zlacker

>>Shamar+(OP)
I feel like there are some key differences between the companies though.

The second one outlined for Meta is:

> Heavily-redacted undated internal document discussing “School Blasts” as a strategy for gaining more high school users (mass notifications sent during the school day).

This sounds a lot like Meta being intentionally disruptive.

The first one outlined for YouTube is:

> Slidedeck on the role that YouTube’s autoplay feature plays in “Tech Addiction” that concludes “Verdict: Autoplay could be potentially disrupting sleep patterns. Disabling or limiting Autoplay during the night could result in sleep savings.”

This sounds like YouTube proactively looking for solutions to a problem. And later on for YouTube:

> Discussing efforts to improve digital well-being, particularly among youth. Identified three concern areas impacting users 13-24 disproportionately: habitual heavy use, late night use, and unintentional use.

This sounds like YouTube taking actual steps to improve the situation.

>>shaftw+i8
> This sounds like YouTube taking actual steps to improve the situation.

The issue I take with statements like that is that they are saying one thing while doing the opposite. This document [1], for instance, shows that YouTube knew as early as April 2025 that infinite feeds of short form content can "displace valuable activities like time with friends or sleep", but that hasn't stopped them from aggressively pushing YouTube shorts everywhere.

The most charitable interpretation I can think of is that there are two factions, one worried about the effects of YouTube in teens and a second one worried about growth at all costs. And I don't think the first one is winning.

[1] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.40...

>>probab+pm
I think the reality for any product that has >7,000 employees working on it is that some people's job is to prioritize growth at all costs, some people's job is to prioritize the effects of on vulnerable people, and the vast majority of them have other jobs to be doing. This sounds appropriate to me; not everybody can be worried about mental health at all times, and somebody needs to focus on growth.

There are plenty of examples that the mental health people aren't being completely steamrolled. Parental controls allow you to block Shorts for your kids. That doesn't sound like a "growth at all costs" mindset.

>>shaftw+T91
> I think the reality for any product that has >7,000 employees working on it is that some people's job is to prioritize growth at all costs, some people's job is to prioritize the effects of on vulnerable people, and the vast majority of them have other jobs to be doing.

Growth at all costs should be no one's priority.

>>pseuda+7e1
... it's not at all costs though, that would be easier, because then the situation would be more obvious (legibility is important, so is plausible deniability)

so of course "growth hackers" (or whatever the folks responsible for growth are called nowadays... other than CFOs and CEOs), simply they are the ones whose judgement and "worldview" regarding whose responsibility is to manage the negative consequences of their increased revenue is very skewed, in other words they mostly have elaborate self-serving explanations (excuses)

and many times that overlaps various user freedom arguments, arguments against paternalism, etc...