Cool anecdote. Lets ban popular apps because of it.
Comment on TikTok executives know about the harms the app poses for teenagers, lawsuit documents allege
Steve@communick.news 5 weeks ago
It’s always surprising to me that people think these harms are limited to kids and teens. These same issues effect everyone of all ages. Even I’ve noticed my attention span has been effected.
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 weeks ago
averyminya@beehaw.org 5 weeks ago
Or we could, you know, force social media companies to not use psychologists to make their apps more addictive by design. Something called ethics.
It’s extremely telling that you can look for a job as a psychologist for Meta and all the opportunities that are available are UX researchers.
Steve@communick.news 5 weeks ago
You’re conflating free speech of individuals, with engagement driven black box recommendation algorithms of corporations.
It’s a common mistake. I think most people make it.A company can allow people to post things, and for people to see them if they like, without algorithmically pushing it in endless scrolling interfaces.
For example Lemmy and Mastodon. You only see what you choose to subscribe to. The sites don’t chose to push any content into your feed because an algorithm thinks you’ll like it.
There is a big difference between the two and the later isn’t a hindrance to free speech.
Kissaki@beehaw.org 5 weeks ago
Can you explain what you mean by free speech?
Is the free choice of content selection algorithm free speech? Isn’t the speech, the content, there either way, and could be selected through other alternative algorithms?
Is using deliberately engaging or addicting design free speech? Isn’t the speech, the content, there either way?
DdCno1@beehaw.org 5 weeks ago
Do you really think that free speech exists on an app controlled by the CCP?
Alice@beehaw.org 5 weeks ago
I think it’s more that kids are the ones expected to be protected by the law, whereas adults are allowed to knowingly engage in addictive behavior, like alcohol and cigarettes.