• zerofk@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    This distinction — between “design” and “content” — sounds reasonable for about three seconds. Then you realize it falls apart completely.

    Bull fucking shit. This is not about platforms being held responsible for user content. This is about adding points and badges and achievements and all kinds of things designed to reward engagement with dopamine.

    The author’s example of all content being drying paint would absolutely be addictive if the platform added an achievement for watching 10 different colours. Or: Congratulations, you’ve watched paint dry for 100 hours! As a reward, you get a new fancy emote! THAT is what these platforms do, and that is what is addictive. And that is what they’ve been convicted for.

    Is not a loophole to get around section 230 as the author claims.

    • nickiwest@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      20 hours ago

      Let’s not forget the years of literal psychological experiments that Meta conducted on its users to find out exactly what factors led to higher engagement.

      This isn’t a simple message board. This is a highly-engineered, personalized content delivery system with the goal of serving as many ads as possible.