Technology

Here’s a thought experiment: imagine Instagram, but every single post is a video of paint drying. Same infinite scroll. Same autoplay. Same algorithmic recommendations. Same notification systems. Is anyone addicted? Is anyone harmed? Is anyone suing?

Of course not. Because infinite scroll is not inherently harmful. Autoplay is not inherently harmful. Algorithmic recommendations are not inherently harmful. These features only matter because of the content they deliver. The “addictive design” does nothing without the underlying user-generated content that makes people want to keep scrolling.

This feels like an awful argument to make. It's not the presence of those things that make Meta and co so shit, it's the fact that they provably understood the risks and the effects that their design was having, knew that it was harming people, and continued to do it anyway. I don't care if we're talking about a little forum run by a Grandma and Grandpa talking about their jam recipes; if they know that they're causing harm and don't change their behavior, they should be liable.

One of the key pieces of evidence the New Mexico attorney general used against Meta was the company’s 2023 decision to add end-to-end encryption to Facebook Messenger. The argument went like this: predators used Messenger to groom minors and exchange child sexual abuse material. By encrypting those messages, Meta made it harder for law enforcement to access evidence of those crimes. Therefore, the encryption was a design choice that enabled harm.

The state is now seeking court-mandated changes including “protecting minors from encrypted communications that shield bad actors.”

I don't see any of the people celebrating this decision discussing this? Perhaps it's a misrepresentation by the author since I can't find the actual decision text.

This is going to harm small non-corporate websites, not just social media, far more than Facebook or Tiktok. Harmful content is also going to include stuff like LGBTQ, especially anything trans related, and 'antisemitism' (but probably not antisemitism.)

This distinction — between “design” and “content” — sounds reasonable for about three seconds. Then you realize it falls apart completely.

Bull fucking shit. This is not about platforms being held responsible for user content. This is about adding points and badges and achievements and all kinds of things designed to reward engagement with dopamine.

The author’s example of all content being drying paint would absolutely be addictive if the platform added an achievement for watching 10 different colours. Or: Congratulations, you’ve watched paint dry for 100 hours! As a reward, you get a new fancy emote! THAT is what these platforms do, and that is what is addictive. And that is what they’ve been convicted for.

Is not a loophole to get around section 230 as the author claims.

Surprise surprise. If you go through Techdirt's archives, you can see Mike Masnick has spent thousands of words losing his shit any and every time Facebook has faced ANY criticism. I don't know if he has a financial interest in them (like he does with Bluesky) but the moment someone suggests reining them in, here comes Masnick to defend one of the richest, most lawyer-ed up companies around.

Normally, I am all for Techdirt's takes. But I think this one is off the mark a bit, because I legitimately think that infinite scroll and auto play are insidious, and actually harmful enough to be treated as a dangerous design decision.

The whole point of Section 230 is that communications companies can't be held responsible for harmful things that people transmit on their networks, because it's the people transmitting those harmful things that are actually at fault. And that would be reasonable in the initial stages of the Internet, when people posted on bulletin boards (or even early social media) and the harmful content had a much smaller reach. People had to "opt in", essentially, to be exposed to this content, and if they stumble on something they find objectionable they can easily change their focus

But the purpose of the infinite scroll and auto play is to get people hooked on content. The algorithms exist to maximize engagement, regardless of the value of that engagement. I think the comparison to cigarettes is particularly apt. They are looking to hook people into actively harmful behaviors, for profit. And the algorithms don't really differentiate between good engagement and harmful engagement. Anything that attracts the users attention is fair game.

The author's points regarding how these rulings can be abused are correct, but that doesn't negate how fundamentally harmful these addictive practices are. It will be up to lawmakers to make sure that the laws are drafted in such a way that they can be applied equitably.... (So maybe we're screwed after all....)

"For the children" tech laws should all be abolished. Why should I be burdened because you can't be bothered to raise your own damned kids properly?

In truth this is part and parcel of age controls as an excuse to id everyone.

This is probably an extreme take, but kids shouldn't be anywhere near a tablet while they're still really young especially.

The author reads like he doesn't understand context or the legal idea of a rational actor. What users are going to purposefully upload boring content?

Here’s a thought experiment: imagine Instagram, but every single post is a video of paint drying. Same infinite scroll. Same autoplay. Same algorithmic recommendations. Same notification systems. Is anyone addicted? Is anyone harmed? Is anyone suing?

Of course not. Because infinite scroll is not inherently harmful. Autoplay is not inherently harmful. Algorithmic recommendations are not inherently harmful. These features only matter because of the content they deliver. The “addictive design” does nothing without the underlying user-generated content that makes people want to keep scrolling.

This guy has an addiction lol ironic

Local wannabe crack dealer Mike Masnick says crack isn't harmful, life without it would be boring. More at 11