Login
You're viewing the mstdn.social public feed.
  • Daniel Silverstonekinnison@flarn.net
    Jul 6, 2026, 11:01 AM

    @michael Right but the term "informed decision" requires that the adult be informed. Almost all of the deliberately addictive nature of SoMe is also deliberately obfuscated in order to reduce the chance that adults are properly informed.

    Make SoMe carry warnings like cigarette packets have to. No need to ban it, just make it unpalatable and unprofitable for these companies to exploit, rather than provide a reasonable service to, their users.

    💬 2🔄 0⭐ 2

Replies

  • Daniel Silverstonekinnison@flarn.net
    Jul 6, 2026, 11:03 AM

    @michael Things like requiring explicit enthusiastic ongoing consent for targeted advertising, or for an "algorithm" which is anything other than a chronological feed of everything the people who you directly follow have said/boosted would be a good start.

    "waah that would mean we'd lose advertising revenue" fine - offer a *fair* price to opt out of the advertising and "algorithm" all together.

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Daniel Silverstonekinnison@flarn.net
    Jul 6, 2026, 11:04 AM

    @michael If you can't run a business profitably without underhandedly exploiting your users, perhaps you shouldn't be running that business?

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Michael Westergaardmichael@westergaard.social
    Jul 6, 2026, 11:32 AM
    That I'm perfect ly fine with – to a degree. Such legislation would be careful to not make it like tobacco lung-pictures, which after an initial effect are largely ignored by smokers, or cookie-consent, which got perverted by advertisers from "don't gather all the data" to "annoy users with banners they won't read and then gather all the data."

    And it doesn't preempt the discussion about how to protect kids, because there's a good argument they cannot give informed consent.
    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Daniel Silverstonekinnison@flarn.net
    Jul 6, 2026, 11:40 AM

    @michael I understand the point about children being unable to consent and appreciate they need special consideration as a result, and perhaps more immediate action; however *not* framing this as affecting everyone is unhelpful since it tacitly leaves SoMe et al. with permission and encouragement to further exploit unsuspecting adults instead. Eg. with allegedly "child safe" versions of the indoctrination machines.

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 1
  • Michael Westergaardmichael@westergaard.social
    Jul 6, 2026, 12:04 PM
    I have a feeling big tech will use any argument to broaden the legislation to include everybody to further stall.

    At the same time, while I'm all for not blaming victims, people should also know that SoMe is bad for you by now – heck, most spend a lot of time complaining about doom-scrolling and hell-sites. It's almost as prevalent as knowing smoking is bad. At some point we have to accept people doing dumb things to themselves and that no amount of labeling will help.

    That doesn't mean people shouldn't have tools and information necessary to stop themselves, just like you can put yourself on a gambling blacklist in many places.
    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0