 Million for their defective Fornite game designs.
FTC Finalizes Order Requiring Fortnite maker Epic Games to Pay $245 Million for Tricking Users into Making Unwanted Charges
The Federal Trade Commission has finalized an order requiring Epic Games, the maker of the Fortnite video game, to pay $245 million to consumers to settle charges that the c
It's only a matter of time until the government steps in to regulate addictive video games. They've already held discussions around it.
FTC to Host June 4 Workshop on The Attention Economy: How Big Tech Firms Exploit Children and Hurt Families
WHAT: The Federal Trade Commission is hosting a workshop on "The Attention Economy: How Big Tech Firms Exploit Children and Hurt Families,” which w
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
The fact you are arguing in such a disingenuous fashion shows you are not open to discussing in a rational manner and upholds my contention this is another form of doom scrolling.
Have a great day.
Epic Games was sued and had to pay $245 Million for their defective Fornite game designs.
FTC Finalizes Order Requiring Fortnite maker Epic Games to Pay $245 Million for Tricking Users into Making Unwanted Charges
The Federal Trade Commission has finalized an order requiring Epic Games, the maker of the Fortnite video game, to pay $245 million to consumers to settle charges that the cwww.ftc.gov
True! But Congress still hasn't taken any action (bills get introduced and then referred to committee… and then they die; it's like the scene in Casablanca where Renault shuts down the cafe for gambling and then is given his winnings).
Then explain it better. You claim to equate microplastics, where are near omnipresent, invisible and undetectable to the average person, something we're subjected to often unknowingly with opportunity to opt out, with 'doomscrolling,' an activity that requires a device and data service most of us pay for, launching an app. most of us install on our device, and that we are consciously aware of choosing to use though the big majority of us are under no obligation to use it.
One need not be 'a wall' to not see these 2 examples as equivalents.
mw360
macrumors 68020
Maybe if you thought about it a bit more. I mean argument by analogy never works in the end, but they're not all that far apart. I've opted out of all the social networks, but they are still dramatically affecting my life almost daily. How can this be? I've no intention using the big social media services, yet find myself on one of them at least once pretty much every day. I can't stand Meta, have no desire to use their product, yet they're on my phone. Why do you think this is?
Saying you can opt out of social media by just not installing it like saying you can opt out of microplastics by just not eating plastic. Whatever you opt to do isn't going to remove it from your environment and it isn't going to stop everyone else's use of it having an impact on you.
Do the math yourself—it's not that hard. The equivalence is not between the microplastics and the doomscrolling. It's the lack of regulatory action on both. They are both things affecting people's health. The studies are out there. Any argument against it is, in my mind, being a corporate shill.
Good afternoon.
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
The government should step in an intervene on deceptive practices. There is already a large framework of laws in place protecting kids. Buying tobacco, alcohol, move and tv ratings etc.Epic Games was sued and had to pay $245 Million for their defective Fornite game designs.
FTC Finalizes Order Requiring Fortnite maker Epic Games to Pay $245 Million for Tricking Users into Making Unwanted Charges
The Federal Trade Commission has finalized an order requiring Epic Games, the maker of the Fortnite video game, to pay $245 million to consumers to settle charges that the c
It's only a matter of time until the government steps in to regulate addictive video games. They've already held discussions around it.
FTC to Host June 4 Workshop on The Attention Economy: How Big Tech Firms Exploit Children and Hurt Families
WHAT: The Federal Trade Commission is hosting a workshop on "The Attention Economy: How Big Tech Firms Exploit Children and Hurt Families,” which w
View attachment 2644470
You can regulate industries but you can regulate behaviors. The gov’t can regulate the tobacco industry but can’t stop people from smoking.
I’m against laws that aim for government be a pseudo-parent. Parent’s should do the parenting, not government.
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
I can’t opt out of microplastics. But I can opt out of using facebook, WhatsApp’s, Snapchat and instagram I can’t opt out of the government collecting my data. Nor can I opt out of big tech sending my information to the government.
In today’s society no amount of laws can stop meta from hosting a picture of you uploaded by another person. Maybe tomorrow with AI that will be a reality, but today it is not.
lotones
macrumors 6502
I hate Meta for so many different reasons, but out of all they do I think this is the worst reason to fine them. "Addictive design" is the goal of every company on the planet. Where do you draw the line? "Don't make cars, phones, games, food, art, etc too attractive or you'll get sued"? That's ridiculous. As long as Meta isn't hijacking your phone, glueing it to your hand, and shooting subliminal messages into your brain, you always have the option to not use their website. It's called choice and personal responsibility. Try using it.
Now, how about going after Meta for harvesting and selling personal data? Harvesting personal contacts from devices? Tracking users? Why are Google and Meta allowed to cyberstalk people without a warrant? I stopped using Google years ago, but I still get that damn Google sign-in box on every website I visit. I went through all the steps to remove it and it came back immediately. I consider THAT harassment and an invasion of privacy. Where are you EU, U.S, and UK feds?
Now, how about going after Meta for harvesting and selling personal data? Harvesting personal contacts from devices? Tracking users? Why are Google and Meta allowed to cyberstalk people without a warrant? I stopped using Google years ago, but I still get that damn Google sign-in box on every website I visit. I went through all the steps to remove it and it came back immediately. I consider THAT harassment and an invasion of privacy. Where are you EU, U.S, and UK feds?
CasinoOwl
macrumors 6502
I'm not for big government, but companies like Meta have gotten away with too much for too long. Their own internal studies have shown that their products are intentionally addictive and cause harm to teenagers. Zuck and the current U.S. administration don't care. I'm here for any grief Zuckerberg gets from the EU.
lotones
macrumors 6502
Also, what's "addictive" about Facebook and Insta is that they feed into people's narcissism, clique-ish, and attention-starved mental health issues. That's a society issue, fed by consumerism. Meta just made it easier and fashionable. People's values aren't going to change just because they can't scroll for hours.
turbineseaplane
macrumors Penryn
There is actual science and research in play here.
They are designing in addiction.
They know it, study it, implement it on purpose ... because it works.
The neurobiological basis involves small doses of dopamine released with each scrolling motion, coupled with variable reward schedules, which can lead to tolerance development. This mechanism mirrors the reward uncertainty that makes many behavioural patterns compelling and potentially habit-forming.
turbineseaplane
macrumors Penryn
If you 'find yourself' on one at least once pretty much daily, odds are you chose to open and use the app. Why are they on your phone? Likely some practical utility - like the option to get messages from people using their service.
You functionally cannot opt out of microplastics. I don't think even the Amish and Mennonites can pull that off. If you want to take it to the extreme of claiming other people's use of social media impacts you indirectly vs. some hypothetical world where it didn't exist, then do we outlaw t.v., fast food and a host of other things some people with didn't exist? I'd rather live in a world with doom-scrollers and under a 'tyranny of the prudes.' Imagine if someone decided obesity is so offense 'we' (more like 'they') must outlaw things that contribute to it.
That's quite a reach. Just because something affects somebody's health doesn't automatically justify regulation. Imagine a cop stationed at the McDonald's drive through to arrest fat people trying to get junk food. Yeah, it affects people's health, now get out of my way, I want a combo. #3 double-quarter pounder combo., Coke Zero to drink, and make that large.
That's not being a corporate shill.