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
It's bad if you accept that people deserve agency: the ability to freely choose how they act.

The primary purpose of making an addictive product is to remove peoples' agency by hijacking known deficiencies in our minds/bodies. It's a form of coercion, because your goal is to prevent people from being able to choose whether they use your product or not.

>>agenti+UL
But they can't do it without said people help, correct?

If they aim to remove agency, it's because you have it in the first place, meaning you can stop it from happening with proper information.

I understand that some people might not understand they are being targeted and should be clearly told what could happen to them. But the majority of people must know FB is addictive.

After that, I can't see how people still getting addicted is the company's fault.

>>kyrers+DO
> stop it from happening with proper information.

Well, when the product is mis-information that has been carefully tailored, evolved and tested to counteract proper information...