Ok, one example: implement such features as the "noprocrast" feature HN has. Normally companies don't have an incentive to do that, since they want you addicted even when you don't want to be.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3677390
> If the government wants to regulate fine, the government should do it. Not via civil lawsuits.
The advantage of lawsuits vs. regulation is that the lawsuits can better adapt to changing technology and various things that can't be anticipated ahead of time, and is less likely to have loopholes and be gameable.
Creative features such as "noprocrast" can't really be regulated, but they can give protection to a company in a civil suit. I'm sure there are a lot of other features that could be developed as well that will help reduce addiction and reduce the tendency for "enragement to equal engagement".
Remember, the lawsuit happens after harm has allegedly been caused, and a judge or jury can use common sense to decide if the company has acted irresponsibly.
Neither is perfect, but there are certainly advantages of doing it this way.
Hiding a "noprocrast" option in settings, and perhaps advertising it once per user with an annoying easy-to-dismiss popup – that sounds exactly like the kind of ineffective tweak that would pass muster, after a few years of legal proceedings of course.
Litigation has got to be the worst way to define new regulations. It's slow, expensive, and uncertain. It's also not as "adaptive" as you claim, because of the power of precedent – big weight given to past decisions. It also unfairly penalizes a small number of entities who have to bear the burden of litigation to resolve the regulatory questions for the benefit of the whole industry – and that goes for both plaintiffs and defendants.
The only reason litigation might look attractive in comparison is that the Congress is hopelessly dysfunctional – both the people in it, and their processes. Maybe that's what should be fixed for legislation to be better. Somehow.
That seems like how a company would game regulation, while a judge or jury can better say "that's just an ineffective tweak".
Regardless, if facebook and instagram etc implemented something like that, it wouldn't really need a popup, since users who know about it can talk about it and recommend it in their feeds.
yea, in a few years. By the time the case is settled, tech would already move on to the next big scheme to extract data or engagement.
I saw this in real time while the game industry was deliberating over the concept of lootboxes. Send out some lobbyists, convince the ESRB that they are fine, etc. The goal was just to stall for time, not win. By the time some countries started banning them, many studios already jumped ship to the "battle pass" model. They don't even care if lootboxes are banned anymore
The industry moves too fast to be penalized like this.
>it wouldn't really need a popup, since users who know about it can talk about it and recommend it in their feeds.
sure, just like how most social media talk about productive topics and recommend healthy, wholesome options in their feeds.
Agreed. It seems a number of these bills are advancing through state legislatures. It started with the Texas abortion ban putting bounties on people who aid another in getting an abortion. SCOTUS had the opportunity to stop this practice dead in its tracks, but they decided to let it persist as the case waits to be heard by the court. Meanwhile, this gives everyone else latitude to pass their own "bounty" laws on any number of issues.
No, it has long been a part of US law; Texas just made the news.
Based on my knowledge a lot of companies are hiring behavior specialist to actively increase user retention and engagement. Those are borderline addictive elements. I believe it’s more about getting caught and having to prove it wasn’t made to cause addiction or proper measures were made.
I don’t think one can catch all with precise list here and common law system helps with deciding that. Such regulation most likely wouldn’t work in civil law system without thick clarification tomes.
What would that mean?
> However, it said, there would also be a safe harbor provision that would protect “responsible” social media platforms from being penalized if they took “basic steps to avoid addicting children.”
That’s some wonky double talk…
If the government wants to regulate fine, the government should do it. Not via civil lawsuits.