this post was submitted on 06 Jan 2026

-17 points (24.2% liked)

Technology

78393 readers

5332 users here now

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

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related news or articles.
Be excellent to each other!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
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.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
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

L4s@hackingne.ws

-17

NY Orders Apps To Lie About Social Media Addiction, Will Lose In Court (tech.slashdot.org)

submitted 1 day 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.

top 14 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Assassassin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 1 day 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 0 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours 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.

[–] Zarxrax@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Regardless of the scientific consensus, what's the point? It sounds like all this will achieve is another annoying pop-up similar to the cookie popups that we get now due to the European law. It's just a way to wave your hands and claim to be doing something without actually addressing any of the problems of social media.

[–] seraphine@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

i think it is important for people to be informed. like with the cookie banner, you might always press "accept all", but i do not and i like having the choice to do so.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

The point of the cookie button is giving people a choice. There's no choice here.

[–] seraphine@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

you have the choice not to use the app. and for some, the "this is addictive" banner will influence their choice of whether they want to use the app or not.

[–] Flisty@mstdn.social 0 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

@seraphine @technocrit the cookie banner is often now a "accept or leave" button, similar to how this sounds. Or "accept or pay", commonly.
I never accept.

[–] seraphine@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

technically it is illegal in the EU, but yesh, those exist. still better than just tracking you without asking

[–] Flisty@mstdn.social 1 points 4 hours ago

@seraphine alas, I am in the UK. Who knows what's illegal or not here

[+] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com -14 points 1 day ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (2 children)

This kind of pseudo-science is very popular. People really thinking there's substantial scientific evidence that "social media" is "bad". Literally making this false belief into a law.

edit: Lots of downvotes. Zero reliable studies posted. I understand that this pseudo-science confirms your pre-concieved biases but that doesn't make it scientific. Y'all are yearning for the worst people to have even more power to control criticism and news about capitalism, imperialism, genocide, etc.

edit2: TikTok.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 20 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I mean, it has enabled every goober and bad actor with an opinion to essentially have a megaphone and build platforms and movements. I'd argue that's a net negative. Even the Fediverse isn't immune to propaganda and conspiracy theories.

I think putting a warning on the tin is appropriate, especially for platforms run by billionaires whose explicit goal is to get people hooked and keep them feeding the machine by any means necessary.

It's true that the bulk of the issue arises from the people in charge of the platforms, but nobody currently in power is going to do anything about the billionaire problem. This is at least a vague gesture acknowledging that a problem exists. Also, it's just a sign. When have warning signs stopped people from doing things that are unhealthy?

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

it has enabled every goober and bad actor with an opinion to essentially have a megaphone

Good anecdote but this is just hegemonic propaganda. Social media has also revealed the reality behind the hegemonic narrative. That's what they're actually afraid of.

I think putting a warning on the tin is appropriate,

There is no tin. And then what? Once it's unscientifically marked as "dangerous" then what's next? I'm sure they'll stop there. \s

It’s true that the bulk of the issue arises from the people in charge of the platforms

It's not true. What about the people in charge of this platform? The bulk of the issues arise from capitalism and this type of censorship is designed to abolish its criticism.

When have warning signs stopped people from doing things that are unhealthy?

Again there is very scant evidence that "social media" is "unhealthy". But yes, warnings do almost nothing. It's just another step towards even more entrenched hegemonic control.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 1 points 5 hours ago

Good anecdote but this is just hegemonic propaganda. Social media has also revealed the reality behind the hegemonic narrative. That's what they're actually afraid of.

It's not propaganda, it's a fact. The rise of conspiracy theories becoming mainstream, the rise of fascist groups that are currently undermining global peace and stability, the ability for long-debunked pseudoscience to be treated as equal with science: all of that is facilitated by social media giving an equal platform to people that do not deserve one, particularly the platforms run by capitalists. Social media has indeed done some good, but my argument was never that social media is wholly bad, just that it's a net negative.

I agree that "they" are afraid of The People organizing and seeing through all the bullshit, but that's not something unique that social media is able to facilitate, and it's not something social media has been particularly effective at doing. People of the past were able to see through the bullshit without social media, and if we all lost the internet tomorrow, people would still manage to communicate and share ideas. We did it for decades through books, newspapers, speaking events, zines, etc.

We don't need social media to progress, and I would argue that recent history seems to indicate the contrary.

It's not true. What about the people in charge of this platform? The bulk of the issues arise from capitalism and this type of censorship is designed to abolish its criticism.

There are no people "in charge" of this platform. If you wanted to, you could spin up your own instance with the sole member being you. You could fork the code and start your own Lemmy v2.0. We are collectively responsible for the operation of this federation of services, and even here, you still find the tolerance of bad actors and the spread of rotten ideas.

Has the Fediverse been a net positive? Maybe. But we are small fish compared to the fat cats that are Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, Xitter, etc., and there's no dispute that their influence has reached far and the ideas they've allowed to fester for profit have been destructive, to say the least.

Social media doesn't exist in a vacuum; it's within the context of a global society run by greed, and the fact that it sometimes does good doesn't outweigh the capitalists who weaponize it against us.

[–] MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago

If you think Social media isn't "bad", you're a fucking imbecile.