<story><title>America’s social-media addiction is getting worse</title><url>https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/08/08/americas-social-media-addiction-is-getting-worse</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>toomuchequate</author><text>&amp;gt;I wonder what makes people believe that the internet should be this sort of &amp;quot;law free&amp;quot; place where anyone can implement all the exploitative behaviour which is otherwise forbidden elsewhere?&lt;p&gt;Violent crime doesnt happen on the internet. The only thing to prevent is fraud. And that weirdly isnt huge, at least in my life.&lt;p&gt;Not everyone subscribes to the thought that government makes better decisions than individuals. Having laws are often used for corrupt purposes.</text></item><item><author>dustinmoris</author><text>Why is it shocking?&lt;p&gt;The government has always had a say in the UI if it was for the greater benefit of it&amp;#x27;s citizen:&lt;p&gt;- Off putting images printed on cigarette packages&lt;p&gt;- Warning stickers put on microwaves to prevent people from drying their house cats in the microwave&lt;p&gt;- Forcing speed meters in cars&lt;p&gt;- Forcing head lights of cars to be turned on after a certain hour of the day&lt;p&gt;- Lot&amp;#x27;s of &amp;quot;UX&amp;quot; regulations in casinos and other addictive establishments&lt;p&gt;- Licenses to sell alcohol which basically influences where people can find and shop alcohol&lt;p&gt;- Recently the UK has drafted a law which prohibits supermarkets to stock and display addictive unhealthy food close to the checkout tilts (Mars, Snickers, fat crisps, etc.)&lt;p&gt;Why should it be different on the internet? Social media has a damaging and addictive negative impact on society, so it need&amp;#x27;s to be regulated to protect citizens from the exploitative patterns which these companies purposefully implement to hook vulnerable people into their system.&lt;p&gt;I wonder what makes people believe that the internet should be this sort of &amp;quot;law free&amp;quot; place where anyone can implement all the exploitative behaviour which is otherwise forbidden elsewhere?</text></item><item><author>malvosenior</author><text>&amp;gt; &lt;i&gt;On July 30th the junior senator from Missouri unveiled the “Social Media Addiction Reduction Technology Act”, or SMART Act. The bill would limit social-media usage to half an hour a day (users would be able to bypass the limit by adjusting their app settings). It would also ban addictive features, such as “infinite scroll” (when a user’s entire feed can be seen in one visit) and “autoplay” (when online videos load automatically one after another).&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;We should never let the government dictate UI through laws. It’s shocking that it’s even being proposed.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>TheBranca18</author><text>&amp;gt;Violent crime doesn&amp;#x27;t happen on the internet. The only thing to prevent is fraud.&lt;p&gt;I couldn&amp;#x27;t disagree more with these statements. Human and sex trafficking occur through the net, hell you can hire hitmen! Then there&amp;#x27;s the grooming of underage kids, etc. To say only fraud happens on the net just seems wild.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt;Not everyone subscribes to the thought that government makes better decisions than individuals. Having laws are often used for corrupt purposes.&lt;p&gt;This is a pretty general statement. What specifically in the proposed law are you against?</text></comment>
<story><title>America’s social-media addiction is getting worse</title><url>https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/08/08/americas-social-media-addiction-is-getting-worse</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>toomuchequate</author><text>&amp;gt;I wonder what makes people believe that the internet should be this sort of &amp;quot;law free&amp;quot; place where anyone can implement all the exploitative behaviour which is otherwise forbidden elsewhere?&lt;p&gt;Violent crime doesnt happen on the internet. The only thing to prevent is fraud. And that weirdly isnt huge, at least in my life.&lt;p&gt;Not everyone subscribes to the thought that government makes better decisions than individuals. Having laws are often used for corrupt purposes.</text></item><item><author>dustinmoris</author><text>Why is it shocking?&lt;p&gt;The government has always had a say in the UI if it was for the greater benefit of it&amp;#x27;s citizen:&lt;p&gt;- Off putting images printed on cigarette packages&lt;p&gt;- Warning stickers put on microwaves to prevent people from drying their house cats in the microwave&lt;p&gt;- Forcing speed meters in cars&lt;p&gt;- Forcing head lights of cars to be turned on after a certain hour of the day&lt;p&gt;- Lot&amp;#x27;s of &amp;quot;UX&amp;quot; regulations in casinos and other addictive establishments&lt;p&gt;- Licenses to sell alcohol which basically influences where people can find and shop alcohol&lt;p&gt;- Recently the UK has drafted a law which prohibits supermarkets to stock and display addictive unhealthy food close to the checkout tilts (Mars, Snickers, fat crisps, etc.)&lt;p&gt;Why should it be different on the internet? Social media has a damaging and addictive negative impact on society, so it need&amp;#x27;s to be regulated to protect citizens from the exploitative patterns which these companies purposefully implement to hook vulnerable people into their system.&lt;p&gt;I wonder what makes people believe that the internet should be this sort of &amp;quot;law free&amp;quot; place where anyone can implement all the exploitative behaviour which is otherwise forbidden elsewhere?</text></item><item><author>malvosenior</author><text>&amp;gt; &lt;i&gt;On July 30th the junior senator from Missouri unveiled the “Social Media Addiction Reduction Technology Act”, or SMART Act. The bill would limit social-media usage to half an hour a day (users would be able to bypass the limit by adjusting their app settings). It would also ban addictive features, such as “infinite scroll” (when a user’s entire feed can be seen in one visit) and “autoplay” (when online videos load automatically one after another).&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;We should never let the government dictate UI through laws. It’s shocking that it’s even being proposed.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>addicted</author><text>Why do some people have to jump from&lt;p&gt;Person A: I think in these situations the government action has been effective&lt;p&gt;To&lt;p&gt;“Person A thinks thst government makes better decisions than individuals”.&lt;p&gt;There is literally (and I mean this literally) not a single non crazy person in the world who thinks the government makes better decisions than individuals in general. For one thing, we don’t have AI yet and government is made of individuals. Yet this is your counter argument, and probably what you think people who disagree with you believe and rest their philosophies on.</text></comment>