Because it’s a piece of addictive design. Here in Lemmy it’s fairly isolated, so not a big deal; but in larger and corporate platforms, it’s coupled with even more addictive design, in a way that you’re basically “stuck”.
Comment on The EU moves to kill infinite scrolling
Mihies@programming.dev 11 hours agoBut why? I don’t mind infinite scrolling here. And an option to opt in/out and everybody’s happy I suppose.
lvxferre@mander.xyz 3 hours ago
sleepundertheleaves@infosec.pub 8 hours ago
The article explains why: because infinite scrolling makes it easier to keep scrolling, and harder to stop scrolling, and is one of the design choices that make a social media platform more addictive.
Whether you mind infinite scrolling or not isn’t the point. Just because you like the function doesn’t make it good for you.
Mihies@programming.dev 6 hours ago
I see how it can create problems for some, but OTOH I also don’t want some bureocrats tell me what’s good for me. I bet those are the same bunch that brought us infinite cookie warnings clicking.
corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 5 hours ago
These same policy wonks tell you to wear a seat belt because that’s (proven) good for you; as is not smoking. They tell everyone ELSE not to speed because those wonks know everyone else is a terrible driver, and that’s better for you. These are the types who maintain building code and human rights and legal process because - yep - it’s better for you.
There’s a trend, here. I get that we sometimes feel opposition to things, but when there is science behind it - sit DOWN, RFKjr and the rest of you whackadoos - it’s usually good to go with it.
HK65@sopuli.xyz 6 hours ago
Nah, cookie banners are a malicious compliance tactic adopted by the advertising industry after they got told they can’t surveil the whole of the internet without consent.
The bureaucrats are actually hard at work to get rid of cookie banners in the very near future, making it obligatory to follow an in browser setting. You click decline once on install, and that’s it is the plan.