Large groups of people just don't know how to solve these sorts of problems. A government will never say "facebook should either not exist or should radically modify its product so that it is no longer successful" At best, they will push for identity verification or age verification.<p>These are not the only two possible courses, but these will be the choices put in front of us. Get used to reading books and going on walks. The internet is almost dead.
This is an area where we really could use case law to protect kids from the Zuckerberg's of the world. It's important for the future. We're not going to "self-regulate" our way out of this.
But when governments do regulate (UK, AUS etc all) - people cry foul.
Is there a place where self-regulation ever works?
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_Dues" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_Dues</a><p>I think this is a fun historical example. Ships passing through Denmark needed to pay a tax of 1-2% of the value of their cargo. They self-assessed that value.<p>The twist that makes it interesting was that the King could choose to purchase any cargo immediately at the reported value. If a ship underreported, they might save on tax, but they risked taking a hefty loss.<p>I have no idea how effective this was, but it's compelling. I wonder whether great self-regulation might need clever design like that example.
That's literally the opposite of self-regulation.
Interesting variation on the "I cut you choose" game mechanic!
We're in the "exceptio probat regulam" zone with this example.
Nitpicking, I have the feeling that's self-declaration, not self-regulation.
sounds like Bernie Sander's modern day "lets just buy 50% of AI companies"
The best I've seen is ESRB ratings on video games.
This is the subject of Coasian economics. Their answer is yes.
[dead]
Seriously losing confidence in the American judicial system with rulings like this. Facebook is already blocking children below age 13 and now with social media bans in place in many states the cut off is now 16. So frankly rulings like this just seem like the government seeing dollar signs and asking for hand outs. And all because people apparently can't accept any personal responsibility.<p>Disclaimer: I do not have a FB account.
This seems totally reasonable. It is designed to be addictive, and they definitely target folks under 18. The article specifically mentions teens.
You still haven't convinced me that is inherently bad that is warrants some sort of monetary damages. All entertainment is addictive. That's the whole point.<p>This is just people seeing dollar signs asking for handouts. Nothing of an real value to society. Why is it okay for FB to be sued but not say Pokemon? I think Pokemon is way more dangerous, addictive, and is basically gambling with the card packs.<p>Have some personal responsibility for once.
Society won't collapse if we ban kids from social media.<p>Sure some tech bros won't get their Lambos but I can live with that.
This actualy came up in yesterday's congressional MKULTRA hearing. Somebody at the hearing pointed out the absurdity of the CIA claiming that MKULTRA was a dead end when we have 20 years of social media scandals and lawsuits showing that social media corporations are intentionally creating products that can manipulate large groups of people on an individual level. Clearly the hypotheses the CIA was testing were not all wrong so the mere existence of Facebook, reddit, etc seem to point to the CIA lying on some level about their research.<p>There's no hard evidence that Facebook et al are a direct continuation of the MKULTRA program but even if they aren't it should be very concerning that they are deploying similar techniques on a planetary scale.
MKULTRA was about using _drugs_ to alter state. It has literally zero other than pop culture memes and conspiracy theory in relation to what facebook is doing.<p>The facts are basically: Facebook's own researchers and independent researchers presented real harms caused by Facebook's algorithms, and they fired them, ignored them and took the datasets away and continued doing as they want.<p>You don't need to go to any conspiracy anything; that just makes the claims sound crazy aby unnecesary ssociation.
MKULTRA was about using drugs to alter state and produce uninhibited truthfulness.<p>Social media has a direct impact on dopamine and uninhibited oversharing.<p>The mechanism isn’t even ambiguous, which is exactly why there’s a case, about the production of a deliberately addictive substance. The chemicals and effects differ, but it’s deliberate use and production as the same exact means to an end do not.<p>There’s zero ambiguity here of the alignment on an end goal.<p>Side note: is META hiring and can you refer me?
Honestly, I'm about 10% of the way towards "Meta's social media people wrote this comment and astroturfed it to the top so that the case against Meta looks crazy."
[dead]
> MKULTRA<p>> There's no hard evidence<p>There are thousands of manchildren living in moms' basements, with corkboards festooned with scraps of photographs that are connected by colored yarn and pushpins, and they would all vehemently argue to the contrary!