alt Hacker NewsAren’t some things just inherent with the product though. These are unhealthy products, they should be allowed to exist for what they are instead of trying to make them something they’re not.
And I say this as a very light social media user, I never enjoyed it and it always felt unhealthy so I just kept off it. As I’ve watch it all unfold, was in college during facebooks college only explosion and now people are on tiktok. It’s clear, people want to be addicted to social media just as bad as zuck wants them addicted to social media. And an instagram without filters is like porn without nudity.
Replies
Should they, tho? Laudanum (morphine in alcohol; a lot of ‘patent medicines’/snake oil were basically just laudanum) is an unhealthy product. It is not, in any meaningful sense, allowed to exist these days.
People want to be addicted to fentanyl after they’ve tried it a few times, does that mean we should legalize that too?
There is a big difference between a potentially unhealthy product, and intentionally making a product as unhealthy as possible by data driven engagement maximising.
Remember the proto social media ? They were a huge time sink, sure, but they were not this hyper optimised slot machine that they are now.
Additionally if the product is inherently unhealthy, we should protect underdeveloped frontal cortices from it, as we do with every similar thing (drugs, gambling etc).
All true but it's a circular argument: these are unhealthy products because they're _designed_ that way. That design is directed from the top - no more so that Facebook/Instagram. Zuckerberg retains a controlling interest in Meta so he can't use the excuse of other public firms where CEOs throw up their hands and say "yeah, but we need to deliver shareholder return - it's out of my hands". Zuckerberg could choose differently. As GP notes, he hasn't - he's gone consistently hard the other way.
> It’s clear, people want to be addicted to social media
I'd say people are susceptible to addiction rather than wanting it. Suppliers of any addictive product - whether its tobacco, class A drugs, alcohol, gambling or social media - know that. Going too hard the other way into full prohibition is impractical because it starts to impinge on civil liberties: as a capable adult, why shouldn't I be able to smoke/drink/doomscroll instagram if I want?
That's why it's dificult; neither extreme liberty nor extreme prohibition is the answer. It's a grey area as GP notes. The trouble is it creates opportunities for people like Zuckerberg to exploit the middle ground and amass huge personal wealth paid for, in part, by the health detriment of those unable to self-regulate the addiction.