Stop big tech from making users behave in ways they don't want to
Big tech platforms are accused of using dark patterns, addictive design and powerful recommendation algorithms to keep users—especially teens—engaged in ways they later regret, with internal Meta research cited as evidence that young users feel unable to “switch off” Instagram. Commenters debate how much responsibility lies with individuals versus companies, whether social-media and gambling‑style behavioral hooks qualify as “addiction,” and how regulators could curb manipulative features without stifling useful products or free expression. Many see parallels with tobacco and gambling regulation, but worry that vague laws or weak enforcement would either miss the worst abuses or become tools for political control.
Comparison to Tobacco and Nature of Addiction
- Several comments compare Big Tech to Big Tobacco, arguing both knowingly exploit human weaknesses; others call this an overreach, stressing that drugs cause direct physical harm and death.
- Multiple replies push back on a “only physical addiction is real” stance, citing behavioral addictions (gambling, social media) and neuroscience around dopamine and reward.
- Disagreement over whether social media addiction is comparable in severity to hard drugs: some see it as a trivialization of drug addiction, others emphasize large-scale mental health and time-loss harms, especially for teens.
Dark Patterns, Engagement Design, and Harm
- Dark patterns discussed include infinite scroll, algorithmic feeds that can’t be disabled, hard-to-find cancel buttons, and manipulative consent flows.
- Internal Meta docs about teens “unable to switch off” Instagram and feeling compelled despite harm are cited as evidence of intentional “addiction engineering.”
- Some posters distinguish between dark patterns (against explicit user wishes) and “merely” addictive products people actively choose, questioning how to draw that line.
Regulation vs Personal Responsibility
- One camp emphasizes personal responsibility: users choose to doomscroll and should simply delete apps or exercise self-control.
- Another camp argues markets fail when firms systematically manipulate preferences and block switching, likening this to securities manipulation; they see a public-health role for the state.
- Debate on legal tools:
- Hard to define “addictive feature” in legislation without chilling benign design.
- Suggestions include: data interoperability/portability, self-exclusion lists (as in gambling), dedicated regulatory agencies, intent-based enforcement using internal docs, and default-off recommender systems.
- Some warn about overbroad rules and “prove a negative” burdens on innovation.
Network Effects and Mandated Technologies
- “Just quit” is criticized as naive when social and professional life depend on dominant platforms; network effects and enterprise mandates (e.g., Office 365, app stores) reduce real choice.
- Distinction drawn between addictive but optional apps (TikTok, Instagram) and quasi-mandatory infrastructure (browsers, app stores), with some seeing the latter as a bigger worry.
Examples, Hypocrisy, and Cultural Impact
- TikTok ban is widely seen as driven by national-security and ownership concerns, not addictiveness, undermining politicians’ moral framing.
- The Economist’s cookie wall and difficult unsubscribe flows, plus Amazon’s “Iliad” cancellation UX and relatively small fines, are cited as ironic or hypocritical.
- Several users describe personal strategies: blocking sites, abandoning subscriptions, preferring finite games or media over “endless engagement,” and sadness over social media shifting from shared, persistent posts to isolating, ephemeral reels and DMs.