zlacker

>>aaronb+(OP)
There is no doubt that there's a lot wrong with social media, such as spreading fake information, privacy, etc...

Maybe they should have some king of regulation specific to them.

But I fail to see how making your product as addictive as you can, without breaking laws, is terrible. I mean, no one is forced to create a FB/TW/IG profile, as far as I know.

I'm not defending Social Networks, or saying that a case against them should not be made, I'm just saying that I can't get behind the "your product is too adictive" argument.

Just my two cents. Maybe I'm missing something right now that will force me to change my mind later.

>>kyrers+ke
> I fail to see how making your product as addictive as you can, without breaking laws, is terrible.

I think it's important to be clear about "addictive" because people use it in different ways. If by "addictive" you mean "really compelling" then, sure, it may not be intrinsically terrible. A product that, for example, makes it really compelling for users to improve their physical health or fight climate is probably not terrible.

But the clinical definition of "addiction" which is why "addiction" has a strong negative connotation is that for something that is so compelling that your need to use it causes significant disruption to your quality of life of that of those around you.

Read the testimony again. The argument here is not just that Facebook is super engaging. It's that Facebook use harms its users and the world at large and its level of engagement magnifies that.

>>munifi+bu
For sure. But I mentioned the "too addictive" argument specifically. I understand and agree that facebook does more harm than good, and that is wrong and must be addressed. I just don't understand this addiction angle. Making your product as addictive as you can, without breaking laws, is not wrong IMO.

But I think I see where you coming from. They're getting people addicted to something wrong, did I understand you?