It does feel like a double-edge sword. On the one hand great, social media companies should be regulated and legislated into behaving in a less exploitative way. (For everyone, not just minors,...
It does feel like a double-edge sword. On the one hand great, social media companies should be regulated and legislated into behaving in a less exploitative way. (For everyone, not just minors, ideally)
And on the other hand yea, this is another weapon for the groups lobbying for universal age verification.
I mean that's probably the entire reason the judgement was allowed. By allowed I mean the fact that Meta and Google didn't pour limitless resources into the legal battle including lobbying and...
I mean that's probably the entire reason the judgement was allowed.
By allowed I mean the fact that Meta and Google didn't pour limitless resources into the legal battle including lobbying and clandestine "donations" and "gifts" to prominent legal figures like they do with literally everything else they get taken to court over.
Good. Unless you make the negative externalities of businesses hurt them in the wallet, they have zero incentive to actually tackle them. Factories get fined when they destroy a town's drinking...
Good. Unless you make the negative externalities of businesses hurt them in the wallet, they have zero incentive to actually tackle them. Factories get fined when they destroy a town's drinking water, and social media get sued when they turn a blind eye to a child spending 16 continuous hours on Instagram.
What's the betting there will be a sudden flood of innovation in the field of identifying child users and addictive scrolling behaviour, now that each addict is a potential million-plus hole in their finances?
The more I think about this, the more I question if anything is really off-limits. Video games can be addicting, arguably they're designed that way. I recently just got pinged in a Discord server...
The more I think about this, the more I question if anything is really off-limits. Video games can be addicting, arguably they're designed that way. I recently just got pinged in a Discord server by a guy who got banned from Path of Exile and he is begging everyone in his server to help him because his life revolves around the game and that he might kill himself if they don't unban him. A guy who said he has a family and kids, he also said he spent 16 hours per day for 8 years straight of his life revolving around the game.
And it's not like he's a one-off necessarily, Path of Exile is a game known to draw lots of people in and garner significant play time. Is it not possible that the developers of that game are not liable for the addiction and destruction of the lives of the people who are playing that game that much?
I don't personally think it's the case, and I also question the legitimacy of this lawsuit against Meta/Youtube as well. Not that I'm against it either, I just genuinely don't know where culpability begins for these and how one is all that different from the other.
Well to be far, some of those extreme cases are cases of mental health issues. Honestly a huge step in the right direction in general would be to teach kids emotional intelligence in schools, and...
Well to be far, some of those extreme cases are cases of mental health issues.
Honestly a huge step in the right direction in general would be to teach kids emotional intelligence in schools, and have more access to mental health resources in general.
As someone who's worked through many mental health issues and still deals with them, but has worked hard to understand all the emotions and thoughts knocking around my head, it's insane to me how many grown adults I encounter with the emotional intelligence and self awareness of toddlers.
I think a lot of people don't understand how their brain works, so they just mindlessly do whatever gives them a hit of dopamine.
Anyways, I just realized that might only be marginally relevant to your point, but also felt it needed to be said.
The same can be said for the person in this lawsuit too. Facebook did nothing for me, maybe others got hooked on it, but it didn't do anything for me.*** Meanwhile, I was hooked on Halo and played...
Well to be far, some of those extreme cases are cases of mental health issues.
The same can be said for the person in this lawsuit too. Facebook did nothing for me, maybe others got hooked on it, but it didn't do anything for me.*** Meanwhile, I was hooked on Halo and played it a ton, and lots of other people couldn't give a rats ass about Halo. So why is their life more important than mine? Meaning, why is the protection of their mind from Facebook more important than the protection of my mind from Halo or other video games?
I'm being a bit obtuse in asking it that way, more so I'm trying to frame a different perspective on the matter, to think about it differently.
***Noteworthy of course that I wasn't a kid/teenager when Facebook came around, it was more Myspace back in my time.
I think it comes down to this: So in your example, those games aren't designed to be addictive first and foremost. Now if we started bringing loot box and gatcha games into the conversation, that...
I think it comes down to this:
Jurors found that Meta, which owns Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp, and Google, owner of YouTube, intentionally built addictive social media platforms that harmed the 20-year old's mental health.
So in your example, those games aren't designed to be addictive first and foremost. Now if we started bringing loot box and gatcha games into the conversation, that might be a different story. Those can be quite predatory as they hound you for in-game purchases, which give you the opportunity to roll the dice and maybe get something desirable out of it, aka gambling. That I would argue is addictive by design.
Edit: I would also argue the harm potential/result is different, as gaming addiction can lead to time loss and financial crisis, but social media addiction can lead to more self-image issues that become a negative spiral.
But everything is designed around drawing people in. I do think there is a strong case to be made that how well researched something is in terms of its addictiveness is a significant factor,...
But everything is designed around drawing people in. I do think there is a strong case to be made that how well researched something is in terms of its addictiveness is a significant factor, because it's at that point they know what they are doing, but choosing to remain ignorant of the consequences of your actions isn't exactly the greatest excuse either.
Think about music for example. The one thing that draws people in is called a "hook". In video games, there's also some concept of "core game loop" or something along those lines too, but still meaning some kind of hook. Something that pulls people in and keeps them in. Everything these days is all about vying for your attention. It's an arms race of 'hooks' pulling for everyone's attention and keeping their attention. Linear television programming predated Facebook and video games but did much the same thing. You can't really even have an entertainment business without a hook, because everyone else has them, that is what they're all competing against.
But if I look at Path of Exile for example, do I think they started that game with a team of researchers carefully telling them how to build it to draw people in and get them addicted? No. They've even stated their influence was Diablo II. Maybe Diablo II had a team of researchers that told them how to design the game that way, but I doubt it. But at this point, and for many years now, they've full well known that there are people like the one example I cited before that are addicted to their game, that play it an extreme amount of time. So even if they didn't design it initially with carefully executed precision to get people addicted, now they know it happens and what are they doing about it?
With regards to the edit:
I would also argue the harm potential/result is different, as gaming addiction can lead to time loss and financial crisis, but social media addiction can lead to more self-image issues that become a negative spiral.
I think gaming addiction can have the same issue, but it doesn't manifest in the exact same way. If all your time goes into a void, and you have a poor financial situation, what exactly is your self-image at that point? What's your identity? To everyone else, you're just some incel neckbeard loser.
As you noted above, gacha/lootboxes games are gambling, and gambling has really old roots in a way that more explicit/intentional behavior modification doesn't. I guess put another way, it feels...
Edit: I would also argue the harm potential/result is different, as gaming addiction can lead to time loss and financial crisis, but social media addiction can lead to more self-image issues that become a negative spiral.
As you noted above, gacha/lootboxes games are gambling, and gambling has really old roots in a way that more explicit/intentional behavior modification doesn't. I guess put another way, it feels like it might matter legally that the objective of gacha/lootboxes is to make you spend as much money on them as possible while the objective of these social media algorithms is to make you spend as much time on them as possible.
I think that's hardly the games fault in this scenario. The TFT community mostly does things that are a miniscule part of the game, the 1% of the 1% really, and completely focus all in on the...
I think that's hardly the games fault in this scenario. The TFT community mostly does things that are a miniscule part of the game, the 1% of the 1% really, and completely focus all in on the currency/trading market value for digital goods. Most of these people are just running the game on a 3rd monitor waiting on sales, not even playing it.
To me this guy seems most upset that his revenue stream could be drying up more so than him wanting to play the game.
I don't disagree that is likely a significant factor for him specifically, but if you look at the big picture of the game, there's reasons why someone like him was even in that position to begin...
To me this guy seems most upset that his revenue stream could be drying up more so than him wanting to play the game.
I don't disagree that is likely a significant factor for him specifically, but if you look at the big picture of the game, there's reasons why someone like him was even in that position to begin with. You say its 1% of the 1%, but I don't believe that, but I suppose it also depends on how you define the players of the game. Of the regular players of that game, I would say TFT is a greater percentage of players than you give it credit for. I was in that discord server and I'm not even a regular player of that game, I haven't even played it in awhile, but I was in there because of the few times I did play, on a few occasions I used it to get more out of the game than was available to do in other ways. There's also a reason that group has had an outsized influence on the PoE community as a whole and constantly was generating controversy and ending up in drama threads on reddit, because lots of users used it.
Given that it has been so long since I've played the game it's possible it's less relevant now than it was a few years ago, but that's not really pertinent anyhow. The point being that the game inspiring so many people to even desire and gravitate towards a service like TFT tells you how many people are into the game. The game design itself is built around people spending insane amounts of time on the game, because most of the content in the game you can't even interact with or achieve without playing it an insane amount of time. People who swarm to defend the game design against others who suggest feedback on changing the game further this to me. The game was very anti-QOL for the longest time, from what I've gathered it's improved over the past couple of years, but a lot of players who play the game as much as they do basically wanted the game to be a time sink because it let them get above everyone else. They don't want it to be easier to get Magebloods and various currency and what not that let you craft items in different ways, because then they wouldn't gain anything over everyone else who doesn't spend 10 hours a day on the game.
And the devs full well know this too. They have benefited greatly from the dedicated fan base who builds up tools and what not around the game over the years. Those 'addicted' people are huge boon to the success of the game.
This seems like a reasonable judgement but I assume it will be used to justify the age verification stuff that politicians have been pushing
It does feel like a double-edge sword. On the one hand great, social media companies should be regulated and legislated into behaving in a less exploitative way. (For everyone, not just minors, ideally)
And on the other hand yea, this is another weapon for the groups lobbying for universal age verification.
I mean that's probably the entire reason the judgement was allowed.
By allowed I mean the fact that Meta and Google didn't pour limitless resources into the legal battle including lobbying and clandestine "donations" and "gifts" to prominent legal figures like they do with literally everything else they get taken to court over.
Good. Unless you make the negative externalities of businesses hurt them in the wallet, they have zero incentive to actually tackle them. Factories get fined when they destroy a town's drinking water, and social media get sued when they turn a blind eye to a child spending 16 continuous hours on Instagram.
What's the betting there will be a sudden flood of innovation in the field of identifying child users and addictive scrolling behaviour, now that each addict is a potential million-plus hole in their finances?
The more I think about this, the more I question if anything is really off-limits. Video games can be addicting, arguably they're designed that way. I recently just got pinged in a Discord server by a guy who got banned from Path of Exile and he is begging everyone in his server to help him because his life revolves around the game and that he might kill himself if they don't unban him. A guy who said he has a family and kids, he also said he spent 16 hours per day for 8 years straight of his life revolving around the game.
And it's not like he's a one-off necessarily, Path of Exile is a game known to draw lots of people in and garner significant play time. Is it not possible that the developers of that game are not liable for the addiction and destruction of the lives of the people who are playing that game that much?
I don't personally think it's the case, and I also question the legitimacy of this lawsuit against Meta/Youtube as well. Not that I'm against it either, I just genuinely don't know where culpability begins for these and how one is all that different from the other.
Well to be far, some of those extreme cases are cases of mental health issues.
Honestly a huge step in the right direction in general would be to teach kids emotional intelligence in schools, and have more access to mental health resources in general.
As someone who's worked through many mental health issues and still deals with them, but has worked hard to understand all the emotions and thoughts knocking around my head, it's insane to me how many grown adults I encounter with the emotional intelligence and self awareness of toddlers.
I think a lot of people don't understand how their brain works, so they just mindlessly do whatever gives them a hit of dopamine.
Anyways, I just realized that might only be marginally relevant to your point, but also felt it needed to be said.
The same can be said for the person in this lawsuit too. Facebook did nothing for me, maybe others got hooked on it, but it didn't do anything for me.*** Meanwhile, I was hooked on Halo and played it a ton, and lots of other people couldn't give a rats ass about Halo. So why is their life more important than mine? Meaning, why is the protection of their mind from Facebook more important than the protection of my mind from Halo or other video games?
I'm being a bit obtuse in asking it that way, more so I'm trying to frame a different perspective on the matter, to think about it differently.
***Noteworthy of course that I wasn't a kid/teenager when Facebook came around, it was more Myspace back in my time.
I think it comes down to this:
So in your example, those games aren't designed to be addictive first and foremost. Now if we started bringing loot box and gatcha games into the conversation, that might be a different story. Those can be quite predatory as they hound you for in-game purchases, which give you the opportunity to roll the dice and maybe get something desirable out of it, aka gambling. That I would argue is addictive by design.
Edit: I would also argue the harm potential/result is different, as gaming addiction can lead to time loss and financial crisis, but social media addiction can lead to more self-image issues that become a negative spiral.
But everything is designed around drawing people in. I do think there is a strong case to be made that how well researched something is in terms of its addictiveness is a significant factor, because it's at that point they know what they are doing, but choosing to remain ignorant of the consequences of your actions isn't exactly the greatest excuse either.
Think about music for example. The one thing that draws people in is called a "hook". In video games, there's also some concept of "core game loop" or something along those lines too, but still meaning some kind of hook. Something that pulls people in and keeps them in. Everything these days is all about vying for your attention. It's an arms race of 'hooks' pulling for everyone's attention and keeping their attention. Linear television programming predated Facebook and video games but did much the same thing. You can't really even have an entertainment business without a hook, because everyone else has them, that is what they're all competing against.
But if I look at Path of Exile for example, do I think they started that game with a team of researchers carefully telling them how to build it to draw people in and get them addicted? No. They've even stated their influence was Diablo II. Maybe Diablo II had a team of researchers that told them how to design the game that way, but I doubt it. But at this point, and for many years now, they've full well known that there are people like the one example I cited before that are addicted to their game, that play it an extreme amount of time. So even if they didn't design it initially with carefully executed precision to get people addicted, now they know it happens and what are they doing about it?
With regards to the edit:
I think gaming addiction can have the same issue, but it doesn't manifest in the exact same way. If all your time goes into a void, and you have a poor financial situation, what exactly is your self-image at that point? What's your identity? To everyone else, you're just some incel neckbeard loser.
As you noted above, gacha/lootboxes games are gambling, and gambling has really old roots in a way that more explicit/intentional behavior modification doesn't. I guess put another way, it feels like it might matter legally that the objective of gacha/lootboxes is to make you spend as much money on them as possible while the objective of these social media algorithms is to make you spend as much time on them as possible.
I think that's hardly the games fault in this scenario. The TFT community mostly does things that are a miniscule part of the game, the 1% of the 1% really, and completely focus all in on the currency/trading market value for digital goods. Most of these people are just running the game on a 3rd monitor waiting on sales, not even playing it.
To me this guy seems most upset that his revenue stream could be drying up more so than him wanting to play the game.
I don't disagree that is likely a significant factor for him specifically, but if you look at the big picture of the game, there's reasons why someone like him was even in that position to begin with. You say its 1% of the 1%, but I don't believe that, but I suppose it also depends on how you define the players of the game. Of the regular players of that game, I would say TFT is a greater percentage of players than you give it credit for. I was in that discord server and I'm not even a regular player of that game, I haven't even played it in awhile, but I was in there because of the few times I did play, on a few occasions I used it to get more out of the game than was available to do in other ways. There's also a reason that group has had an outsized influence on the PoE community as a whole and constantly was generating controversy and ending up in drama threads on reddit, because lots of users used it.
Given that it has been so long since I've played the game it's possible it's less relevant now than it was a few years ago, but that's not really pertinent anyhow. The point being that the game inspiring so many people to even desire and gravitate towards a service like TFT tells you how many people are into the game. The game design itself is built around people spending insane amounts of time on the game, because most of the content in the game you can't even interact with or achieve without playing it an insane amount of time. People who swarm to defend the game design against others who suggest feedback on changing the game further this to me. The game was very anti-QOL for the longest time, from what I've gathered it's improved over the past couple of years, but a lot of players who play the game as much as they do basically wanted the game to be a time sink because it let them get above everyone else. They don't want it to be easier to get Magebloods and various currency and what not that let you craft items in different ways, because then they wouldn't gain anything over everyone else who doesn't spend 10 hours a day on the game.
And the devs full well know this too. They have benefited greatly from the dedicated fan base who builds up tools and what not around the game over the years. Those 'addicted' people are huge boon to the success of the game.