[splitwheel]

There is science driving the design of products to make them addictive.

For teen girls - the apps are designed to scare them about being socially excluded. For teen boys - the apps are designed to fill their need to master skills.

The issue that the government has to deal with with app addictions is self harm attempts by girls (e.g. emergency room visits) and underperformance of boys in the real world (e.g. low college enrollment).

If you are trying to make an addictive app, this is a good reference to understand the science: https://www.amazon.com/Hooked-How-Build-Habit-Forming-Produc...

BJ Fogg is a good reference too: https://www.bjfogg.com

[EGreg]

There's a good article about how to fix it: https://www.laweekly.com/restoring-healthy-communities/

(Disclaimer: it talks about my work)

[anthk]

>For teen girls - the apps are designed to scare them about being socially excluded.

Any female magazine ever.

[wussboy]

Agreed, but I do think the effects of the addiction are radically different between a social media app and a magazine.

[antiviral]

Yes, and moreover, the important point in the article that some people seem to be forgetting is that Meta itself believed that certain design choices led to addictive products and worked to incorporate those designs despite harmful consequences to children and adults alike. It matter much less that anyone on the outside believes this or not.

Additionally, saying that children and adults should be wholly responsible for this is like saying the Chinese and not the British should be responsible for their opium addiction (see Opium War) and that homeless in San Francisco should be responsible for their Fentanyl addition. They can always just say no, right?

I worry that if nothing is done, this will only get worse, addiction will become the norm, of one sort or another, and you can just look at history of the Opium War to see where this leads.

[jocaal]

> Additionally, saying that children and adults should be wholly responsible for this is like saying the Chinese and not the British should be responsible for their opium addiction (see Opium War) and that homeless in San Francisco should be responsible for their Fentanyl addition. They can always just say no, right?

This is why I find it funny that FAANG people call themselves software engineers. In the real world, an engineer is wholly responsible for the projects they bring into the world. Imagine a bridge collapses and someone dies. Then in court the family is told that the person was responsable to research bridge designs before using it. These social media companies are just run by money hungry a-holes.

[superkuh]

This is what happens when you start using the word "addiction" outside of contexts where it applies. You get these kinds of invalid and dangerous arguments comparing actually addictive substances that hijack incentive salience directly on the physiological level to a screen and speakers that most definitely do not.

[superkuh]

There is a for-profit pseudo-science, much like the anti-gay camps of the 1980s, which is spreading unsupported claims using words like "addiction" in contexts where the medical regulatory bodies and journal literature don't believe the concept applies. These people prey on the irrational behavior of parents scared for their children and try to convince them that things like addiction to a website on a screen is possible. They write popular press books, go on talk shows, etc, to keep the meme (and their funding sources) alive. But the DSM and ICD just don't support it. Neither do the recent literature; at least if you stay out of the pay for publish 3rd tier "journals" these scammers submit their "science" to. And yes, it even applies to media personalities associated with Stanford.

[erellsworth]

>> These people prey on the irrational behavior of parents scared for their children and try to convince them that things like addiction to a website on a screen is possible.

Saying that addiction to a website isn't possible is unfounded.

People get addicted to online gambling. That's just "a website on a screen." It's clearly possible and it clearly happens.

[dotandgtfo]

What are you stating? I genuinely don't get the point. Are you saying that screens/apps don't cause addiction?

[verisimi]

My concern would be more that it is entraining a sort of consumerist outlook, where corporate values are instilled into a child, rather than addiction. That has always been the case of course, with education preparing the new generation for the workforce. But the use of technology disintermediates the parent from that process.

[4death4]

Doesn't BJ Fogg work at Stanford?