Can we remind ourselves that these platforms, games, websites- whatever form or shape - employ busloads of psychologists and every dirty trick in the book (developed by, among other things, the ad industry) to get people hooked on the product/service?
> Even the Hippocratic Oath is not as legally binding as we might want it to be.
That's largely because "do no harm" is a really fuzzy concept in a field where treatments like chemotherapy that put patients through absolute hell without any guarantee of remission or even comfort.
Other licensed professionals like professional engineers and lawyers have ethical codes with quite a bit more legal heft.
Not that the Hippocratic Oath is required everywhere or even consistently used.
> Contrary to popular belief, the Hippocratic Oath is not required by most modern medical schools, although some have adopted modern versions[1] that suit many in the profession in the 21st century.
It is legally binding, it's just implemented via professional association rather than a regulatory framework. The US government even sues the NSPE over antitrust violations because of that code of ethics.
See National Society of Professional Engineers v. United States 435 US 679 [1]
I mean, it might not be legally binding, but violating it will get you disbarred afaik. And if you are disbarred, you cannot legally practice law, so it is kinda legally binding, just not directly.
I sometimes wonder why no social networking or social media has really ever appealed to me. And conversely what makes it seemingly so appealing to others.
I mean sure I use this website, so I suppose that counts to some degree, but not very many hours per week and I use it to keep up on tech news and post occasional comments.
>I mean sure I use this website, so I suppose that counts to some degree
This is a comparison I see a lot, but I really disagree with it. The structure of this kind of website is very very different from modern social media. I will say, though, that I don't have it anymore so I'm going off of how it was in 2018. I'd imagine that the constant feedback mechanisms have gotten worse, and continue to play off of people's anxiety and sense of self in the worst possible ways.
Social media is appealing because it provides a means of networking, communication and entertainment that allows people to share and consume media in multiple forms. For instance my mother uses Facebook to keep up with her COPD support group and chat with relatives. Twitter used to be a useful place to follow people in specific fields, I still follow artists and game developers there who haven't moved to Mastodon.
Asking what's appealing about social media is like asking what's appealing about telephones. Social media has taken the place of a primary communication appliance for many people. It's useful, despite its many downsides. I suspect most people don't have a deeply pathological relationship with it, either.
> Twitter used to be a useful place to follow people in specific fields, I still follow artists and game developers there who haven't moved to Mastodon.
I managed to stay on Mastodon by using bird.makeup to follow people who aren't in the Fediverse. Hopefully when BlueSky opens up someone will build a bridge between it and AP so we can follow them as well!
Oh for the love of - no. They do not. As a PhD in psychology I am completely unhireable at these places except maybe as a data scientist because I can do basic statistics. This is completely baseless conspiracy thinking. The people doing the UI and UX work at these companies maybe took a couple courses in basic intro psych and marketing.
