Thanks for your thorough answer. I read your post and the first few links. I don’t disagree with what you write, but wouldn’t it be a start to disallow the algorithmic techniques that maximize the amount of time someone uses the app? The first link talks about a U-shaped curve where there’s a “usage sweet spot” for kids’ wellbeing. Don’t things that work to prevent overuse (i.e. ending up on the far end of the U-curve) help? Stuff like no infinite scroll, limiting the amount of non-subscribed content shown in the feed, etc.?
The concept of banning algorithmic feeds is WAYYY more sensible to me than banning infinite scroll. I don’t consider them part of the same conversation.
An algorithmic feed is a set of choices that can be used to manipulate, infinite scroll is in contrast a trivial detail that entirely misses the point of what drives us to addiction or unhealthy behavior.
Don’t things that work to prevent overuse (i.e. ending up on the far end of the U-curve) help? Stuff like no infinite scroll, limiting the amount of non-subscribed content shown in the feed, etc.?
What is the point of asking these questions if we are unwilling to even define basic things like “overuse” or “attention span” in a scientific framework rigorous enough to build policy choices off of?
This is a moral panic, and justifying a moral panic by saying “but isn’t letting people do lots of a thing bad?” is a thought terminating appeal to moderation that is impossible to meaningfully argue against.
It frames the conversation to suggest that naysayers against this particular instance of limiting people must also disagree fundamentally with the concept that everything is best in moderation while invisibilizing any question about the feasibility and ethics of forcing people to adhere to a particular set of rules meant to moderate.
Who gets to moderate? Why should we trust their intentions? Who gives the funding for research on these topics and what ideological blindspots do they have? What is the correct limit to set when people are so wildly different? What if the laws only effectively exclude poor people from digital spaces because the laws effectively don’t apply to wealthy people? What if a degree of social media use is correlated with unhealthy people but that simply taking it away with nothing to replace it destroys the one lifeline someone had for holding on? Are you ok with burning the last bridge for that person? What happens if they are trans and are growing up in s toxic town where even their own family will violent betray them if they reveal their true self?
gumdrop@lemmy.world 6 days ago
Thanks for your thorough answer. I read your post and the first few links. I don’t disagree with what you write, but wouldn’t it be a start to disallow the algorithmic techniques that maximize the amount of time someone uses the app? The first link talks about a U-shaped curve where there’s a “usage sweet spot” for kids’ wellbeing. Don’t things that work to prevent overuse (i.e. ending up on the far end of the U-curve) help? Stuff like no infinite scroll, limiting the amount of non-subscribed content shown in the feed, etc.?
supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 6 days ago
The concept of banning algorithmic feeds is WAYYY more sensible to me than banning infinite scroll. I don’t consider them part of the same conversation.
An algorithmic feed is a set of choices that can be used to manipulate, infinite scroll is in contrast a trivial detail that entirely misses the point of what drives us to addiction or unhealthy behavior.
What is the point of asking these questions if we are unwilling to even define basic things like “overuse” or “attention span” in a scientific framework rigorous enough to build policy choices off of?
This is a moral panic, and justifying a moral panic by saying “but isn’t letting people do lots of a thing bad?” is a thought terminating appeal to moderation that is impossible to meaningfully argue against.
It frames the conversation to suggest that naysayers against this particular instance of limiting people must also disagree fundamentally with the concept that everything is best in moderation while invisibilizing any question about the feasibility and ethics of forcing people to adhere to a particular set of rules meant to moderate.
Who gets to moderate? Why should we trust their intentions? Who gives the funding for research on these topics and what ideological blindspots do they have? What is the correct limit to set when people are so wildly different? What if the laws only effectively exclude poor people from digital spaces because the laws effectively don’t apply to wealthy people? What if a degree of social media use is correlated with unhealthy people but that simply taking it away with nothing to replace it destroys the one lifeline someone had for holding on? Are you ok with burning the last bridge for that person? What happens if they are trans and are growing up in s toxic town where even their own family will violent betray them if they reveal their true self?