this post was submitted on 06 Jan 2026
-20 points (23.7% liked)

Technology

78512 readers
3306 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
-20
NY Orders Apps To Lie About Social Media Addiction, Will Lose In Court (tech.slashdot.org)
submitted 4 days ago by technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/technology@lemmy.world
14 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

New York Governor Kathy Hochul has signed S4505, a law that requires websites to display warnings claiming that features like algorithmic feeds, push notifications, infinite scroll, like counts, and autoplay cause addiction -- despite, as TechDirt argues, the absence of scientific consensus supporting such claims.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Assassassin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I like the part where the cites techdirt article implies that the authors of the bill are tied to big tech while talking about regulation that big tech absolutely does not want. Then they scream about "correlation doesn't equal causation" while Facebook and co have repeatedly been caught admitting to trying to make their algorithms as addicting as possible.

Is it well written legislation? No. Are these arguments against it well written? Also no. Social media may not be as addicting as the bill implies, but to say that it's pseudoscience is really stupid.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com -4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I like the part where the cites techdirt article implies that the authors of the bill are tied to big tech while talking about regulation that big tech absolutely does not want.

A major goal of this nonsense is so that big tech can put a warning on their shitty products and then wash their hands of any responsibility. It's much easier and more in line with their values than for example censoring nazis, zios, pedos, et al. which are an actual problem.

Facebook and co have repeatedly been caught admitting to trying to make their algorithms as addicting as possible.

What about Lemmy? Pixelfed? Y'all are advocating for the worst people on the planet to deepen their control of the internet based off fake science. The first "social media" sites to go will be ones like this.

Is it well written legislation? No. Are these arguments against it well written? Also no.

No surprise. And yet libs support it. Also no surprise.

Social media may not be as addicting as the bill implies, but to say that it’s pseudoscience is really stupid.

Maybe you don't understand science but there is actually very little evidence that "social media" is "bad". Just relying on your feelings is what's actually stupid. The absolute dumbest is thinking that the state/capitalism is making a good faith effort to help humanity based on solid science.