back
468 comments
This is pretty easy to solve. If you present data by algorithm, you are no longer an impartial common carrier and are liable for the content you present. If the user decides you don’t, ala social media 1.0.
> If you present data by algorithm, you are no longer an impartial common carrier and are liable for the content you present

Hacker News is a site that presents data by algorithm. Under your definition, Hacker News goes away, too.

A more accurate framing would be that they’re going after personalized recommendation algorithms. It’s not obvious that offering a recommendation algorithm would mean that the site is no longer an impartial common carrier.

So the user opens the app - what is the first video you show them? How does 'the user decide' from the millions upon millions of videos there are?

If the user can search like in Youtube then how do you rank the results? That's also an algorithm.

It isn't pretty easy to solve at all.

The conversation has iterated a couple times and one point that people (on this site at least) are stuck on is “well however you rank things—latest, most popular—you’ll need to use some kind of algorithm, maybe quicksort.” This isn’t what the general public or politicians mean when they say “an algorithm” but it does make something of a point, what exactly the general public and politicians mean when they say that… it’s a bit ambiguous.

I think the EU has fully digested this point, and is focusing on the “addictive design” phrase instead, for good reason. It makes it obvious that the problem is a bit fuzzy and related to the behaviors induced, not some cut-and-dry algorithmic thing.

This is one of those things that don’t translate to legal reality very well, as then you have to define “what is an algorithm”.

Is adding advertisements an algorithm?

Is including likes an algorithm?

Is automatically starting the next video after a previous one has finished an algorithm?

Is infinite scroll an algorithm?

Etc

This thread is going pretty deep down the rabbit hole of debating what an algorithm is. Here’s the actual commission finding: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_26_...

> For example, by constantly ‘rewarding' users with new content, certain design features of TikTok fuel the urge to keep scrolling and shift the brain of users into ‘autopilot mode'. Scientific research shows that this may lead to compulsive behaviour and reduce users' self-control.

> Additionally, in its assessment, TikTok disregarded important indicators of compulsive use of the app, such as the time that minors spend on TikTok at night, the frequency with which users open the app, and other potential indicators.

I think it’s pretty uncontroversial to say these features are a problem. Anyone who has used these apps knows the feeling of “one more video”. Obviously TikTok will claim otherwise with their business model threatened.

And when does the user decide? Must a platform do nothing to stimmy spam, or even illegal content to qualify as impartial?

I suppose the answer could be that only platforms that do indeed allow spam or worse are impartial, but that is a tricky position to be in.

This would be extremely hard to put into legislation that wouldn't affect just about every single site on the internet currently.
Even easier solution: mandate that all harmful content be distributed with the evil bit set in all IP packets. Security: solved.
I don’t think this is only a kids issue.

A lot of adults need this too. The addictive apps are very well designed, while most blockers are either too easy to ignore or too annoying to keep using.

I built a small iOS blocker because I had the same problem. Making it strict enough to actually work without making people hate it is the main challenge.

Tell me: why are these algorithms suddenly okay when the victim turns 18?

They are bad for everyone and if you’re willing to regulate them, make them illegal to be used on anyone.

I think especially restricting endless scrolling is a good thing overall to reduce the addictiveness of social media and its harmful effects.

HN having pages instead of a feed or endless list is one of the things I really like about it.

I heard someone on a podcast call social media algorithms "the modern-day cigarette" and that really resonated with me. These companies know their product is addictive and bad for users, but they keep pushing it anyways. Like cigarettes, it's bad for everyone, not just kids. I made an algorithm blocker for Safari because of that and it's actually crazy how much more pleasant social media is if you don't have recommendation algorithms at all. I think the EU and other jurisdictions should really look beyond just limiting this stuff to kids, but I understand why it's starting there...
I don't agree with this. Addictive, unless we're talking about a chemical substance or something like that, is a subjective thing. At some point, books, movies, comics, etc, etc might have been considered addictive.

Social networks in general should be banned for underage people, that's the thing. And the social network itself should be liable for verifying the age its users, like a nightclub is liable for people who enter it. No bullshit operating system age verification, that's, trust me, totally intended to protect kids and not to spy on you.

I don't use those sites myself/not age group anyway. One thing Instagram is riddled with ads it immediately pisses me off so one reason I don't use it. I get the engagement aspect if you're trying to promote a product.

Recently I stopped scrolling reddit/being logged in and watching YouTube videos. Since it's just endless... and it's crazy. It feels unsettling, I'm bored/antsy since I'm not doing something. So I've been trying to use this time to not multi task eg. I used to have a YouTube video playing and then scroll reddit at the same time. Now it's like, listen to music/work on a computer or watch something only. Also starting to make me seek real socialization too like go to a coffee shop or something even though unfortunatley I live in the suburbs so I'd have to drive to a coffee shop.

The only stuff I look at too is this site or some entrepreneurial specific site for motivation.

What I really enjoy about hn is the fact that it’s not infinite scrolling. I scan the front page, if something grabs my attention, I’ll look at. If something has a lot of comments, it seems important. When I’m done scanning/reading, I’m done. On social media, you’re never done.
Why is it always people pushing government to replace parenting? My mother use to take away my computer if I didn't abide by her rules.
Thanks, I'm an adult and I need it too
Either what defines an "adult" is going to be raised exponentially or what defines a "kid" is going to be lowered to determine who is allowed access to information in transit and who needs to be "safeguarded" from it.
Why just focus on kids???? This is a massive problem for young and old. Every every day we collectively (and globally) waste so many hours on consuming posts which consists largely of unimportant content. News and opinions consists of polarized snippets of 20 sec. (You can argue: some content brings joy, or it helps brands sell products. But you can also call a friend, and the products will find us if we need them.)

(Just to clarify my point: it's not *all* bad of course, but a lot of precious time is wasted)

So many people here endorsing prohibition affecting everybody just because some folks aren't able to control themselves. I simply don't want the state to nanny me.
But they are so profitable, and we need them to track people around and create a police state efficiently. Ah let's keep them but just fine them as well for the show.
They should also tackle Youtube. Yesterday my Youtube app opened into "Shorts" automatically. Shorts are of the same addictive variety as TikToks.
Never understood the kids focus, looks to me like 50+ are by far the most addicted.

Which makes it also a matter of also parents and grandparents setting bad examples.

Actually I don't think these regulations can prevent kids from using social media if they REALLY want to. For example, in China, kids under 18 are not allowed to play video games by requiring facial verification. However, many kids will ask their grandparents to do the verification. So indeed it's not preventing anyone.
I'm usually skeptical of -protect the children- regulation, but addictive design feels like a real and concrete target
I do not buy this "holy knight war" by the EU at all.

It also makes no real sense to me.

Nothing against US mega-corporations paying fins, mind you, but I equally do not trust the EU bureaucrats either. There has to be a limit to both what politicians can do, what corporations can do and what bureaucrats can do, while retaining a democratic base system at all times. If you go against addictive design, then why not against ALL ads? I don't want to see any ads. Ublock origin made me change my mind here - I literally see no reason as to why I would ever want to burden my brain cells with irrelevant content.

This is a bit different to website layout though. I equally fail to see why the EU should meta-regulate what is permissive in regards to design and what is not. Why would I have to accept any random EU bureaucrat here? If a user interface sucks, I'd rather expect ublock origin to kill it off. This could also be community maintained. No need for the EU to waste taxpayers money. After the EU wants to sniff for age data and then also declared its holy war against VPNs, I do not trust anything coming from Brussels. Even less so with Ms. Leyen in charge - can't the anti-corruption offices in Germany get rid of such lobbyists?

In the modern world: any tech proposition that starts with protection of children as a goal can be dismissed out of hand, since it's emotional manipulation masquerading as tech policy. When I hear "protect kids", all I see is a sleazy politician bowing to their respective Security State apparatus.
At what point should the responsibility fall on the parent to protect their children from harm?

Don’t get me wrong, if I had my way TikTok wouldn’t exist for anyone, adults included. It’s just so strange to me that so many parents hand their 7 year olds unrestricted access to TikTok and expect someone else to keep their kid safe.

I would like the focus to be on harmful content creators, not so much on the platforms. Platforms have incentives to bubble this content to the top because it's desirable but there is content that is simply illegal and it's being uploaded by same creators for years without any repercussions.
they are going to put kids on a drip basis. addiction is still there, just limited amount per session. Intermittent rewards is actually the perfect schedule for an advertising company, you don't want people to be making unmonetizable page views.
Hopefully there's a way to opt out of the inevitably worse experience for those of us who like scrolling through TikTok.

The web was already getting bad with ads and popups, but the EU's sloppy legislation loopholes somehow encouraged all websites to show cookie popups (and never remember my selection), so the experience is even worse.

The EU gave us annoying cookie pop ups. Now, they want to legislate design. Cool.
Imagine the pressure on Instagram and Tiktok to serve better content if they were forced to pick out, say, 100 short videos per person per day. And not just for kids, adults need a break from this addiction machine as well.
Targeting kids is good. But what about adults?
Why do they do it? To make money. How do they make money? Advertising. Designate them broadcasters and hold them to the same advertising standards.
Why, it’s always okay to harm adults?

Like adults spending their hours scrolling through infinite feed is somehow beneficial to the society?

I'm all for regulating dark patterns, but I don't think it's easy to say what's addictive design or not. We have no objective basis to measure this with.

You could consider unlimited scroll a dark pattern and block that, just like you'd want to block making it near impossible to cancel a service. That's testable and clear.

But "addictiveness" is just too wide a net and unenforceable (or rather, selectively enforceable).

And then the idea that the EU claims their own age verification app is the most private and most secure app in the world, yet it's already been hacked is laughable[1].

I'm very exhausted at out-of-touch and technologically illiterate politicians declaring mission accomplished on these things.

I understand that the free venture capital backed market has failed humanity in many respects. If we want solutions to the _human_ problems technology causes then yes, we need some regulations. But once again, this is just sloppy, lazy, bad law. Not based on evidence, not based on any standards, and not clear at all.

[1] https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-brussels-launched-age-che...

Isn’t it more of “emotional” design than “addictive” design?
You know, yeah, you can crack down "addictive design", but then what?

If you don't provide better alternative, the "kids" (and please, stop using "kids" as excuse because everybody can see through it now) will just stick on these platforms because, believe or not, these platforms are much MUCH safer than the alternatives.

How about, let's see the real problem here: 24% of EU children at poverty risk or social exclusion (2024), see https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/d.... That's not just a statistic about children, it's also about their parents.

Do you know that if you go outside, then there's this huge risk of having to PAY for stuff you don't actually need to live? Like transportation to go to place that don't bring you wealth, like drink that you drink even you're not that thirsty, like movie tickets just so it will not be too awkward after all the dialogue options are exhausted? Does these politicians just somehow forgot all of these costs money, in this economy that they helped to create?

And that is not to mention the REAL risk, such as drugs the bad ones, rude or crazy drivers, unpleasant adults who's only life purpose is to earn enough money to keep them going a little bit longer, just to name a few.

..... ORRRR, you can just stay in your conformable home, sit on your soft and warm sofa/couch, and swipe your life away on TikTok or Instagram for free, safely.

You see the problem here?

I'm really sick and tired of these politicians putting up this act pretending to "love children", when in the reality what they do is putting up easy patches to hide the real problem, which is poverty and inequality, that's the real problem.

what about youtube shorts?
The most absurd thing is we are supposed to believe the people who did nothing about Epstein's clients are doing this to protect children.
Just do what China does, how fucking hard is it? They have 4x, almost 5x the population of the US.

STEM or verifiable educational content only. Have a review team and an AI that moderates content. No politics, no stupid dances, no monetization of content, no slop, and only credentialed people can post on certain topics (ie a delivery driver shouldn't make posts on theoretical mathematics).

It's not that hard. Just uninstall. I did. Everything got better
10 year's too late. Did they really not see this coming or did they turn a blind eye again? I am fed up of this corrupted world.
Imagine if Big Tobacco had something like Section 230