Comment on TikTok executives know about the harms the app poses for teenagers, lawsuit documents allege

Steve@communick.news ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

• Alice@beehaw.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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.

  source
• technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Cool anecdote. Lets ban popular apps because of it.

  source

  • averyminya@beehaw.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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.

    source
  • Steve@communick.news ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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.

    source
  • Kissaki@beehaw.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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?

    source
  • DdCno1@beehaw.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Do you really think that free speech exists on an app controlled by the CCP?

    source