I suppose I am arguing that it is involuntary. Social media addiction is a real thing. "Stolen attention" seems to fit here. But I guess the line does get blurry. When a true heroin addict shoots up, is that completely voluntary or completely involuntary? Probably neither.
>The root cause is the choice people make, which we’ve established exists. If people want help, there are plenty of mitigations for social media, like alternative front ends.
So the root cause is not that these companies are being manipulative for financial gain, the cause is that users aren't choosing alternative front ends to social media (or some other mitigations). Hmm... Not sure I agree.
Yes, it is true users have some sort of agency or choice in the matter, but that doesn't mean these large companies aren't still doing the sneaky things that we know they are. Even you including the word "mitigation" in your response speaks to the fact that the problem is deeper than the users choice. Mitigation is secondary.
Also, I think this is a great discussion that is well worth having. The 'root cause' of all of this... (I tend to think it's just greed.)
> When a true heroin addict shoots up, is that completely voluntary or completely involuntary? Probably neither.
The heroin addict doesn't get to blame someone else for their choices; it's a bit like jumping from a building - it's not voluntary to be falling (i.e. being subject to gravity). You had a choice to not jump from the building.
The mitigation is to turn the parachute on your back on, so _continuing_ to be falling is voluntary.
So, in the moment, it may not be voluntary - but in the long term, it certainly is. And the _responsibility_, that most certainly lies with the user in this case.
> but that doesn't mean these large companies aren't still doing the sneaky things that we know they are
It's not like they're hiding anything from the user so it's not sneaky at all. The effects of social media are pretty public on the Internet.
And what are they doing, exactly? Responding to HTTP requests over the network and serving content as the user requests them via algorithms.
Not much different than any other addictive thing in life. Sure, you can try to compare the addictiveness, but it's still just a spectrum.
I suppose I am arguing that it is involuntary. Social media addiction is a real thing. "Stolen attention" seems to fit here. But I guess the line does get blurry. When a true heroin addict shoots up, is that completely voluntary or completely involuntary? Probably neither.
>The root cause is the choice people make, which we’ve established exists. If people want help, there are plenty of mitigations for social media, like alternative front ends.
So the root cause is not that these companies are being manipulative for financial gain, the cause is that users aren't choosing alternative front ends to social media (or some other mitigations). Hmm... Not sure I agree.
Yes, it is true users have some sort of agency or choice in the matter, but that doesn't mean these large companies aren't still doing the sneaky things that we know they are. Even you including the word "mitigation" in your response speaks to the fact that the problem is deeper than the users choice. Mitigation is secondary.
Also, I think this is a great discussion that is well worth having. The 'root cause' of all of this... (I tend to think it's just greed.)