TikTok settles just before social media addiction trial to begin

Posted by ourmandave 1 day ago

Counter194Comment215OpenOriginal

Comments

Comment by Liftyee 1 day ago

Fundamentally, I think having a source of "free dopamine" on tap is not going to do any good. If I can get distracted from my real world tasks anytime, anywhere, the immediate incentives to work on real things disappear. Effectively, one can get stuck in a local minimum.

I don't know how to solve it, but personally I've chosen to block as many feeds/algorithms as I can, so I have to make a conscious decision to search for something (making it just as hard as making the conscious decision that I'm likely putting off). The only feeds I have right now are the FT and Hacker News. Everything else is just a blank home screen with a search bar.

Comment by card_zero 1 day ago

But if things interest you, does that not also provide dopamine? If the interesting things are easily available, are they "free" and addictive and bad? If they're good because they're interesting, is TikTok not interesting to those who like it? If you had a pinball machine and it distracted you, would that be bad, or a hobby? Is TikTok more compelling than pinball because of the algorithm? Is the algorithm not merely providing things that will likely interest you? Is interest bad now?

Comment by Quarrelsome 1 day ago

these products are intentionally designed to be addictive by some of the greatest minds of our generation. If you were intentionally designing society this would be the opposite of what you'd do.

Our children are effectively enslaved through basic trinkets and manipulation to serve as eye-balls for ad impressions to fuel equity value in silicon valley. It's fucked and it was intentionally designed to be this fucked.

The abstract of what you state makes sense, but the layers of manipulation on top of it are what the problem is.

Comment by nobodywillobsrv 1 day ago

It's worth stating that addictive tech is addictive partly because it doesn't work very well.

So they build useful things and then make them pretty bad and less useful. If they were useful your interest or need would complete and you would move on.

Fundamentally I think it is important to say this. Addiction confounds some things in the space of designed systems

Comment by Quarrelsome 1 day ago

Spot on. Like how Facebook used to be quite useful to stay in touch with friends, or how dating websites used to be kinda decent to find like-MINDED people but have now all been enshittified in order to keep people on them.

Comment by thijson 1 day ago

I used to not mind my kids watching Youtube on the home TV, but lately when I walk by they are doom scrolling one short after the other. I tell them not to watch shorts, but a day later I walk by and they are back to doom scrolling. I'm finally forced to remove Youtube from the TV. On the phone, Instagram is the same way, I see my teenager doom scrolling it quite often. They claim it helps them relax.

Comment by Simboo 1 day ago

I agree.

Comment by card_zero 1 day ago

OK: how?

Comment by Quarrelsome 1 day ago

don't act coy. We did it.

Hooked - How to build habit forming products - Nir Eyal.

We did it intentionally.

Comment by card_zero 1 day ago

While I read through snippets from that book, I'd like to know what substantive point to look for in it. There's a chapter about ethics apparently.

Comment by Quarrelsome 1 day ago

Consider the Lean Startup methodology. The darker patterns are where you break down the big picture rationale for the company. You extract metrics that contribute to the company's success (i.e. engagement) and you build a machine that rewards changes to the underlying system that improves those metrics.

If done successfully, you create an unwitting sociopathy, a process that demands the product be as addictive as possible and a culture that is in thrall to the machine that rewards its employees by increasing those metrics. You're no longer thinking about purpose or wondering about what you're doing to your users. You simply realise that if you send this notification at this time, with this colour button, in this place, with this tagline then the machine likes it. Multiple people might contribute a tiny piece of a horrifying and manipulative whole and never quite realise the true horror of the monster they've helped build.

Comment by card_zero 1 day ago

That horror being..? I understand that this is a ruthless quest for engagement by any means, good or bad. For instance ...?

I don't mean to make you do all the work here: I can see a couple of pages from the introduction which mention "variability" and "investment":

> What distinguishes the Hook Model from a plain vanilla feedback loop is the Hook’s ability to create a craving. Feedback loops are all around us, but predictable ones don’t create desire. The unsurprising response of your fridge light turning on when you open the door doesn’t drive you to keep opening it again and again. However, add some variability to the mix—suppose a different treat magically appears in your fridge every time you open it—and voila, intrigue is created.

So that's "variability". I'm not hugely impressed. "Investment", meanwhile, is when you set preferences or connect to friends, so you feel like you lose out if you stop attending. I can see that these might be foolish ideas. But I can also see that foolish ideas are part of "engaging" with anything - something traditionally wholesome such as a piano, for instance. Imagine I'm a Victorian lady, and I've bought a piano and I invite my friends over for a regular evening of singing art songs, so that's "investment": also we buy new song sheets every time, so there's "variety". I'm totally hooked on this harmless positive thing, am I? Or do I in fact just like it and have free will?

Comment by Quarrelsome 1 day ago

Are you being intentionally obstinate? I can't help but feel like you're sealioning.

An increasing number of young people get their news from social media and what is "engaging" isn't necessarily what's true. This leads to greater political polarisation, nuance is lost, tribalism increases, people treat conversations as things to be won as opposed to opportunities to share information. People spend their entire time doomscrolling because everything is "engaging" so it caters to their paranoia and attempts to keep them glued to their phone, ramping up their anxiety and paranoia because it makes them more money. People stay up late scrolling a feed that hooks them, sleep less, perform less well at work, may lose their job and all the ramifications that go along with that. Parents spend more time on their phones than with their children, a generation of babies and toddlers are having to compete for attention with these apps and in many cases fail because they're designed so well. What's worse is the babies get thrust an ipad and then are brought up by arbitrary strangers who may not have their best interests at heart and are exposed to considerable amounts of advertising at far too young an age.

I could go on but I feel like you're just going to give another one liner where you pretend that actually there's nothing wrong with this or smth.

Comment by card_zero 1 day ago

Eh, sorry, edited some stuff in now. I'm not a sealion, honest, we just have different points of view where what is obvious to you (to the point of irrelevance?) is unsubstantiated and crucial from my perspective.

I'm going to acknowledge "anxiety and paranoia" as something that it's particularly unethical to pander to. But I feel like that deserves a name in its own right, separate from addiction. I'm having a tip-of-the-tongue moment about it.

- I guess that's (automated) fearmongering and hoaxing.

Comment by Quarrelsome 1 day ago

I see your angle but I worry the "free will" premise sleep walks us into manipulation. People are vulnerable to the The Psychology of Persuasion (Robert B Cialdini).

My perspective might be a bit nannying but I think we're arguing the nation-building vs individualism axis and the free-will vs regulation axis.

For example, smoking has some benefits, its a cheap stimulent, helps you focus, good for people with undiagnosed ADHD. However its highly addictive and causes terrible long term health issues, so where do we fall on the line of its regulation? Should we allow everyone to persue their "free will" and advertising to be unregulated? Tobacco companies have a perverse incentive to downplay and suppress the health costs, fabricate positive research and lobby governments. Last time we allowed that everyone smoked, that might be good for free will, but is that good for society, for nation building?

I'd make a similar argument for our addictive online services, I think they should probably be age gated and increasingly regulated. While they're beneficial for the US economy they're detrimental to the nation-building of all nations exposed to them.

I would ask you to consider how the internet would look if online advertising was banned. While its an unrealistic aim, I think that view is extremely informative to the idea of _actual_ free will. If you remember how the old internet looked, its clear how the profit motive has distorted the internet beyond recognition.

To throw up a more middle ground example based on a video I saw a couple of days ago: there's a popular "health food influencer" on tiktok who gives contradictory advice based on products he's promoting and their ingredients list. In January sugar is a terrible ingredient but in March its entirely fine. He's shilling via product placement and there's no regulation of his platform. If people lack critical thinking they just blindly buy these products and learn nothing about health. You might state they're exercising their free will, but is that genuinely true? Maybe he only obtained his traffic because he had no qualms about how manipulative his content was. Did he get his early numbers via botting and then ending up towards the top of the list? Perhaps he threw $20k at another popular influencer to spam mentions and that's how he got his early traffic. An entirely unregulated system permits this. If the money wasn't there the only people talking about health foods would be people genuinely interested who gave reliable advice. The profit motive creates this distortion because its profitable to be misleading and sensationalist. There is a nuanced conversation to be had around people being able to make money on the platform and dedicate a career to it and banning advertising doesn't allow that. Somewhere there's a middle ground, I'm not sure where that is but I don't think we're anywhere near it today.

If you want a genuinely dark example then look up subliminals [0]. Its a niche community of grifter adults and tragically sad children, where the children seem to be labouring under a bizarre misconception peddled by the grifters that by repeatedly watching a specially prepared video they can become taller or have a prettier nose.

[0] - https://reddit.com/r/Subliminal/

Comment by card_zero 1 day ago

Hey, that's a lot of assuming the conclusion. I meant that the piano-player has free will in the sense that she's not addicted. I don't want to argue for the right to use addictive drugs, I'm trying to establish whether TikTok is one.

Comment by Quarrelsome 1 day ago

and the "health food influencer" and subliminals? They're similar setups. Online advertising creates a perverse incentive and this was formerly constrained by the gatekeeping of traditional print media, but the internet does away with that constraint by making publishing a free-for-all.

We're already in a future where "news entertainment" has replaced news and journalism is inherently unprofitable because it lacks the same attention grabbing properties of not caring for the truth. The new chapter in this is that "news entertainment" doesn't need on the ground journalism, and advertising rates pay better in the developing world. This means that all the facebook grandmas and grandads as well as the children are getting hooked on foreign-based indignance mills that are not regulated in the slightest. These foreign-based "news entertainment" shows only care for impressions, so simply re-enforce the desired ignorance of their audiences and tend towards pushing bigoted world views, in some cases even encouraging racism towards the very countries that are actually producing the content! In the very worst case scenarios foreign state actors use these channels in order to push their propaganda and stir up unrest in rival nation states.

It is free will, but in the big picture, its harmful to society.

Comment by card_zero 1 day ago

Right, yeah. "Misleading", like you say. That health food guy's a shyster (like the snake oil salesmen of yore), and algorithms can sometimes send a feed into a shyster-like mode. So now we come down to terminology: addiction is the wrong word, deception is the right one. This isn't purely semantic, it's a different kind of hold over people. More cognitive.

Sidetrack: I had the idea recently that unscrupulous advertising might be a tragedy of the commons for the clients en masse, and harmful for the economy in general. Based on the intuition that lying can't be doing any good.

Comment by Quarrelsome 1 day ago

> addiction is the wrong word

I used that word mostly because of the name of that book "Hooked".

> like the snake oil salesmen of yore

the problem is that you could run that guy out of town in the past and his damage was localised. Nowadays he can be the biggest player in town.

> Sidetrack: I had the idea recently that unscrupulous advertising might be a tragedy of the commons for the clients en masse, and harmful for the economy in general. Based on the intuition that lying can't be doing any good.

I'd go further and state that all advertising is bad, but I might be a touch too radical. Also it might be too late, given how strong "native advertising" and product placement now is. The content and the adverts have merged. LLMs might offer some brief respite as I think it will be hard to reliably advertise inside that content.

Comment by card_zero 1 day ago

Defining advert is hard. Store signage saying "we sell things here" seems essential information. Standing in the street and yelling about bananas and peppers? What if I step that up and yell that I have red hot peppers for sale? People have to know what's available, and I have to be free to sincerely talk it up. Then it can get intrusive and insincere, but you can only police that at the extremes of intrusion and dishonesty.

Comment by Quarrelsome 1 day ago

There's no need for insane abstraction, we're talking about motivation for negative effects. Silicon valley hooks our children into unproductive activity where they are often fed misinformation because they want to advertise to them. Entertainment News only wins because it brings in more money for adverts. Nobody cares about a sign in a street or someone yelling in the street.

The answer to this (if it exists) is to withdraw the motivations for spreading misinformation or find another means of tempering their impact.

Idk what the solution is, I just find it odd we make our society obviously worse in order for someone to sell some diet pills or smth.

Comment by Liftyee 20 hours ago

No, interest is not bad. I would say that excessive time dedicated to certain interests is bad, because it might lead to neglecting other interests that have real-world consequences. There are only 24 hours in a day, after all.

Which consequences are considered significant/desirable varies depending on the person.

I am using "bad" to refer to my personal judgments of this task ("was this time well spent?") and survival/growth needs in life. Inherently, there is nothing "bad" about scrolling: many things can be overconsumed to the point of causing consequences that are bad. However, the fact that TikTok et al. algorithms (and drugs, etc.) are designed to occupy your time and attention, makes me (by extension) consider them bad, because they likely lead me to bad consequences.

If I had a pinball machine in my room and it distracted me occasionally, I would probably write it off as a bit of relaxation/fun. If I scrolled a few TikTok videos, I might say the same. But if I spent multiple hours doing each while forgetting my fundamental needs (food, water, sunlight...) repeatedly, I may well say they are bad.

It's obviously unreasonable to classify everything that doesn't advance a certain goal (money? career? education?) as "bad", so the optimum must be somewhere in the middle.

(Rambling train of thought warning)

To resolve this, I have a few heuristics. They are definitely not logically watertight, but it's what works for me.

A key tradeoff is between "how fun is this?" and "what's the opportunity cost/consequence?"

Personally, I would like to live with purpose. The algorithms that drive TikTok etc. too easily lend themselves to purposeless consumption, which can also be true for many other activities (gaming!). I feel better saying/planning "I will do 1 hour of X", then doing that wholeheartedly - but I would never consciously choose to do an hour of scrolling.

Another bias of mine is that real-world things > virtual/digital/game/simulated etc... I feel like the inherent limitations and permanent consequences of physical things make me more careful about what I'm doing and what might result. If I break a part while tinkering/messing around in the workshop, I can't just load a quicksave - it gives me an opportunity to reconsider. Given that HN is a software-heavy place, I suspect many will not feel this way - this is OK, who am I to judge?

Long term compounding benefits > short term temporary pleasures. If I devoted my scrolling time (before I blocked everything) to playing pinball, or table tennis, or Minecraft, I would probably get very good at it. Similarly, if I tinkered with a pet project or filtered some photos, there would be some result to show for it - I would be improving my skill at something. As far as I can tell, the way I was scrolling TikTok-like feeds was not bringing any long-term results that I could look back at. Famously, no one remembers most of the short videos they scroll through. It only seems to deplete my

Granted, the previous paragraph depends on what one wants - perhaps influencers analysing successful video formats would improve their ability by scrolling. I'm imagining grouping outcomes into "good", "neutral" and "bad" for me: better at programming = good, top 1% Minecraft player = neutral, 100 hours spent on Reels = bad. (Reality is more nuanced, this is just a heuristic)

Speaking of too much time pursuing interests, it's time for me to close HN and get back to my problem sets. It is definitely interesting to think about this, but considering it for too long is bad in the sense that I will feel better having finished those questions.

Comment by callc 1 day ago

Wow this is a bad take and a half.

Apply the argument to abusing drugs now, and see how this argument throws all nuance out the window.

Comment by card_zero 1 day ago

Well, addictive drugs cause punishment to a quitting user by chemical means.

By the way, I'm interested in answers. I don't appreciate this being shot down as a bad take. Give me explanations, not disapproval.

Comment by notpushkin 1 day ago

There’s physical dependence and there’s psychological dependence. Most drugs can cause both, but hallucinogens in particular are usually thought to cause only psychological dependence. Whether that makes them less dangerous is debatable, but the fact is, they can still cause addiction if used carelessly.

Now to your main point... dopamine hits aren’t inherently good or bad. They can, however, also make things addictive, and drug abuse is indeed a good parallel here.

Comment by card_zero 1 day ago

What do you think about pinball? Is it bad for us, should we sue?

Comment by jesseduffield 1 day ago

You can plot all activities on a spectrum of dopamine 'cheapness'. On one side of the spectrum is slot machines, various drugs, and doomscrolling. These generally involve little effort, and involve 'variable ratio reinforcement' which is where you get rewards at unpredictable intervals in such a way that you get addicted. Generally, after a long session of one of these activities, you feel like crap.

On the other side of the spectrum is more wholesome long-horizon activities like a challenging side project, career progression, or fitness goals. There's certainly an element of variable ratio reinforcement in all of these, but because the rewards are so much more tangible, and you get to exercise more of your agency, these activities generally feel quite meaningful on reflection.

Playing pinball is somewhere in the middle, probably on the cheaper side of the spectrum. Introspective people can generally reflect on a session and decide whether it was a good use of their time or not.

I really think that 'how do you feel after a long session of this' is a good measuring stick. Very few people will tell you that they feel good after a long session of social media scrolling or short-form content.

Another good measuring stick is 'do you want to want to be doing this?'. I want to want to go to the gym and gain 10kg of muscle. I do not want to want to spend hours on tiktok every day.

Comment by notpushkin 1 day ago

> Playing pinball is somewhere in the middle, probably on the cheaper side of the spectrum.

It could be a nice segue to tinkering with pinball machines though :)

Comment by notpushkin 1 day ago

If we look at the effects, no, I don’t think so. I see how pinball could be optimized for addictiveness, but I don’t see a lot of people devoting all their free time to it.

Now, it is more nuanced than that. Is addiction bad for us? And at what point do we say we’re addicted to something? For me personally, when I can’t stop doing something (say, watching YouTube instead of working on a project), I won’t be happy long-term. It would be more gratifying short-term, sure, but I’d say it’s still not good.

Comment by card_zero 1 day ago

One question is, even if I unwisely stay up all night doing something (reading comics, say), how do we decide whether to blame the thing for tricking me, or whether it's my own responsibility? Another question is, do we even know our own minds and truly know when we're being unwise? I note that many binges that I would have beaten myself up over at the time were in retrospect great, and the worthy things I assumed I should have been doing instead were actually pointless. So this suggests to me that having an authority dictate to, e.g., comic publishers "you are tempting the public into unwise habits, desist" would be a bad thing because the authority doesn't actually know what's unwise much better than we do.

Comment by notpushkin 1 day ago

We can look at intent: comic publishers want to make them interesting and capture your attention for some time, but do they make them addictive? And we can also look at the scale – if a product is reliably addictive across a wide audience, it might be bad for society, not just for individuals. If both criteria are met, it’s probably reasonable to blame the “dealer” of the thing in question.

But I agree that we should be able to decide for ourselves what is good for us – delegating it to authority isn’t a great solution, it should always be our own responsibility. We should, however, be especially cautious when making decisions about things that are known to be addictive for others.

Comment by secstate 1 day ago

Christ, this is like a textbook definition of sealioning. You've hijacked multiple threads here persistently asking for more and more evidence of their claims. If you don't agree with an argument, provide your own counter evidence. Stop harassing people and do your own work, or stop reading the threads with people you don't think have valid opinions or have no evidence.

At this point, I'd almost think you were a bot yourself, as your oblivious to the social standards of online forums and/or manipulating them intentionally.

Comment by d4v3 1 day ago

> If I can get distracted from my real world tasks anytime, anywhere, the immediate incentives to work on real things disappear. Effectively, one can get stuck in a local minimum.

> I don't know how to solve it, ...

> but personally I've chosen to block as many feeds/algorithms as I can, ...

I think you solved it :) (at least, for yourself)

There are many things "out there" that are addictive and distracting and thus unhealthy, but we all have to find some way to overcome

Comment by Liftyee 22 hours ago

Thanks for your positive response. It's true, we all need to help each other in finding community and human connection again amidst the waterfall of "content".

It's taken a few years to get to this point, but seeing the effects and regrets from over consumption of feeds made me take action.

Comment by 1 day ago

Comment by codyb 1 day ago

I just bought a flip phone and a cool pocket sized camera. I've gotten down to leaving my phone at home a fair amount, and leave my phone on a speaker that's not near anything I sit on when at home.

It's awesome, come on back out to reality. I frequently go out at this point, come back home and go to see if I have any messages and realize my phone was on me the whole time and I had no idea (I also silence pretty much everything...).

I'm super pumped to have an actual camera to play with that's pocket sized too since I did miss the camera. But now I'll have something tremendously superior and can leave that aging device filled with way too many 2FA codes I don't want to inadvertently lose at home.

Comment by andai 1 day ago

What kinda phone do you have? I was nostalgic for getting an old nokia, but when I actually did, using it was surprisingly painful. I guess that's kind of the point?

I still need a proper mp3 player (been using an old android) and a camera though.

...and a Kindle, and a fax machine ;)

As a side note, the "old" style Nokias now seem to be running on some kind of emulation... The Nokia startup sound lagged and stuttered and made me die a little inside.

Comment by codyb 1 day ago

Yea, when I'm on the move I rarely use more than texting and the camera. So I got a Nokia flip phone, and I'll see how it is. Worst comes to worst it'll be 90 bucks lost and I'll move back to something a bit more full featured. But really I chose for size, and to be able to text and make calls. It's possible I'll end up sticking with my mini for a while.

I also got a really nice pocket camera which I'm much more excited about. It's called a Ricoh, so the camera and the phone should fit in my pockets without any real trouble or bulge. Plus keys, and wallet, and I feel like I'm set.

Comment by Aerbil313 1 day ago

You don't need to leave behind the conveniences of a smartphone to have a phone that is smart but without the dopamine traps. There are solutions out there like TechLockdown which allow you to make a dumbphone out of your smartphone using MDMs, while still keeping critical things like messenger apps, a predefined list of websites, navigation apps, etc.

Comment by codyb 1 day ago

Yea, I know, but smart phones are getting bigger and bigger. I'd rather a much nicer camera, and a small dumb phone which texts and calls. As opposed to a smart phone with a much worse camera, that also texts and calls and does maps.

I can just ask people if I need directions. I'm already don't use location services on maps, and usually look things up before I leave anyways.

Just leaving the phone at home is really the nicest thing, and I'll probably continue doing that a fair amount as well.

Comment by echelon 1 day ago

This is what drugs and alcohol can become if not used in moderation.

Once we have the AI holodeck (the full-sensory interactive, possibly multiplayer one), can you only imagine?

TikTok is only the punch card phase of this. TikTok may as well be black and white television. Just imagine what we might have in twenty years.

Maybe this is why we haven't found alien life. If their biologies have attention mechanisms like ours, maybe they automate highs and turn inward instead of outward. (I do like that better than AGI gray goo taking over galaxies.)

Comment by Liftyee 1 day ago

Agreed, AI/VR definitely offers nightmarish opportunities.

At least drugs/alcohol are self limiting: you have to meet your dealer, go to a store, eventually run out of money...

TikTok/Reels/Shorts are free, infinite, and in your pocket on a device you're now forced to use in daily life (bank/2fa/messaging apps).

Comment by echelon 1 day ago

> a device you're now forced to use in daily life (bank/2fa/messaging apps).

Restaurants with only QR code menus.

"Let me scan your LinkedIn app."

Verify your government ID on our app.

"Zelle me."

"Scan this code to pay."

My favorite: "Scan this code for parking or you will be towed. Also, if you leave without paying, we'll tow you next time you enter any of our properties in any state because we scanned your license plate." There's no other way to pay.

Apartment / condo door keys and entry systems.

My battery is always at 10%. I don't know how y'all do it.

This is also one of the many reasons why I think it's criminal that two private businesses are allowed to own this modern life necessity so completely.

Comment by pibaker 22 hours ago

Some people find themselves awake at 3am with twenty Wikipedia tabs open. Just sayin'.

Comment by Liftyee 21 hours ago

I've done that before (like many others), and occasionally still do. My current experience is that Wikipedia is decidedly finite (as far as content that is interesting enough for me to stick to, despite it being 3am). The slower pace and the conscious decision to choose what link I'll open next also regularly poke my "decision-making engine" to decide when to stop - no algorithmic feed of infinite scroll.

Of course, YMMV

Comment by j45 1 day ago

I was reading a few weeks ago that it's more about easy dopamine rather than free that is so incredibly destructive.

Scrolling for hits of satisfying novelty is a proposition that will not be sustainably met.

Part of me also wonders if things like this can be used for not so great things, can they be used for good things?

Comment by andai 1 day ago

Story time! A couple years ago, I found myself with pretty severe ADHD and no way to get treatment for it. (There may have been a global healthcare cataclysm involved...)

I wanted to make some progress on a personal project, but I had a history of abandoning things, without external accountability. I had a guy for that the previous year, which worked great, but our interests diverged, so I had to find a way to do it on my own.

I realized that I couldn't force it. I had to find a way to make it work without having sufficient dopamine. Without relying on willpower at all.

So I stumbled into environmental design from first principles. I simply designed around all the failure modes.

1. I noticed that if I skipped a day of working on my project, the chance of completely losing momentum would rise enormously. So I decided I have to work every day, but to make it sustainable it only needs to be an hour.

2. I noticed that if I put work off until later in the day, the chance of skipping a day would rise enormously. So I decided that I had to start working as soon as I woke up. (But only for an hour. I could keep going but I didn't have to.)

3. And finally I noticed that, if I started playing with my phone or surfing the internet, the day was basically over. So I made a rule that I had to keep them both off for the first hour of the day. (And I turned them off the night before for good measure. That way I am waking up into the correct state by default.)

And what do you know. I didn't miss a day for 3 months. Even my dopamine starved brain was able to persist on this project every day without fail for several months straight, because I simply made these small changes to my environment!

The project suddenly became the most fun and interesting thing I could be doing. I actually looked forward to working on it the next day, when I went to sleep at night!

Comment by SunshineTheCat 1 day ago

I 100% agree with the premise that TikTok is addictive and even dangerous to consume in large amounts (that's why I don't consume it at all).

But I feel the exact same about cheeseburgers. Should I be able to sue McDonalds if I let my kid eat 100 of them in one sitting?

Again, I get the danger here, and I don't like TikTok as a whole. I just don't really know where the line is between something that the parent is allowing kids to do (like spending a billion hours on TikTok), versus something they have no control over (like a company badly constructing a car seat, or similar).

Comment by jader201 1 day ago

> But I feel the exact same about cheeseburgers.

The problem with analogies to things like cheeseburgers, gambling, drugs, cigarettes, etc., is:

1. Availability -- you have to go somewhere to acquire/participate in these things*

2. Cost -- you have to have money to spend. That is, it's not something you can consume/participate in for free -- you have to have money to spend.

* Gambling is theoretically freely available via gambling apps. But still comes at a cost.

With social media, anybody can do it for unlimited amounts of time, and for free. All you need is a phone/laptop/desktop with internet access -- which nearly every person on the planet has.

Addiction + Free + Widely available = Destruction

Comment by Mordisquitos 1 day ago

To your points I would add the following difference between TikTok on the one hand and cheeseburgers, drugs, cigarettes, etc. on the other.

3. Targeting -- even under the (debatable) premise that they are intentionally designed to be addictive, cheeseburgers, drugs and cigarettes do not actively target each addict by optimising their properties to their individual addiction.

If I am addicted to smoking, the tobacco industry does indeed try to keep me hooked, among other things by offering me many flavours and alternatives. However, the cigarettes I personally consume are not constantly adjusting their formula, appearance and packet design specifically to satisfy my tastes and desires.

Comment by johnnyanmac 1 day ago

Yes. Target the algorithms, not the method of delivery. Hacker news also counts as social media, but here we all are seeing the same feed on the same site with minimal (if not zero) tracking to try and extract info from the audience.

Even a first step of requiring transparency in the algorithms would quickly shatter this stronghold on people's minds.

Comment by Mordisquitos 1 day ago

Indeed. In fact, you may notice I explicitly left out gambling from the list of 'non targeted' addictions. The reason for that is that the delivery methods for gambling cover the whole gamut from zero to fully personalised targeting, and I didn't want that to distract from the point.

Comment by 1 day ago

Comment by rtpg 1 day ago

case in point: lots of places have lots of restrictions (either through legislation or just industry norms, usually a combination of both) about advertising for alcohol or tobacco.

And those efforts seem effective to me, at least anecdotally. I don't feel particularly bad about those restrictions either.

Comment by ares623 1 day ago

nooo those restrictions aren't perfect. And if it's not perfect then it needs to be abolished! /s

Comment by ares623 1 day ago

Don't forget the most important part. Attempting to opt-out means social exclusion for a vast majority of the population.

Comment by ajam1507 1 day ago

So what you're saying is that we should ban porn then?

Comment by edoceo 1 day ago

No, they saying it (and other things) should be regulated (it is)

Comment by ajam1507 1 day ago

Social media companies are also regulated, but we are talking about whether social media companies should be liable for creating addictive content when porn has the same qualities of being easily available and free.

Comment by chromehearts 1 day ago

Yes

Comment by enemyz0r 1 day ago

agree

Comment by conception 1 day ago

To add, McDonalds is required to list calories and nutritional information. There are various agencies and regulations guarding us from them selling us rat meat instead of cow. Education on “junk food” is widespread and has (had…) widespread government education programs.

There is a great deal of information given to parents on what is in McDonalds.

I would say that most parents, not those on a tech site, have no idea how tiktok works, what studies have shown about it or its dangers.

Comment by NoPicklez 1 day ago

I agree, there's plenty of information out there and nutrition is often taught in schools.

Additionally, other content like TV and movies has content ratings, social media does not have anything of the sort.

Comment by sheikhnbake 1 day ago

I think the line is the same as vapes/cigarettes. It's less about the product itself and more how its advertised and marketed. Internal memos from Meta are pretty damning in that they know they're actively harming kids and not adjusting their product for harm reduction. I imagine TikTok has the same problem, prompting them to settle out early.

Comment by DavidPiper 1 day ago

You're getting some mild heat in sibling comments here. Jonathan Haidt's book The Anxious Generation goes into a lot of detail on this exact point about parental responsibility.

There are others that touch on personal vs. societal responsibility too and the difficulties with parental/personal moderation and change (Stolen Focus by Johann Hari and Dopamine Nation by Anna Lembke off the top of my head).

There is an enormous amount of nuance that goes into answering your questions and addressing your assumptions that HN is probably not a great medium for, if you're serious about understanding the answers.

Comment by JumpCrisscross 1 day ago

> Should I be able to sue McDonalds if I let my kid eat 100 of them in one sitting?

If McDonald’s is handing them out for free at the playground, yes.

Comment by ajam1507 1 day ago

I hate that this needs to be said, but giving kids free food is not illegal.

Comment by xboxnolifes 1 day ago

This requires many asterisks, as once you hit any appreciable size of "giving out food" you tend to hit tons of local ordinance about food safety, permits, and just general distrust of directly interacting with other people's kids at a playground (depending on the age we are talking about, but since we said playground, I'm assuming pretty young).

Comment by direwolf20 1 day ago

To add, little children have been arrested for having lemonade stands in the USA before.

Comment by JumpCrisscross 1 day ago

Source?

Comment by ajam1507 1 day ago

You don't need all the asterisks if you don't stretch the metaphor beyond its breaking point.

Comment by xboxnolifes 1 day ago

I'm not stretching it at all. The context was McDonalds, and the added context was giving food to children at a playground. I'm completely bounded on that context.

Comment by JumpCrisscross 1 day ago

> giving kids free food is not illegal

It’s not. But if you’re giving a kid “100” burgers “in one sitting” without the parent’s explicit sign-off, you are probably liable for damages.

Comment by direwolf20 1 day ago

If the food contains heroin, it's illegal. There's a line somewhere.

Comment by clipsy 1 day ago

If you believe that, go set up a "Free Candy!" stand at a local playground and see how long before the police show up.

Comment by JumpCrisscross 1 day ago

> go set up a "Free Candy!" stand at a local playground and see how long before the police show up

This is a sign of a broken community. Handing out candy is absolutely fine as long as the kids are old enough to understand their own allergies and limits.

Comment by clipsy 1 day ago

But kids don't know their own allergies and limits, because they're kids. That's the point.

Comment by JumpCrisscross 1 day ago

> kids don't know their own allergies and limits, because they're kids. That's the point

Counterpoint: Halloween.

Most kids are competent enough to manage their survival in such circumstances. Some are not. And sometimes it’s not the parents’ fault. But if a community is raising a generation too imbecilic to choose if they can eat chocolate, their life path is sort of already written.

Comment by obidee2 1 day ago

Halloween happens once a year, that’s a big reason it’s tolerated. Also, many parents do provide guidance/control over how much and how fast the candy is eaten. Because otherwise everyone suffers.

The better comparison is what if there was a bottomless bucket of candy in your 10 year olds room all the time.

Comment by zeroonetwothree 1 day ago

The evidence doesn’t seem to support your claim that cheeseburgers are as addicting as social media.

Maybe if you had picked gambling or alcohol…

Comment by SunshineTheCat 1 day ago

That has nothing to do with the point being made. The point was about to what level parents are responsible for things they allow their kids to do, regardless of how "addictive" it is. Particularly if they know it's harmful.

Comment by criddell 1 day ago

Your kids are (and should be) doing all kinds of things you have no idea about. It’s part of becoming an adult. I’m sure you modeled all the right behaviors, and provided every advantage you could. That helps, but you’re influence is waning and their friends influence is building and it’s all manipulated by the thousands of PhD’s working for TikTok and the other social media companies. You’re outgunned.

Comment by samrus 1 day ago

Regardless of how addictive it is? So the same argument applies to heroin? Shoukd heroin be legalized and allowed to be sold outside of schools?

Comment by the_fall 1 day ago

I think you might be underestimating the level of control that an average parent, especially a working parent, has over a teenage kid. Short of taking away devices, it's tough, especially if they're going through a phase of doing precisely the opposite of what you recommend / demand.

I'm not saying that parents don't have any responsibility, but it's about practicalities. If a teenager can easily buy smokes or alcohol, many will, no matter what the parents say. If you make the goods harder to buy, usage drops. So, shops / software vendors do have some responsibility for societal outcomes.

In a libertarian utopia, anything goes, but kids are... weird in that they often try to push the boundaries of their autonomy without always knowing the risk, and it's in our collective best interest not to let them go too far.

Comment by anonymars 1 day ago

> kids are... weird in that they often try to push the boundaries of their autonomy without always knowing the risk

I'd argue most adults are just oversized kids in a trenchcoat

Comment by dijksterhuis 1 day ago

*all

Comment by wasmainiac 1 day ago

If my kid gets addicted to fent I will get in shit, regardless that Purdue Pharma was found guilty. Point is Purdue Pharma is guilty for hooking people on an addicting substance.

Comment by brailsafe 1 day ago

I have doubts most overconsumers of fast food are just getting burgers... like effectively nobody. Is it more likely that people damage themselves with cheeseburgers or the soda that comes with them?

I tried to eat as many cheeseburgers as I could in one sitting (I easily eat double the amount of food of others in one sitting normally), and tapped out at 10 or something, which is impractical and gross, there's a physical limit unless you have certain conditions

If you only go to fast food once a week or less with your kid as a treat, I feel like you could probably exclude soda and fries and tell them to get as many burgers as they want, but they have to eat them all, and it would be more of a lesson than anything lol

Comment by lateforwork 1 day ago

China imposes strong restrictions on the Chinese version of TikTok, see here:

https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/03/08/1069527/china-ti...

Excerpts: Douyin [Chinese version of TikTok] introduced in-app parental controls, banned underage users from appearing in livestreams, and released a “teenager mode” that only shows whitelisted content, much like YouTube Kids. In 2019, Douyin limited users in teenager mode to 40 minutes per day, accessible only between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. Then, in 2021, it made the use of teenager mode mandatory for users under 14.

Comment by MrToadMan 1 day ago

What if while you were eating a cheeseburger, McDonald’s was magically replenishing that burger so that no matter how much you kept eating there was still some left. Moreover you had little control over the ratios of fat and sugar used to replenish it and they earned more the longer you spent eating it. Would you consider them harming you if they were prioritising stuffing it with ingredients that maximised the amount you ate and ignored sensible limits on sugar and fat?

Comment by AppleBananaPie 1 day ago

My personal vice is junk food. I wish they banned junk food. I'm not sure how the law would work but it would be objectively better for me as a human if they did.

(This is completely disregarding how practical such a ban would be)

Comment by lotsofpulp 1 day ago

A power law formula tax based on sugar/sat fat/total carbs per mass of food/drink should do the trick.

Or give everyone cheap daily GLP-1 pills.

Comment by AppleBananaPie 1 day ago

Sorry for the ignorance but does GLP-1 fix all the nutrition / hyper-processed components of the food or is the implication here someone's weight is (making up a number) 90% of the negative effects.

Thanks for the reply :)

Comment by lotsofpulp 1 day ago

Overconsumption is the root cause of the negative effects.

Comment by xboxnolifes 1 day ago

Rest in piece literally every food in existence that isn't just a slab of meat.

Comment by radicalethics 1 day ago

A drug is a drug is a drug is a drug.

America has never been able to successfully thwart drug proliferation. Porn, Video Games, Social Media, all substance-less drugs. It's up to you to keep your kid off Heroin and it's also up to you to keep them off those other things at addictive levels.

The thing is, keeping your kid away from things like Heroin takes a village (especially if Heroin is pervasive in the environment). The same is true for those other things. Adults have to enter the room at some point.

We've been needing a trillion-dollar class action lawsuit against social media companies. Long overdue.

Comment by b00ty4breakfast 1 day ago

>Should I be able to sue McDonald's if I let my kid eat 100 of them in one sitting?

If RJ Reynolds was handing out free cigarettes to children, even though the parent either consented to this or simply didn't know about it, would you consider RJ Reynolds' responsible for the adverse effects of children smoking?

Comment by ajam1507 1 day ago

If it was legal to hand out cigarettes to children and the parents consented I don't see how the company could be held liable. The state should not be doing the job of parents, and the judicial branch should not being doing the job of the legislative branch.

Comment by spiderice 1 day ago

That seems like circular logic.

You're saying parental responsibility should govern because TikTok is legal, while cigarettes require state intervention because they're illegal. But they are only illegal because we made them illegal (for minors). And isn't that exactly what is being discussed here?

For the sake of consistency, do you think cigarettes should be legal for minors if they have parental consent? If not, what is the distinction between TikTok and cigarettes that causes you to think the government should be involved in one but not the other?

Comment by ajam1507 23 hours ago

What I am saying is that if you want to regulate social media companies, pass a law, don't punish companies for breaking a law that isn't on the books.

The harm from cigarette use is direct, and there is no level of cigarette use that can be considered safe and healthy. Additionally, it would be very difficult for parents to prevent their children from buying them if they could walk into any convenience store and buy them. On the other side, social media use can be harmful, but it is possible to use social media in a healthy way.

I'm curious where it ends when you start banning kids from things that are only potentially addictive or harmful. Should parents be able to let their children watch TV, play video games, or have a phone or tablet?

What's the distinction between those things and social media for you?

Comment by NoPicklez 1 day ago

Food and nutritional science is something many of us know (to a degree) and has been taught often in high schools. That is partly why you know that cheeseburgers aren't great for you, because you know they're highly processed, high in salt and high in fat and that's written on the label.

But the knowledge of the harmful impacts of social media aren't as abundant, nor are they identified or classified.

McDonalds are required to list the nutritional information of what you're consuming. TV shows and movies have content ratings to know what you're going to be consuming. Social media like Tiktok does not have any form of rating to know what you're consuming or going to consume.

There is a lot of less rigour on short from content like Tiktok, in comparison with McDonalds.

Comment by nunez 1 day ago

The difference between social media and cheeseburgers here is that I don't NEED to physically go to McDonald's to find out if a business is closed or learn more about their work. (The number of businesses that only post operational updates, specials or samples of their work on Instagram is staggering. Google Maps isn't trustworthy; websites DEFINITELY aren't trustworthy either.)

Comment by biophysboy 1 day ago

> Should I be able to sue McDonalds if I let my kid eat 100 of them in one sitting?

There are other options for addressing social problems besides lawsuits. Other rich places in this world are not nearly as fat as us. I suspect environments also matter for social media addiction. We should investigate why!

Comment by direwolf20 1 day ago

It's actually because they have more lawsuits and more severe lawsuits, leading companies to be afraid of breaking the law so they don't, and then lawsuits decrease.

Lawsuits are the one official mechanism for righting wrongs. They're the only mechanism that the perpetrator of a wrong can't just choose to ignore.

Comment by biophysboy 1 day ago

I would like to prevent wrongs as well as right them.

Comment by direwolf20 1 day ago

Suing companies early and often prevents other companies from doing the same things because they don't want to get sued.

Comment by 1 day ago

Comment by wasmainiac 1 day ago

> I just don't really know where the line

It is developed to be as addictive like a drug, but it’s not even fun. Just stupid mind numbing content.gambling does the same thing, and many jurisdictions have outlawed it for minors.

Comment by 1 day ago

Comment by direwolf20 1 day ago

Yes, you should be able to recover damages from McDonald's if they made their food addictive on purpose.

Comment by NoPicklez 1 day ago

I don't know if I agree with that.

I don't know how to draw even a blurred line between I've made my burger taste better because I added salt to it, but has now make it more addictive as a result.

You could argue an Oreo has been developed to taste good such that you want to eat them again.

I understand your point and I agree to an extent but I don't know how you do that. Becoming addicted to things comes with a level of personal accountability, to a degree.

Comment by clipsy 1 day ago

> Should I be able to sue McDonalds if I let my kid eat 100 of them in one sitting?

Should you be able to sue a liquor store if they sell your kid a fifth of vodka?

Comment by sitzkrieg 1 day ago

it was sold so israel could have more control over the narratives visible. nothing to do with any real safety concerns

Comment by j45 1 day ago

The thing I really liked about Tiktok originally was the departure from the perfectionism of Instagram, and people being ok with participating in the dance moves and trends. It was pretty positive. The thing is once you have an engaged audience sometimes you might want to keep them captivated (and their attention farmed to resell ads to).

With that being said, I don't know if McDonalds is not a really usable comparison.

McDonalds is not an endless conveyor belt of food arriving in your hands 24/7 and beeping and buzzing you when it's not to learning how and what to put in front of you to keep eating endlessly until you can't eat anymore.

There's more useful studies that doomscrolling and shorts literally decrease brain size, increase depression, and lead to dopamine exhaustion.

Short Video players are digital slot machines. They seem to be designed to let people keep using it who might not be aware on how to build up defences, or of defences are needed. In a casino many of the things the games machines can and can't do are legislated by law. It might be surprising to learn how many of those things out right, similar to it, or unique to it can happen on a phone without circumstance. Casinos will also remind you to gamble responsibly, and be able to ban yourself if needed.

The line is really simple for kids - screens loaded with bright colors that are constantly changing with many layers of sounds from ages 1-5 pretty harmful at overriding their senses. Then, there's other content traps from there. The recent moves to schools that go screen free (or greatly reduce passive consumption) is critical. Putting a chromebook in front of a kid for 8 hours isn't always progress.

Comment by GBeastMode 8 hours ago

Casino laws protect the player, at least in reputable casinos, whereas short video players on your phone just pull you in with no safeguards, placing all the responsibility on the user

Comment by toomuchtodo 1 day ago

The US has executed people in international waters over the claim of fentanyl being trafficked into the country. Is Insta and TikTok as addictive as fentanyl? If so, does it warrant a similar response? I think a cheeseburger is not an equivalent analogy. Singapore also executes drug traffickers, for what it’s worth.

https://www.techpolicy.press/is-tiktok-digital-fentanyl/

https://www.foxnews.com/media/tiktok-is-chinas-digital-fenta...

> Certainly, some regard social media generally as addictive, and reckon TikTok is a particularly potent format. Anna Lembke, Professor of Psychiatry at Stanford University School of Medicine, chief of the Stanford Addiction Medicine Dual Diagnosis Clinic, and author of the book Dopamine Nation: Finding Balance In The Age of Abundance, referred to Tiktok as a "potent and addictive digital drug":

> I can’t speak to the surveillance piece mentioned in the article, but I can attest to the addictive nature of TikTok and other similar digital media. The human brain is wired to pay attention to novelty. One of the ways our brain gets us to pay attention to novel stimuli is by releasing dopamine, a reward neurotransmitter, in a part of the brain called the reward pathway. What TikTok does is combine a moving image, already highly reinforcing to the human brain, with the novelty of a very short video clip, to create a potent and addictive digital drug.

Comment by thinkingtoilet 1 day ago

I'm trying to read this with the best of intentions, but you're saying you really can not tell the difference social media and a cheeseburger in terms of access, addiction, and damage?

Comment by henryfjordan 1 day ago

Cheeseburgers are everywhere, are addictive to some, and eventually eating enough will kill you.

Put another way: If McDonalds sees I eat 5 cheeseburgers a day, at what point do they have to stop serving me for my own health? Do they need to step in at all?

If Facebook knows I'm scrolling 6 hours a day, at what point do they have to stop serving me?

Comment by SchemaLoad 1 day ago

Cheeseburgers are not everywhere. I'm sitting at my desk, social media is here but cheeseburgers are not. Social media is always with me other than in the shower. Cheeseburgers are not.

Comment by henryfjordan 1 day ago

I can get a cheeseburger delivered, or there's a dozen places within a 15 minute walk to get one. I can hardly leave the house without seeing an ad for one or some other fast food item on the side of a bus. I can't avoid being hungry, but I can leave my phone at home.

Sure it's a matter of degrees but I don't see a bright line between McDonald's and tiktok. Both want me hooked on their product. Both have harmful aspects. Both have customers they know are over-indulging. Why would only tiktok be liable for that?

Comment by SchemaLoad 1 day ago

If I had to walk for 15 minutes or pay a hefty delivery fee to access social media, my usage would be massively lower. If there was a cheeseburger in my hand all day every day I would be a lot fatter.

Comment by xboxnolifes 1 day ago

If people never felt full from food, food was always instantly available in your pocket, and food costed no money to obtain, I believe McDonalds and TikTok would be very equivalent. Likely McDonalds would even be far worse since people would probably be dying to it daily.

That's the bright line. The lack of any barrier to entry.

Comment by Mordisquitos 1 day ago

> Put another way: If McDonalds sees I eat 5 cheeseburgers a day, at what point do they have to stop serving me for my own health? Do they need to step in at all?

Is McDonald's adjusting the flavour and ingredients of each cheeseburger it serves you with the express purpose of encouraging you to order the next one as soon as possible?

Comment by henryfjordan 1 day ago

They are constantly evolving the menu and it's entirely data-driven, so yes? It's not down to the person level like tiktok but if they could, it would be.

Comment by mylies43 1 day ago

So compared to TikTok and algorithms the answer is no then? If they could I agree they would, but they can't target food on the same level that TikTok does.

Comment by Mordisquitos 1 day ago

How is the cheeseburger that you receive differently tailored to your own addiction than the cheeseburger that the following customer will receive is to theirs?

Comment by thinkingtoilet 1 day ago

A bar has a legal responsibility to stop serving people at some point, so this obligation is not unheard of.

Comment by SunshineTheCat 1 day ago

Yes, of course I understand the addictive difference. The point I'm making is: does parental decision making have any bearing on this, or can they knowingly allow their child to do something harmful and then sue because it turned out poorly.

Comment by afpx 1 day ago

How would you feel if some weird random strangers set up a free cookie hut outside the elementary school? Any kid can get as much free candy and cookies as they want as long as they go inside and don’t tell any adults.

Comment by iamflimflam1 1 day ago

I would say if the companies providing the service do so knowing it is harmful and cover that up then yes they can sue.

Comment by waterheater 1 day ago

> can they knowingly allow their child to do something harmful and then sue because it turned out poorly

That likely depends on how that "something" was publicly marketed to both parents and children based on the company's available information. Our laws historically regulate substances (and their delivery mechanisms) which may lead to addition or are very easy to misuse in a way which leads to permanent harm (see: virtually all mind-altering substances); even nicotine gum is age-restricted like tobacco products. Because nicotine is generally considered an addictive substance, it's regulated, but few reasonable people would argue that parents should be allowed to buy their children nicotine gum so their kids calm down.

Consider how, decades ago, the tobacco companies were implicated in suppressing research demonstrating that tobacco products are harmful to human health. The key here will be if ByteDance has done the same thing.

Also, to play off your point on cheeseburgers: remember the nutritional quality of one cheeseburger versus another will vary. If made with top-quality ingredients (minimally-processed ingredients, organic vegetables, grass-fed beef, etc.), a cheeseburger is actually quite nutritious. However, in a hypothetical situation where a fast-food chain was making false public claims about the composition of their cheeseburgers (e.g., lying about gluten-free buns or organic ingredient status), and someone is harmed as a consequence, the victim might have standing to sue the fast food chain.

Comment by thinkingtoilet 1 day ago

I think we would all agree that parents bear a lot of responsibility here. Also, if I think if we look at how we treat kids in other parts of society it's very clear it's a good thing when highly addictive things are kept away from them. It's a good thing cigarette companies can't advertise to children. It's a good thing serving children alcohol or allowing them to buy weed is illegal. And now that we have this new poison, the law hasn't quite caught up yet, but this is a poison, and it's being fed to children with a ferocity and sophistication that only modern technology can provide. A kid can't make a hamburger in their bedroom. They can sneak a phone in and use it. I think it's both. I shout from the roof tops to every parent who will listen to not buy their kid a smart phone. I also think we should hold companies accountable when the knowingly get children addicted to poison.

Comment by expedition32 1 day ago

Tech companies know exactly what they are doing. They deliberately sell crack to kids- some of the people who make money from it are here on HN so good luck with getting any honest discussion.

Comment by LoganDark 1 day ago

> Should I be able to sue McDonalds if I let my kid eat 100 of them in one sitting?

Should you be able to sue McDonald's if they delivered you unlimited cheeseburgers for free, said nothing of the dangers, and even encouraged you to eat more, and then you became obese/sick from it? Sure, it may have been your choice to accept/eat them, but you did so uninformed, and based on false premises, and the risks were hidden from you, or even explicitly downplayed.

That's what social media is. It's free delivery of unlimited cheeseburgers, but for your brain.

In the above example, you were tempted with something that seemed good, but that carried great risks, to generate business for another who knew of the risks, but either didn't tell you, or even lied to you. When the risks backfire on you -- the risks they knew about from the very start -- or even have already been backfiring on you for a while, I think it's absolutely fair to blame that business for knowingly tempting you into it, and that it's also absolutely fair to seek damages. Proving those damages is another matter, but I think it's absolutely fair to try.

Comment by jmcgough 1 day ago

Worse, people have a limit to how many cheeseburgers they can eat at once. You can spend all day on your phone.

Comment by popalchemist 1 day ago

Cheeseburgers did not come about with the intent to poison. Social media is deliberately weaponized.

Comment by GlacierFox 1 day ago

"Again, I get the danger here..."

Haha, wtf. You don't.

Comment by noitpmeder 1 day ago

This case reads like a single individual suing these companies

What is to stop other individuals from filing the same suit and expecting similar outcomes?

Comment by Andr2Andr 1 day ago

It is a bellwether trial, a test of sorts combining hundreds of similar cases. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellwether_trial

Comment by noitpmeder 1 day ago

So wouldn't the fact that settlements are pouring in literally prove other can do it too?

Comment by reenorap 1 day ago

This is the first of many lawsuits that was exactly the same.

Comment by WarmWash 1 day ago

Not much.

Class action suites suffer immensely from bad actors freeloading on the backs of people actually harmed. I have a friend who practices law in the area on some pretty high profile medical cases, it's a chronic problem trying to weed out people who were affected from people who shamelessly want money. Basically people playing victim to steal from actual victims, and even worse, the side doing the weeding is the side who originated the harm.

Comment by miltonlost 1 day ago

I hope nothing. Maybe if enough people rightfully sue, then these companies will be forced into going out of business since we can't put the executives away for the crimes.

Comment by boca_honey 1 day ago

That sounds like an excellent outcome. Also, I don't think executives should go to jail for something like this. Commercial social media going out of business and their executives paying enourmous fines is the best that could happen for the world IMO, but it is also extremely unlikely.

Comment by dankwizard 1 day ago

Not sure why poeple don't just put the phone down? We really are the most sheltered gentle generation. Oh no, this app is taking up my time, we need to BAN IT.

Comment by nunez 1 day ago

Not drinking or gambling works so well for alcoholics and gamblers. Who needs rehab anyway?

Comment by SirMaster 1 day ago

And are their laws about how much I can go gamble at the casino right now or how much I can go buy at a liquor store and drink tonight?

Pretty sure too much gambling and too much alcohol is worse than watching too many short videos. So how can we say that spending time on figuring out how to block people from watching too many short videos is a better use of our time and resources than limiting gambling and drinking.

Comment by flocciput 1 day ago

There are laws about the age you can be to gamble or drink, restrictions on the establishments where these things can occur, and you can have your license revoked for driving while under the influence, or be banned from a casino. Don't act like those are totally unrestricted activities.

Comment by SirMaster 1 day ago

There are also laws about the age you need to be to use social media platforms...

Comment by jajuuka 1 day ago

This isn't about the small group of people who lack self control. It's about the vast majority that can use something responsibly. Most people can consume alcohol and gamble without giving their lives to it.

Not to mention this presupposes that social media addiction is rampant. But there isn't a scientific consensus on that. This lawsuit reads like scaremongering of the past around television and comic books. Instead of regulating content or user privacy we get these dog and pony shows.

Comment by ajam1507 1 day ago

And yet we're talking about a case against social media companies and not a case against casinos or distillers.

Comment by nunez 1 day ago

Distinction without a difference. The social media companies re-use the playbooks these two industries practically invented. Yet social media doesn't have government-mandated surgeon general warnings or 24x7 support hotlines.

Comment by eigencoder 1 day ago

Yeah because casinos and distillers already have laws regulating their use

Comment by ajam1507 1 day ago

This isn't about regulation. This is about people bringing a lawsuit against social media companies for their addiction. Problem gamblers and alcoholics aren't suing the casinos and distilleries.

Comment by flumpcakes 1 day ago

That's not how addiction works. If you could "just stop" then it isn't really an addiction.

Comment by dmix 1 day ago

Huh, that's exactly the solution to addiction? Step 1 is always changing your behaviour patterns to break out of habits and avoid things that draw you into it.

Make your bedroom a phone-free zone, charge it in the living room overnight, use the built in parenting and screentime controls that every modern phone OS has, don't let your kids stare at the screen all day. Etc.

This isn't rocket science. Self control is one of the most important things you need to learn. It sucks and it's hard but it's basic life stuff.

The only difference with social media addiction vs drugs/gambling is that it's not socially ostracized like other addictions so people ignore it.

Comment by NoPicklez 1 day ago

I think we can all agree that the solution is to stop, but that it is difficult to do so.

I'm not addicted to alcohol or gambling, but I know that it takes significantly more willpower for those that are to just stop than it does for me to not have that chocolate bar at night.

There is a proportionality to it

Comment by 1 day ago

Comment by ajam1507 1 day ago

This is the lie that keeps people addicted. Plenty of people quit their very real addictions every day. If you imagine you're helplessly addicted, you will remain addicted.

Comment by Aerbil313 1 day ago

I believed that for years, I did CBT, changing beliefs, "just do it" et cetera and I was helpless still, went from one addiction to another. Turns out I had ADHD. My life was totally changed after medication.

You don't have infinite willpower. If humans had infinite willpower humanity would have worked itself to death long ago. There is a natural balance of willpower in your brain, it's called the dopaminergic system. If you have ADHD, you have much, much less willpower than a normal person because you literally lack the dopamine hormone in your prefrontal cortex. No amount of belief will magically create dopamine in your brain out of thin air.

Comment by aucisson_masque 1 day ago

Tell that to a drug user. It works the same way.

And when the app is developed purposely to make people addict, that’s an issue.

You can’t just blame the user when their chance to have a normal app usage have been rigged.

Comment by Aeglaecia 1 day ago

re adults it does fall to individual responsibility , re kids we can partially blame parents for not taking care of their kids properly , overall the enemy of our attention has quadrillions of dollars which is fairly difficult to fight against

Comment by davewritescode 1 day ago

Nice straw man.

Nobody is talking about banning anything, we’re talking specifically about holding social media companies accountable for marketing to children a product that is knowingly addictive and potentially harmful to their health.

Part of the issue with social media is that no reasonable parent lets their 12 year old watch porn or drink but Instagram and ticktock are on a lot more 12 year old’s phone’s than you realize. Social media has network effects and creates tremendous social pressure to not make your kid “different” when half the classroom is sharing TikToks.

I’m not conservative in the slightest but I see no reason to treat social media any differently than alcohol, tobacco or gambling. Available without restriction to adults but limited to children under a certain age.

Comment by card_zero 1 day ago

This stuff is still unclear to me. The addictive drugs, ones that punish a quitter chemically, are not mysterious, but gambling addiction certainly is. "Dopamine" won't work as an explanation - for instance I was once hooked on building a wooden table, which sucked up two months of my free time and lots of money, and damaged my thumbs, and no doubt I was driven by the dopamine rush of learning through the repetitive process of chiseling. But gambling is assumed to be a glitch, not a wholesome obsession. In what way does it differ? The addiction is very old, I'm sure there are accounts from the 1700s, and it doesn't even require a house to reel the gambler in - it could all be about informal games and wagers, still leading to huge debts. It's tempting to blame it on dumb ideas about luck and fate, but the dumb ideas involved could be varied and complex.

That's similar to dumb ideas involving social pressure. When people have a tendency to be dumb about a thing we use the law to restrict the thing, apparently. But this involves, in effect, an authoritative declaration of "that's dumb" by law. I feel personally threatened, then, in activities such as my woodwork, which might have been an equally dumb obsession! I know nobody's at all likely to regulate woodwork, but that's only because it's relatively unpopular. I could imagine a parallel universe where woodwork (portable somehow) becomes a trend that makes a young person feel socially relevant, and then it gets regulated. I think I disapprove of this interference with people's dumb notions.

Comment by Aerbil313 1 day ago

Congratulations! You have apparently won in life by successfully developing internal regulation during childhood and also won the genetic lottery by not having a disorder of the dopaminergic system like ADHD. Now please leave be the significant fraction of the population who don't have those privileges, thank you.

I've missed critical final exams and flights literally scrolling Instagram. Mental health disorders exist, alas.

Comment by 1 day ago

Comment by expedition32 1 day ago

Funny I wondered the same thing with opiates. I dislike taking even aspirin so why can't everyone be like me!

Comment by OGEnthusiast 1 day ago

Why is TikTok always singled out in these social media addiction lawsuits? Instagram and YouTube are just as guilty, if not more so.

Comment by publicdebates 1 day ago

TikTok's algorithm is significantly better and therefore more addictive. I'm speaking from personal experience, having spent about 12-14 hours a day on TikTok for probably 360 days during 2024. Getting banned from it was one of the best things that ever happened to me. Too bad it only happened in Jan 2025. Will never get that year back, or the mental health I lost from it. (I'm not going to sue, though I could definitely win such a suit.)

Comment by jader201 1 day ago

> having spent about 12-14 hours a day on TikTok for probably 360 days during 2024

That's a mind blowing statistic, and I'm sure this is much more common than we think.

This is why I hope we wake up and realize that social media is going to be the ruin of our society. I hope this trial is the beginning of the end of social media platforms that prey on addictive behaviors.

Comment by SchemaLoad 1 day ago

Sometimes when I notice friends drop off from attending things or talking in group chats, if it's because they have fallen in some pit of social media / internet addiction. I agree it's probably more common than we think because the people who have fallen in to this state are the least visible.

Comment by izend 1 day ago

"I'm speaking from personal experience, having spent about 12-14 hours a day on TikTok for probably 360 days during 2024"

My jaw is on the floor... Can you provide details of your usage, were you just going through video after video for 12-14 hours or were you involved in content production or something?

Comment by publicdebates 1 day ago

Scrolling videos, commenting, expanding my algorithm by searching for similar stuff to what I liked, sometimes watching lives, sometimes hosting lives or joining lives. Maybe about 70% scrolling videos and 28% lives and 2% creating.

I should mention that I was very financially successful due to TikTok. Around Christmas of 2023, my book got over 20M views and shot up to #122 on all Amazon books, until KDP just stopped offering it within a few hours. I wonder how high it would have gone.

But due to that success, I lost both drive and purpose. I had already made it, and it wasn't clear what else I could offer the world. So while I thought about it, I scrolled to pass the time. But that scrolling was endless and addictive. And I never made any progress on figuring out the question of what I'm good for.

Comment by mattmaroon 1 day ago

Why did KDP stop offering it?

Comment by publicdebates 1 day ago

KDP usually cuts off high volume sales at a certain point, in order to give other books a fair amount of copies to print on demand. Usually it takes a few weeks of sales, but I sold so many copies that evening, from a single 10M view video that someone posted, so they cut it off that night for two or three weeks I think.

Comment by mattmaroon 1 day ago

Since they make money on every sale I’m really confused by that. Why wouldn’t they just expand printing capacity?

In any case congrats that’s awesome. What was the book, if you don’t mind sharing?

Comment by publicdebates 23 hours ago

I don't know why they do that, but it's really the main (only?) drawback to KDP.

My guess is that they do expand, but only when genuinely needed for long-term. They probably keep a certain amount of blank books in stock, and ration them out to PoD books somewhat evenly, with established books getting higher priority.

This was the video that singlehandedly got me all those sales I mentioned earlier: https://www.tiktok.com/@alwayscandid/video/73180668430448755... ... honestly it's quite poetic how it all turned out. I did almost no work making a book, I made way more money than I ever deserved, I wasted all of it, and now I'm sleeping in my car. It's very fair, it's more than fair. It's generous.

Comment by mattmaroon 14 hours ago

Ha yeah I could see that. And at least you got a great story out of the deal.

I have made and squandered a few very small fortunes myself so, respect.

Comment by iberator 1 day ago

Those are not crazy numbers for unemployed people. If you want a real shocker: TikTok is EXTREMELY popular amongst 60+ men, consuming stuff like teenagers plus super naive...

Just check out hospitals or elderly shelter thing.

Comment by morleytj 1 day ago

This is wild, what were the effects like for you? I imagine your eyes and hands would start to see physical effects from that level of use for such a consistent time.

What sort of social changes did you notice after that period of time?

I've never used TikTok, but the techniques they employ sounds seriously addictive.

Comment by publicdebates 1 day ago

The main one is a deep sense of defeat. The app would keep me there longer than I want. I would waste money ordering doordash, or lose sleep, or get drunk, or all of the above. Each time, I'd feel like I set myself back a little too far. I'd try to ignore the feeling, but wouldn't know what to do. What's the default action? Keep scrolling. And of course I'd just keep missing more such personal deadlines. Then I'd feel more defeated, and keep scrolling. It just spirals further and further down, far past rock bottom. Maybe it's what advancing the Kola Superdeep Borehole felt like.

Comment by sethops1 1 day ago

I have... so many questions. Not the least of which is, why? I gave TikTok maybe 10 minutes of my time, once a year just to see what others are seeing. And each time, it was always meaningless junk. I'd uninstall the app after; it does nothing for me. Why did it captivate you?

Comment by criddell 1 day ago

I’m similar. I’ve installed the TikTok app a half a dozen times and it just doesn’t click for me.

YouTube I enjoy more, but I still don’t spend much time on it. I mostly go on there looking for something in particular and don’t spend much time scrolling. Their recommendations are terrible and creators chasing the algorithm is making every interesting corner round.

Instagram I like. I love to see updates from friends and family but that runs out quickly so I don’t end up spending much time there.

Facebook is good for their marketplace when I’m looking to buy something or give something away.

Mastodon is boring, X is offensive, posts on BlueSky and Threads feel fake and performative. LinkedIn is full of journeys and learnings and I’m not interested in either.

HN is the only social media site I visit with any kind of frequency.

Comment by iamflimflam1 1 day ago

Why does one person become addicted to gambling while another can visit a casino, try it once and then just walk away?

Comment by anonymars 1 day ago

Not 12-14 hours but the novelty-seeking of new stories and discussion topics is a compelling escape (especially since it'll just be "a few minutes" I think to myself) and then I end up getting drawn into conversations and seeing new thread responses I should respond to, both of which may result in going down additional rabbit holes in order to back up the response...

Oh shoot, we were talking about TikTok right?

Comment by boelboel 1 day ago

These short 'dopamine hits' are anywhere. As a kid I really loved reading encyclopedias, even read dictionaries for 'enjoyment'. Wikipedia was awful for me.

Nobody ever saw it as a bad thing though, many people even encouraged me. Looking back at it 90% what I read was absolutely useless besides some novelty and being useful for quizzes.

Wonder what I could've done with all the time I lost, probably changed my behaviour in general. Can't imagine how much tiktok changes these kids.

Comment by xuhu 1 day ago

You can get banned from TikTok ? That's horrible, how ? Can you provide detailed instructions please?

Comment by buellerbueller 1 day ago

Please, sue them. They are harming people, yourself included.

Comment by winwang 1 day ago

(in addition to other replies) I believe there was a study on brainrot where, acrosss a few different platforms, TikTok was significantly worse than e.g. Youtube. (sry, on mobile or I'd ref. hopefully later...)

Comment by davey48016 1 day ago

They are also defendants in the same lawsuit, but they have not settled.

Comment by mikestew 1 day ago

Oh, they’re coming for IG, too:

“IG is a drug”: Internal messages may doom Meta at social media addiction trial

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/01/tiktok-settles-h...

Comment by polshaw 1 day ago

(regardless of the fact Google is included in the suit;) Youtube is a different model I think. Yes you can burn time with it forever if you are bored, but it's not the relentless dopamine machine gun that IG and Tiktok deliver. (which is why YT tried to get in on that with shorts, but failed).

Comment by NoPicklez 1 day ago

Because TikTok basically popularitised short form content, which is considered a more addictive form that what instagram and youtube does outside of their reels and shorts.

Comment by direwolf20 1 day ago

Tiktok, Instagram and I think X are all getting sued at the same time.

Comment by pinnochio 1 day ago

"The defendants now include Meta - which owns Instagram and Facebook and YouTube parent Google. Snapchat settled with the plaintiff last week."

Comment by buellerbueller 1 day ago

TikTok is not being singled out in this trial; the plaintiff is suing all the Socials; TikTok is merely the one to have settled most recently:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/01/tiktok-settles-h...

Comment by reenorap 1 day ago

Did you read the article? Snapchat, Meta and Google are also defendants. Snapchat and now Tiktok have settled.

Comment by dylan604 1 day ago

It would be nice if we lived in a world where settlement money would not dissuade them from taking their case forward. I know that's the world of unicorns and rainbows though, and definitely not the world we live in.

Comment by taurath 1 day ago

It would be nice if we lived in a world where civil lawsuits were not the only way to gain any recompense from companies greed, as well.

The law protects companies but rarely binds them, and the law binds citizens but rarely protects them. This is the only recourse, in our land where wealth and power mean more than the rule of law.

Comment by tsoukase 1 day ago

Large social media (Tiktok, Instagram, Facebook) have made me (and the world?) a great favor and need a login to scroll through their feed. Resist having an account and you are mostly free. It's like in order to get depended on drugs, you give all your privacy to the pharm company.

Comment by penguin_booze 1 day ago

"Settling" should never be an option. When damaging behaviour comes to light, there should be no closure other than investigating and removing the underlying cause. Paying money doesn't make the crime go away.

Comment by chrisjj 1 day ago

It is a private suit. Settling should always be an option.

Comment by augusteo 1 day ago

The timing is interesting. TikTok settles right as jury selection begins, Snap settled last week. Meta and YouTube are the ones staying in.

I wonder if the settlement amounts will ever become public. The Big Tobacco comparison keeps coming up, but those settlements were massive and included ongoing payments. Hard to imagine social media companies agreeing to anything similar without admitting some level of harm.

As a parent of two kids (8 and 6), I think about this constantly. We limit screen time pretty aggressively, but it's getting harder as they get older. The "attention-grabbing design" part isn't some conspiracy theory. These apps are explicitly optimized for engagement. The question is whether that optimization crosses a legal line.

Curious how the trial plays out with Zuckerberg on the stand.

Comment by dylan604 1 day ago

> We limit screen time pretty aggressively, but it's getting harder as they get older.

Curious into what kind of example you as a parent are setting in limiting screen time for yourself. For me, it's easy as I'm an old fart that has had a longer time without devices than with one while also not participating in the socials. We now have parents that have had a device for the majority of their life having kids that will never know a time without devices. So this is an honest bit of curiosity at the risk of sounding judgemental.

Comment by boelboel 1 day ago

I think a major part of the difficulty is because kids (and arguably adults even more) are practically forced to use screens for schoolwork.

Can't really be without a phone when they need to meet up with friends either. Completely going against smartphones and screens could end up isolating them.

Comment by nicholast 1 day ago

I am less concerned about addiction than i am about introducing micro targeted foreign agendas into our nation’s cultural landscape.

Comment by codyb 1 day ago

I mean, why not be concerned about both lol? We can do two things at once I think, and both of those things sound fairly negative.

Comment by basilgohar 1 day ago

The elephant in the room of all of this is that TikTok was the social media platform that allowed for the genocide taking place in Palestine by Israel to reach audiences directly. All other major social media platforms (Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter) heavily censored this information or outright deplatformed and canceled accounts of prominent dissemination of information about the war crimes being committed by Israelis.

TikTok, outside of the US and Zionist-controlled sphere of influence, remained the one place for this information to be available widely far beyond what was possible on other platforms.

All the other platforms have the same concepts of algorithms and targeting and bubbles. TikTok was uniquely not under Western control, and thus, needed to be pressured to conform.

The significant shift in young people's opinions about Israel in recent years is heavily attributed to the unfiltered information about their ongoing genocide against the Palestinians that they could uniquely see on TikTok and must not be understated, especially in light of all the major shifts in news, media, and social media over the past few years as they grapple with the fallout of losing the narrative.

I don't deny that social media as a whole has many harms and negatives, but there's no action like this being taken against Meta, Google, or Twitter despite the exact same harms present, sometimes even more so, on their platforms. They're already in the same overall group that supports the narrative and have done so by self-censoring their platforms accordingly. TikTok didn't play ball and got trampled.

Comment by kurthr 1 day ago

I'm fully against censorship, and I don't want it covered up, but at some point profiting off of the suffering of others and distracting people with holocaust porn or influencer virtue signaling is self defeating. What did all of that social audience gain? Clicks, entertainment, dollars, while children died? That's disgusting.

And in the end is there anything of value left, any documentation of what happened, or how to prevent it from happening again? Nope. That thankless unprofitable work is done by others and ignored by the same consumers.

Comment by deaux 1 day ago

It gained a massive shift in thinking that would not have been possible without it. Tens of millions people now have very different opinions about the events and parties than they would've without it. In the long run, that matters.

If you think this is meaningless, take a look at countries like Saudi Arabia pouring tens of billions of dollars in trying to achieve the exact opposite - cultivating a positive opinion/view of the country among those in the West. They wouldn't be doing this if it didn't matter. The US hegemony has thrived largely on this kind of soft power. If the whole world (instead of just half the world) had already hated the US decades ago, it would've become nowhere near as powerful.

Comment by basilgohar 1 day ago

All media, newspapers, and social media networks do this. I'm not sure why you're raising this specifically in response to the fact I was stating TikTok was uniquely able to bring awareness to the issue of the genocide in Palestine.

Many people were completely unfamiliar with the plight of the Palestinians over the past 100 years and TikTok (and, to a much less degree, other platforms) brought the issue to their attention. Israel is no longer untouchable and many have recognized them for what they are now - the last remaining Western imperialist settler colony. This was not the case merely 4 years ago. The transformation is stark and real.

What can people do with that knowledge? That's up to them.

I don't really get the rest of your comment, unfortunately.

Comment by kurthr 1 day ago

Do they really have knowledge or do they just have "vibes"?

One could document how Israel became what it is and what actually happened, but we don't have that. We have feelings.

Comment by midlander 1 day ago

[dead]

Comment by poopooracoocoo 1 day ago

Plenty of things are addictive. I don't think this is one that should be intervened. I wish we had more personal responsibility today. America's meant to be the country of freedom, right?

Comment by jaimex2 1 day ago

Can anyone sue them for the same to get a payout?

Comment by buellerbueller 1 day ago

Scraped from unsealed court/discovery docs about the addictive potential of various social media platforms: https://techoversight.org/2026/01/25/top-report-mdl-jan-25/?...

Comment by alex1138 1 day ago

I think too much gets made of addiction in a soft sense and not enough in a hard sense

If I log off Facebook and it starts spamming me with fake notifications, it's addictive in a way that's more than just "Facebook provides a great service! I'm on it all the time! It's so addictive! :)"

If feeds were chronological and they didn't blatantly lie to your face, or you got messages on time (they like not sending it to you by email) it wouldn't be addictive in a lab rat style

(This is Facebook, not TikTok, but still. And yes, I know TT tries to be addictive on purpose)

Comment by DonHopkins 1 day ago

I'm addicted to pro-Release-the-Epstein-Files, anti-Trump, anti-ICE, and Innocent-Americans-Being-Shot-Dead-in-the-Streets-Then-Accussed-of-Being-Terrorists videos, and they just cut me off cold turkey, dammit!

TikTok blocks Epstein mentions and anti-Trump videos, users claim. Alleged censorship comes after investors loyal to Trump take over social media platform.

https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/tiktok-epstein-trump-cens...

>TikTok users in the US have reported being unable to write the word ‘Epstein’ in messages amid accusations that the social media platform is suppressing content critical of President Donald Trump.

>The issues come less than a week after TikTok’s Chinese owner, ByteDance, was forced to divest a majority stake in its US operations to a group of investors loyal to President Trump, who was a close associate with the late convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Comment by aaa_aaa 1 day ago

It is not about Trump. Think a little deeper.

Comment by DonHopkins 1 day ago

You may say that, but he always MAKES it about him, doesn't he?

Comment by johnnyanmac 1 day ago

It indirectly involves the trump administration due to the threats of bannimg it in the US last year, then delaying it until they could find an American buyer.

I don't think the recent censorship of US American policy is a coincidence when you consider these factors.

Comment by filoeleven 1 day ago

Remember: there was a TikTok ban that was signed into law and took effect on January 19, 2025 which said that it would be allowed back once it was owned by a US company.

Trump did not enforce the ban.

As soon as TikTok changed ownership last week, censorship of posts that are not in line with the Trump regime began happening.