I think there’s a tangible difference between entertaining and addicting, with a detriment to the consumer.
If you think about something like slot machines, and gambling addiction, many people are addicted, losing money, and can’t stop:
Arguably, addiction is bad and should be regulated (see: cigarettes).
The detriment instead of money (in this particular case) was teens’ mental health, and from what I can recall, the algorithm was explicitly predatory and would serve them up advertisements for things when it detected low or turbulent emotional states, encouraging them to keep using the application and feeling shitty about themselves.
It still just can’t work as a baseline. How are you supposed to quantify “too entertaining”? It’s a ghost concept that the court is just deciding on the fly with no basis or precedent that can be set. Like, why YouTube and not Fortnite? Being too entertaining shouldn’t be a crime.
Did you read any of the articles? Its not about too entertaining, young girls were being solicited for sex, and the ads targeting them are vicious. The platform allows others to prey on young people, and facebook allowed it for profit.
This is more similar to the roblox case, it has nothing to do with how entertaining something is.
I think there’s a tangible difference between entertaining and addicting, with a detriment to the consumer.
If you think about something like slot machines, and gambling addiction, many people are addicted, losing money, and can’t stop:
Arguably, addiction is bad and should be regulated (see: cigarettes).
The detriment instead of money (in this particular case) was teens’ mental health, and from what I can recall, the algorithm was explicitly predatory and would serve them up advertisements for things when it detected low or turbulent emotional states, encouraging them to keep using the application and feeling shitty about themselves.
Meta was given a slap on the wrist, it’s a fine of $300M ($0.3B) on a company sitting on $217.24 billion.
I doubt they’ll change their behavior but legal outcomes are about setting precedents.
It still just can’t work as a baseline. How are you supposed to quantify “too entertaining”? It’s a ghost concept that the court is just deciding on the fly with no basis or precedent that can be set. Like, why YouTube and not Fortnite? Being too entertaining shouldn’t be a crime.
Did you read any of the articles? Its not about too entertaining, young girls were being solicited for sex, and the ads targeting them are vicious. The platform allows others to prey on young people, and facebook allowed it for profit.
This is more similar to the roblox case, it has nothing to do with how entertaining something is.