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
>But I fail to see how making your product as addictive as you can, without breaking laws, is terrible

This is an interesting take. Usually I suspect people would say something more like "Making your product as addictive as possible is terrible, but definitely not illegal. And, it's difficult to design laws against something that is addictive and destructive."

I think it's pretty clear that "making your product as addictive as you can" is absolutely terrible. Again, I'm not sure that regulation can solve this problem in a constructive way, (and would love to be proven wrong here) but I fail to see how this isn't bad.

No one is forced to become obese, however it's definitely bad to have a nation full of obese people.

>>everdr+qm
>I think it's pretty clear that "making your product as addictive as you can" is absolutely terrible

Why? Honest question. For instance, you mentioned obesity. Should a restaurant that makes the most delicious and sugar loaded food be forbidden to do so because its customers can't stop eating it and are getting obese?

IMO obesity is an individual problem. I'm all for helping obese people that want to change, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying that they got themselves in that situation. The restaurant should not be punished for their clients lack of control. They should, however, be forced to let clients know exactly what they're eating, but after that, it's not their fault.

>>kyrers+WL
I think it’s probably important to define what “addictive” means with respect to social media. If it’s literally addictive in the same way opiates are (obviously to a lesser extent), e.g. the user cannot feasibly control the urge to continue consuming, then I think it’s very easy to agree it’s Bad and Wrong for the business owners to invest in making their product more addictive.

To your example if McDonalds added cocaine to their fries, we would likely agree that that’s wrong and we should stop that behavior, right?

If it’s more along the lines of addiction like “people love fast food” but aren’t actually physically addicted to it, then I think it’s fine that the business owners make it more delicious or “more addictive”. In that case I’d agree it’s likely on the consumer to make the call. (I’m going to gloss over the realities of the fast food industry preying on lower economic communities and pretend we’re operating in a vacuum where someone has equal agency/ability to go eat McD’s or eat a healthier alternative.)

>>khalil+sS
I can see where you're coming from, but just like opiates, you start using them if you want, and you are aware of the risks, which most people should be when it comes to social networks. I don't know if they are but if not, they should be forced to clearly state the risks of getting addicted.

As for your McDonalds argument, cocaine is illegal. I stated that as long as it was within the law, I saw no problem.

Food might not be the best comparison to use.