AndySpill
Well-Known Member
- First Name
- Andy
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2023
- Threads
- 72
- Messages
- 1,659
- Reaction score
- 1,273
- Location
- Pittsburgh
- Vehicle(s)
- 2018 JL Sahara
- Thread starter
- #1
In one of two major court cases this past week, Facebook was ordered to pay $3 million to a teen found to have been subject to mental distress from the platform's knowingly designed additive features in its software.
I have issue with this, and by the way, hardly do I hold Facebook harmless here, but rather seek to 1) properly assign blame and correctly assess 2) just how much harm such features cause.
Clearly addiction isn't binary. Some people are not only more inclined to addiction, and certain addictions than others, but certain things are more addictive than others. Subject 100 people repeatedly to Heroin, recognized as widely addictive, and assume that they'll all need 3rd party help to wean off it, complete with withdrawal symptoms. And yes, I get that we're dealing with children here, not adults. But I'm pretty sure we can't same the same of our craving of the pie from our favorite pizza joint although some might disagree.
And perhaps equally important is the choices of the user. Internet or substance alike, 50 years I might have sided in court with a plaintiff who developed cancer consistent with tobacco use. But today? It's common knowledge that cigarettes are addictive and harmful. Said with no lack of disdain for corporate tobacco, we want freedom on choice but seek to assign blame for the choices we make with full knowledge of their potential side effects?
For the all deliberate steps Facebook took to hook users, many teens don't become addicted to the platform. Can we blame Facebook for wanting to improve traffic to their product? Should we blame the bakery which makes delicious cakes for our heart disease arising from excessive consumption of their product?
If Facebook said, “kids, run, go do this,” and 'this' was experimenting with cyanide, sure, 100% I'd blame Facebook.
Here I'm not so sure. What say you?
And by corollary if you follow wrong advice on the forum for regearing is that anyone's fault but yours, or better stated, is that the forum's fault?
I have issue with this, and by the way, hardly do I hold Facebook harmless here, but rather seek to 1) properly assign blame and correctly assess 2) just how much harm such features cause.
Clearly addiction isn't binary. Some people are not only more inclined to addiction, and certain addictions than others, but certain things are more addictive than others. Subject 100 people repeatedly to Heroin, recognized as widely addictive, and assume that they'll all need 3rd party help to wean off it, complete with withdrawal symptoms. And yes, I get that we're dealing with children here, not adults. But I'm pretty sure we can't same the same of our craving of the pie from our favorite pizza joint although some might disagree.
And perhaps equally important is the choices of the user. Internet or substance alike, 50 years I might have sided in court with a plaintiff who developed cancer consistent with tobacco use. But today? It's common knowledge that cigarettes are addictive and harmful. Said with no lack of disdain for corporate tobacco, we want freedom on choice but seek to assign blame for the choices we make with full knowledge of their potential side effects?
For the all deliberate steps Facebook took to hook users, many teens don't become addicted to the platform. Can we blame Facebook for wanting to improve traffic to their product? Should we blame the bakery which makes delicious cakes for our heart disease arising from excessive consumption of their product?
If Facebook said, “kids, run, go do this,” and 'this' was experimenting with cyanide, sure, 100% I'd blame Facebook.
Here I'm not so sure. What say you?
And by corollary if you follow wrong advice on the forum for regearing is that anyone's fault but yours, or better stated, is that the forum's fault?
Sponsored
