Technology

59422 readers

2842 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

371

New York bans “addictive feeds” for teens (www.theverge.com)

submitted 5 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

52 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ryper@lemmy.ca 66 points 5 months ago (6 children)

Why are "addictive feeds" OK for adults?

[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 67 points 5 months ago (2 children)

They aren't, but adults are allowed to decide about that addiction

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 35 points 4 months ago

I think it's also the case that it has a bigger impact on developing brains, who might be more easily addicted.

I don't have any evidence for this, I'm just guessing here.

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago (3 children)

kind of like we're allowed to decide whether to do heroin or not...

[–] AProfessional@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

It has been decriminalized in recent past, it’s not off the table.

[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 6 points 4 months ago

In New York? Interesting.

But if you're being facetious, that's why I specified "that" addiction.

I mean, if they banned everything that was harmful and addictive, then nicotine and alcohol would be banned too. But clearly they don't. Yet those are banned for children.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I think that should also be allowed, but only under medical supervision. Ideally, there should be a legal path to pretty much anything you want to do, with controls in place to protect the public from your choices.

[–] aisteru@lemmy.aisteru.ch 48 points 4 months ago

Same reason "addictive liquids" are OK for adults: they sell

[–] littlewonder@lemmy.world 29 points 4 months ago

Are you kidding? There's a whole "YOU CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO" segment of the US population that cries until they die of dehydration every time the government says "regulation" three times in a mirror.

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

They are not. It is past time to call them on their psychological manipulation bullshit. Addictive feeds are also just the tip of the giant shitberg that corporate run social media has become.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Yes, but then eventually you'll have to ban half the usual ads if applying the principle consistently, or it'll be no good otherwise, cause they'll manage to weasel out.

Social media are just what happens when a few gigantic non-transparent organizations get the usual Goebbels powers plus the ability to match people with content, people with people, people with groups as they see fit.

It's both a legal and a technical problem. The legal part is about making this no-no. The technical part is by having truly decentralized asynchronous social media. Federation, like with ActivityPub, is insufficient, it has to be homogenous. I mean, I'd like it to use ActivityPub-connected servers as authentication providers and for contact directory, but not the rest.

EDIT: I think freenet.org , as in Locutus and not old Freenet we all love, is aimed at this exactly.

[–] EngineerGaming@feddit.nl 1 points 4 months ago

Because this is an excuse to KYC all users.