New York bans 'addictive feeds' for teens

Regulation vs. Personal Responsibility

• Some welcome the law as a necessary check on platforms that deliberately optimize for compulsive use, comparing them to gambling or tobacco.
• Others are uneasy about expanding state control, preferring parenting, education, and individual self‑control over legislation.
• Several commenters argue that parenting alone is inadequate when platforms are engineered to exploit psychological vulnerabilities and when many parents are themselves heavy users.

Defining “Addiction” and Scientific Basis

• One side claims “addiction” is misapplied, noting that major diagnostic manuals do not currently classify social media addiction, and arguing legislation should use medically precise terms (e.g., “disorder”).
• Others respond that:
  • The everyday sense of “addictive” is valid for lawmaking.
  • There is emerging evidence of reward‑system manipulation and dark patterns similar to gambling.
  • Lived experience of compulsion should not be dismissed, though some call for better prevalence data before sweeping laws.

Details and Loopholes in the NY Law

• The bill’s definitions are seen as more careful than expected, with many explicit carve‑outs (e.g., non‑personalized or subscription‑based feeds).
• Critics worry platforms will simply rebrand “addictive feeds” as “dynamic feeds” and incentivize teens and parents to opt in via rewards and badges.
• Some think the law is intentionally “de‑fanged” but still useful as a first step, shifting social norms similar to anti‑smoking campaigns.
• Concern is raised that the bill appears to cover all website operators, not just large corporations, potentially impacting individual site owners.

Constitutionality and Free Speech Concerns

• Detractors argue it is likely unconstitutional due to:
  • Content or speaker‑based discrimination around recommendation algorithms.
  • Age‑verification mandates.
  • Possible chilling effects on vulnerable groups’ online expression.
• Supporters counter that:
  • The state already restricts harmful content and marketing to minors (e.g., gambling, alcohol, porn).
  • The law targets delivery mechanisms and engagement optimization, not specific viewpoints.

Privacy, Age Verification, and Enforcement

• Multiple commenters foresee large‑scale collection of IDs and other personal data to prove age, citing poor government track records with data security.
• Others question enforceability but note that New York’s market size can pressure platforms.

Social Media Design and Power Imbalance

• Some argue apps are like strangers in one’s home and should be legally constrained from manipulative tracking and engagement tactics.
• Opponents reply that users can simply not use or uninstall apps; critics respond that unread, shifting terms and lack of real alternatives undermine meaningful consent.
• Suggestions include banning infinite scroll or extending restrictions to adults, though others warn any such broad measures raise further rights and practicality issues.