Stop big tech from making users behave in ways they don't want to

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

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.