Hacker News Reader

Comment by jimt1234 | Hacker News Reader

Sounds like social media platforms might end up like cigarette companies, where they finally acknowledge the harm of their product and add a disclaimer to avoid liability: "This product is designed to manipulate you. It will probably make your life worse." Or, like the drug companies: "If you have depression, suicidal thoughts or find yourself screaming at some rando on the internet, stop taking Facebook and consult a therapist."

Maybe that's already in the EULA??? :shrug:

View on HN

How about we identify what advertisers take part in Facebook harming people?

I think hitting Facebook's wallet is the only way to get them to reform.

Maybe a required 20px white on black label affixed to the top of the app at all times. Like a cookie banner, but not dismissible?

  THIS PRODUCT IS DESIGNED TO MANIPULATE YOUR EMOTIONAL STATE. [READ MORE]

That seems totally reasonable to me.

We should call our legislators and demand this. This would make society so much better if Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, Reddit, etc. were forced to bear this marking.

Has there ever been a product that isn't designed to manipulate your emotional state?

My couch doesn't manipulate my emotional state

Caresses the supple leather underneath me

Not that I don't support warning disclaimers on facebook, but "designed to manipulate your emotional state" certainly applies to all movies, music, most books, etc. A big difference between these things and facebook is that facebook is reactive. It constantly measures your emotional state and modifies what it presents you with. Movies, music and books don't do that (yet?)

Facebook reacts to you reacting to facebook; putting you inside a control loop. Facebook is more akin to a car salesman than a movie director; a car salesman who knows virtually everything about you because he's MITMed your social interactions for years, and can modify his individualized approach to manipulating you minute by minute.

This is a truly brilliant idea!

Sounds good. I also propose that companies can opt out, at the cost of donating 20% of their annual revenue, every year, to agricultural development or to the military. These are prosocial organizations known for their contribution to society.

These warnings are added to cigarette companies because banning them outright is too disruptive for those who are already addicted. They aim to reduce the number of new drug users.

This is pointless for social media. It won't stop people from using these things because too often it's the only way to talk to family and friends. Even their jobs could depend on it.

Just ban advertising in general. They're the ones enabling all the evils in 21st century digital society. This will take care of social media, surveillance capitalism and more in one fell swoop.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com