Large groups of people just don't know how to solve these sorts of problems. A government will never say "facebook should either not exist or should radically modify its product so that it is no longer successful" At best, they will push for identity verification or age verification.
These are not the only two possible courses, but these will be the choices put in front of us. Get used to reading books and going on walks. The internet is almost dead.
The trick is to cut away at the user-hostile foundations of the product. In theory, a product like Facebook or Instagram would have no need to be regulated, but the sale of user data, the engineered addictiveness (looking at you “Data Scientists”), etc. are all worthy of being regulated.
Third option: Facebook changes it's business model from data gathering and selling to pay-to-use. Make Insta and FB both be gate communities where folks have to pay to post.
Fourth option: product becomes less addictive and the algorithms stop optimising on "angry users click more". Less advertising profits, perhaps less engagement but probably still profits on advertising.
Fifth option: don't aim to continually increase profits and instead change the rules of capitalism to be less focused on making "profit at any price" to perhaps a more gentler form. After all, Monopoly(TM) is restarted once one player has all the money, it's about time that we do that in real life too or how many more trillionaires do we need?
So there are also grey choices here and not only b/w.
That was my point. Intelligent people on HN can find other options, but none of those other options will either impress Meta shareholders nor will they make it into legislation.
It would probably improve my life that the internet dies, except there are no longer many third spaces. Those spaces that do exist are also recording my every movement anyway. As is my privately-owned vehicle that I took to get there.
This is an area where we really could use case law to protect kids from the Zuckerberg's of the world. It's important for the future. We're not going to "self-regulate" our way out of this.
I think this is a fun historical example. Ships passing through Denmark needed to pay a tax of 1-2% of the value of their cargo. They self-assessed that value.
The twist that makes it interesting was that the King could choose to purchase any cargo immediately at the reported value. If a ship underreported, they might save on tax, but they risked taking a hefty loss.
I have no idea how effective this was, but it's compelling. I wonder whether great self-regulation might need clever design like that example.
Amateur motorsports has a similar concept - often called a "claim rule" or similar - in an attempt to control costs.
Basically, for $x amount, a competitor can buy the winning car (or its engine, or similar). Where $x is the amount the group decides should be a reasonable amount to spend on building a car.
A racer is free to spend more, but if they win too much, somebody will write a check and buy the car.
In theory. In reality, plenty of people have the money to spend $x^2 and risk the loss.
Not quite the opposite, it still outsourced the administrative burden. They avoided the hassle of boarding every ship and inspecting the cargo with a random threat. One could even call it "properly incentivized self-regulation".
The entire age verification push in AUS was started by a advertising consulting company to distract from proposed online gambling regulation.
Protecting children is a noble goal, but it's also often used to sane-wash further erosion of privacy.
As has been discussed here and elsewhere, age verification turns out to be the complete loss of Internet anonymity due to its implementation techniques. There are proposed alternative implementations, very conveniently for some, this is not part of the discussion.
This is exactly the time when nerds like us should speak up.
Addiction has a lot of definitions one can split hairs over but I note the following
The feeds are and have been for years highly random (at least one anecdote of two people who were 'married' - relationship status - on FB yet none saw the others' posts)
If you don't go on FB they really don't like it and they spam you to death
Can Zuck meaningfully claim they're not in the business of addiction, whatever else? No. His life philosophy is "dumb fucks"
Edit: Oh, and People You May know. Now everyone can friend you and you have 2000 friends... none of whose posts you'll ever see. And the psychological baggage. Is the cute girl I like looking at my profile and that's why they're on there, or is it shamelessly pulled from geolocation data?
Seriously losing confidence in the American judicial system with rulings like this. Facebook is already blocking children below age 13 and now with social media bans in place in many states the cut off is now 16. So frankly rulings like this just seem like the government seeing dollar signs and asking for hand outs. And all because people apparently can't accept any personal responsibility.
"Personal responsibility" stops working when all your friends and family have a Facebook[0] account and you want to contact them. Facebook builds their platforms like roach motels - easy to get in, hard to get out of - and uses your friends to hold you hostage on the platform.
My personal preference would be laws to restrict ad surveillance and laws to mandate third-party interoperability to break that calculus. But absent that, I'll take massive damage awards from the legal system.
Literally hard to get out of beyond network effects, too. Talk about GDPR all you like but I know of at least one person whose account got reactivated after deleting it and then promptly showed up on People You May Know
This is fraud. Promising something you didn't deliver is fraud
You still haven't convinced me that is inherently bad that is warrants some sort of monetary damages. All entertainment is addictive. That's the whole point.
This is just people seeing dollar signs asking for handouts. Nothing of an real value to society. Why is it okay for FB to be sued but not say Pokemon? I think Pokemon is way more dangerous, addictive, and is basically gambling with the card packs.
But not all entertainment is made equal, a simple example is single player games and microtransactions based games.
Similarly, social media as we know it abuses reward mechanism specifically to maximise engagement and screen time with complete disregard of the person's well being and proclivity for compulsive behaviour.
> Have some personal responsibility for once.
I am of this same opinion, people need to assume some level of responsibility for them to get better, but the fact is that addiction forces people to make choices they regret later. It robs the person from their individuality.
its probably a bit unrealistic to expect children to "Have some personal responsibility for once." id agree with you if a 50 year old said, "omgolly meta, you used trickery on me."
but if the evidence shows they have specifically targeted children, then i can understand the concerns.
and yes, im aware how dangerous it is to declare "lets protect the children" but we also have to recognize this is a messy situation, and one that needs to be sorted out. i dont pretend to hold the answers, but to hand waive it away as hysteria or whatever is probably not a good solution.
Wait, you seriously believe the point of all entertainment is addiction?
As in, the only form of entertainment that society should (or does) offer should be specifically designed to trigger as much addictive behavior as possible?
I can see why a person, looking at our current world, might think that. Hello Dopamine Fracking.
But is that the world we want? It certainly is not the world that existed before modern extractive capitalism started turning to extracting from the people it is supposed to serve.
Fortunately, capitalism is more efficient that state/centralized planning, so capitalism is doing a better job of turning us into their farm animals than lords ever could do for their serfs.
This actualy came up in yesterday's congressional MKULTRA hearing. Somebody at the hearing pointed out the absurdity of the CIA claiming that MKULTRA was a dead end when we have 20 years of social media scandals and lawsuits showing that social media corporations are intentionally creating products that can manipulate large groups of people on an individual level. Clearly the hypotheses the CIA was testing were not all wrong so the mere existence of Facebook, reddit, etc seem to point to the CIA lying on some level about their research.
There's no hard evidence that Facebook et al are a direct continuation of the MKULTRA program but even if they aren't it should be very concerning that they are deploying similar techniques on a planetary scale.
MKULTRA was about using _drugs_ to alter state. It has literally zero other than pop culture memes and conspiracy theory in relation to what facebook is doing.
The facts are basically: Facebook's own researchers and independent researchers presented real harms caused by Facebook's algorithms, and they fired them, ignored them and took the datasets away and continued doing as they want.
You don't need to go to any conspiracy anything; that just makes the claims sound crazy aby unnecesary ssociation.
Nice fedslop but teddy k was never given any drugs.
Im glad you agree with me on the stuff about Facebook being evil. im not sure i understand why you said this was not a conspiracy immediately after describing a series of events perpetrated by facebook which could easily form the basis of a criminal conspiracy prosecution.
MKULTRA was about using drugs to alter state and produce uninhibited truthfulness.
Social media has a direct impact on dopamine and uninhibited oversharing.
The mechanism isn’t even ambiguous, which is exactly why there’s a case, about the production of a deliberately addictive substance. The chemicals and effects differ, but it’s deliberate use and production as the same exact means to an end do not.
There’s zero ambiguity here of the alignment on an end goal.
Honestly, I'm about 10% of the way towards "Meta's social media people wrote this comment and astroturfed it to the top so that the case against Meta looks crazy."
There are thousands of manchildren living in moms' basements, with corkboards festooned with scraps of photographs that are connected by colored yarn and pushpins, and they would all vehemently argue to the contrary!
Large groups of people just don't know how to solve these sorts of problems. A government will never say "facebook should either not exist or should radically modify its product so that it is no longer successful" At best, they will push for identity verification or age verification.
These are not the only two possible courses, but these will be the choices put in front of us. Get used to reading books and going on walks. The internet is almost dead.
The government regulates plenty of complex products and markets. Software isn't that special.
The trick is to cut away at the user-hostile foundations of the product. In theory, a product like Facebook or Instagram would have no need to be regulated, but the sale of user data, the engineered addictiveness (looking at you “Data Scientists”), etc. are all worthy of being regulated.
Third option: Facebook changes it's business model from data gathering and selling to pay-to-use. Make Insta and FB both be gate communities where folks have to pay to post.
Fourth option: product becomes less addictive and the algorithms stop optimising on "angry users click more". Less advertising profits, perhaps less engagement but probably still profits on advertising.
Fifth option: don't aim to continually increase profits and instead change the rules of capitalism to be less focused on making "profit at any price" to perhaps a more gentler form. After all, Monopoly(TM) is restarted once one player has all the money, it's about time that we do that in real life too or how many more trillionaires do we need?
So there are also grey choices here and not only b/w.
That was my point. Intelligent people on HN can find other options, but none of those other options will either impress Meta shareholders nor will they make it into legislation.
It would probably improve my life that the internet dies, except there are no longer many third spaces. Those spaces that do exist are also recording my every movement anyway. As is my privately-owned vehicle that I took to get there.
>Get used to reading books and going on walks.
As someone who does both, it's quite lovely! You might even be happier doing that than whatever it is the modern internet has become.
Agreed. I'm working on the transition. I'm still a work in progress.
This is an area where we really could use case law to protect kids from the Zuckerberg's of the world. It's important for the future. We're not going to "self-regulate" our way out of this.
Is there a place where self-regulation ever works?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_Dues
I think this is a fun historical example. Ships passing through Denmark needed to pay a tax of 1-2% of the value of their cargo. They self-assessed that value.
The twist that makes it interesting was that the King could choose to purchase any cargo immediately at the reported value. If a ship underreported, they might save on tax, but they risked taking a hefty loss.
I have no idea how effective this was, but it's compelling. I wonder whether great self-regulation might need clever design like that example.
Amateur motorsports has a similar concept - often called a "claim rule" or similar - in an attempt to control costs.
Basically, for $x amount, a competitor can buy the winning car (or its engine, or similar). Where $x is the amount the group decides should be a reasonable amount to spend on building a car.
A racer is free to spend more, but if they win too much, somebody will write a check and buy the car.
In theory. In reality, plenty of people have the money to spend $x^2 and risk the loss.
That's literally the opposite of self-regulation.
Not quite the opposite, it still outsourced the administrative burden. They avoided the hassle of boarding every ship and inspecting the cargo with a random threat. One could even call it "properly incentivized self-regulation".
Interesting variation on the "I cut you choose" game mechanic!
We're in the "exceptio probat regulam" zone with this example.
I love solutions like that. Like if you are splitting food, one person cuts and the other chooses.
Nitpicking, I have the feeling that's self-declaration, not self-regulation.
sounds like Bernie Sander's modern day "lets just buy 50% of AI companies"
The best I've seen is ESRB ratings on video games.
This is the subject of Coasian economics. Their answer is yes.
But when governments do regulate (UK, AUS etc all) - people cry foul.
The entire age verification push in AUS was started by a advertising consulting company to distract from proposed online gambling regulation.
Protecting children is a noble goal, but it's also often used to sane-wash further erosion of privacy.
As has been discussed here and elsewhere, age verification turns out to be the complete loss of Internet anonymity due to its implementation techniques. There are proposed alternative implementations, very conveniently for some, this is not part of the discussion.
This is exactly the time when nerds like us should speak up.
https://blog.google/innovation-and-ai/technology/safety-secu...
i agree with the sibling comment here. someone in a comment section somewhere is crying foul about everything.
People cry foul about every other thing too. It's best to ignore them.
Unfortunately we can’t ignore them when they’re our “representatives” in the government.
Because the implementation is a shit show?
Addiction has a lot of definitions one can split hairs over but I note the following
The feeds are and have been for years highly random (at least one anecdote of two people who were 'married' - relationship status - on FB yet none saw the others' posts)
If you don't go on FB they really don't like it and they spam you to death
Can Zuck meaningfully claim they're not in the business of addiction, whatever else? No. His life philosophy is "dumb fucks"
Edit: Oh, and People You May know. Now everyone can friend you and you have 2000 friends... none of whose posts you'll ever see. And the psychological baggage. Is the cute girl I like looking at my profile and that's why they're on there, or is it shamelessly pulled from geolocation data?
Seriously losing confidence in the American judicial system with rulings like this. Facebook is already blocking children below age 13 and now with social media bans in place in many states the cut off is now 16. So frankly rulings like this just seem like the government seeing dollar signs and asking for hand outs. And all because people apparently can't accept any personal responsibility.
Disclaimer: I do not have a FB account.
"Personal responsibility" stops working when all your friends and family have a Facebook[0] account and you want to contact them. Facebook builds their platforms like roach motels - easy to get in, hard to get out of - and uses your friends to hold you hostage on the platform.
My personal preference would be laws to restrict ad surveillance and laws to mandate third-party interoperability to break that calculus. But absent that, I'll take massive damage awards from the legal system.
[0] Or Instagram, or Whatsapp, or...
Literally hard to get out of beyond network effects, too. Talk about GDPR all you like but I know of at least one person whose account got reactivated after deleting it and then promptly showed up on People You May Know
This is fraud. Promising something you didn't deliver is fraud
This seems totally reasonable. It is designed to be addictive, and they definitely target folks under 18. The article specifically mentions teens.
You still haven't convinced me that is inherently bad that is warrants some sort of monetary damages. All entertainment is addictive. That's the whole point.
This is just people seeing dollar signs asking for handouts. Nothing of an real value to society. Why is it okay for FB to be sued but not say Pokemon? I think Pokemon is way more dangerous, addictive, and is basically gambling with the card packs.
Have some personal responsibility for once.
Have some personal responsibility for once.
We literally treat minors differently under the law because they are assumed to be incapable of personal responsibility.
They are already blocked from the platform. What do you want Meta to do? Specifically.
> All entertainment is addictive
But not all entertainment is made equal, a simple example is single player games and microtransactions based games.
Similarly, social media as we know it abuses reward mechanism specifically to maximise engagement and screen time with complete disregard of the person's well being and proclivity for compulsive behaviour.
> Have some personal responsibility for once.
I am of this same opinion, people need to assume some level of responsibility for them to get better, but the fact is that addiction forces people to make choices they regret later. It robs the person from their individuality.
> Have some personal responsibility for once.
its probably a bit unrealistic to expect children to "Have some personal responsibility for once." id agree with you if a 50 year old said, "omgolly meta, you used trickery on me."
but if the evidence shows they have specifically targeted children, then i can understand the concerns.
and yes, im aware how dangerous it is to declare "lets protect the children" but we also have to recognize this is a messy situation, and one that needs to be sorted out. i dont pretend to hold the answers, but to hand waive it away as hysteria or whatever is probably not a good solution.
Wait, you seriously believe the point of all entertainment is addiction?
As in, the only form of entertainment that society should (or does) offer should be specifically designed to trigger as much addictive behavior as possible?
I can see why a person, looking at our current world, might think that. Hello Dopamine Fracking.
But is that the world we want? It certainly is not the world that existed before modern extractive capitalism started turning to extracting from the people it is supposed to serve.
Fortunately, capitalism is more efficient that state/centralized planning, so capitalism is doing a better job of turning us into their farm animals than lords ever could do for their serfs.
I suggest personal responsibility for high profile managers and CEO for once. And for those who enable them.
> This is just people seeing dollar signs asking for handouts. Nothing of an real value to society.
this is exactly facebook's business model ???
Society won't collapse if we ban kids from social media.
Sure some tech bros won't get their Lambos but I can live with that.
This actualy came up in yesterday's congressional MKULTRA hearing. Somebody at the hearing pointed out the absurdity of the CIA claiming that MKULTRA was a dead end when we have 20 years of social media scandals and lawsuits showing that social media corporations are intentionally creating products that can manipulate large groups of people on an individual level. Clearly the hypotheses the CIA was testing were not all wrong so the mere existence of Facebook, reddit, etc seem to point to the CIA lying on some level about their research.
There's no hard evidence that Facebook et al are a direct continuation of the MKULTRA program but even if they aren't it should be very concerning that they are deploying similar techniques on a planetary scale.
MKULTRA was about using _drugs_ to alter state. It has literally zero other than pop culture memes and conspiracy theory in relation to what facebook is doing.
The facts are basically: Facebook's own researchers and independent researchers presented real harms caused by Facebook's algorithms, and they fired them, ignored them and took the datasets away and continued doing as they want.
You don't need to go to any conspiracy anything; that just makes the claims sound crazy aby unnecesary ssociation.
That sounds like something somebody hopped up on social media would say.
Nice fedslop but teddy k was never given any drugs.
Im glad you agree with me on the stuff about Facebook being evil. im not sure i understand why you said this was not a conspiracy immediately after describing a series of events perpetrated by facebook which could easily form the basis of a criminal conspiracy prosecution.
MKULTRA was about using drugs to alter state and produce uninhibited truthfulness.
Social media has a direct impact on dopamine and uninhibited oversharing.
The mechanism isn’t even ambiguous, which is exactly why there’s a case, about the production of a deliberately addictive substance. The chemicals and effects differ, but it’s deliberate use and production as the same exact means to an end do not.
There’s zero ambiguity here of the alignment on an end goal.
Side note: is META hiring and can you refer me?
Honestly, I'm about 10% of the way towards "Meta's social media people wrote this comment and astroturfed it to the top so that the case against Meta looks crazy."
> MKULTRA
> There's no hard evidence
There are thousands of manchildren living in moms' basements, with corkboards festooned with scraps of photographs that are connected by colored yarn and pushpins, and they would all vehemently argue to the contrary!