Can the AI haters give it a rest already?
-
@quanin Agreed on all points. I believe social media can harm children, but oppose the means being advanced to do it.
@JustinMac84 Everything is harmful if done in the wrong way, including this conversation. There's a reason the expression is, "everything in moderation, including moderation". We don't need to be actively talking about the harms of that everything in every single conversation about or having to do with that everything. We know. We see the same headlines you do. It's up to the social media companies to help people use them the right way, because government won't do that without also being harmful at worst and ineffective at best. We've been trying to protect the children since COPPA. How're we doing?
-
@JustinMac84 Everything is harmful if done in the wrong way, including this conversation. There's a reason the expression is, "everything in moderation, including moderation". We don't need to be actively talking about the harms of that everything in every single conversation about or having to do with that everything. We know. We see the same headlines you do. It's up to the social media companies to help people use them the right way, because government won't do that without also being harmful at worst and ineffective at best. We've been trying to protect the children since COPPA. How're we doing?
@quanin As a parent, I'd say it's up to the parents. While I deplore social media companies building their platform to be addictive etc, I believe it is my responsibility as a father to keep my child safe. Social media can't bare the responsibility for every bad post and bad actor.
-
@quanin As a parent, I'd say it's up to the parents. While I deplore social media companies building their platform to be addictive etc, I believe it is my responsibility as a father to keep my child safe. Social media can't bare the responsibility for every bad post and bad actor.
@JustinMac84 See, that's mostly reasonable. Social media doesn't bare any of the responsibility for a bad actor, short of if that bad actor has done something that warrants their removal (as defined by the social media company's policies, not by your feelings as a parent). Because a lot of the problem is there's a lot of shit we, as a society, don't talk about. So kids end up talking about it to people on social media. Eating disorders? We don't talk about that with people. So into the local Facebook group they go. Anxiety? Not in my house. So onto TikTok they go. Your son might actually be your daughter? Not here. So onto WhatsApp they go. And the problem with saying outright "children are no longer allowed on social media" is now, they don't even have that as an option. So, they can't talk about it at home because that's not talked about here, and they can't talk about it on social media because it's illegal. And, I mean, you were a kid once too. You know damn well the best way to guarantee your kid does someting is to make doing that something as difficult as possible.
-
@JustinMac84 See, that's mostly reasonable. Social media doesn't bare any of the responsibility for a bad actor, short of if that bad actor has done something that warrants their removal (as defined by the social media company's policies, not by your feelings as a parent). Because a lot of the problem is there's a lot of shit we, as a society, don't talk about. So kids end up talking about it to people on social media. Eating disorders? We don't talk about that with people. So into the local Facebook group they go. Anxiety? Not in my house. So onto TikTok they go. Your son might actually be your daughter? Not here. So onto WhatsApp they go. And the problem with saying outright "children are no longer allowed on social media" is now, they don't even have that as an option. So, they can't talk about it at home because that's not talked about here, and they can't talk about it on social media because it's illegal. And, I mean, you were a kid once too. You know damn well the best way to guarantee your kid does someting is to make doing that something as difficult as possible.
@quanin See I think we agree more than we disagree. I was in favour of an outright under 16s social media ban. Then I listened to NPR's Consider this and a report on the NSPCC's position that the approach should be more nuanced and I agree. there are no easy answers around social media other than that platforms should stop harmful attention-grabbing methods. I am opposed to age verification and VPN clampdown to achieve any of it though.
-
@quanin See I think we agree more than we disagree. I was in favour of an outright under 16s social media ban. Then I listened to NPR's Consider this and a report on the NSPCC's position that the approach should be more nuanced and I agree. there are no easy answers around social media other than that platforms should stop harmful attention-grabbing methods. I am opposed to age verification and VPN clampdown to achieve any of it though.
@JustinMac84 And see, I think we need to take about 6 steps back in much the same way with AI. Yes, these are problems. But screaming about them being problems only results in governments coming up with solutions that are as helpful as their age verification measures - some of which, as it happens, also use AI. The only thing that I, as a user can do, to contribute to fixing the problems with AI directly is... well, never using any AI service. And at that point, the benefits I may or may not be extracting from AI are irrelevant because I want to solve those concerns. That, right there? That's how your position reads.
-
@JustinMac84 And see, I think we need to take about 6 steps back in much the same way with AI. Yes, these are problems. But screaming about them being problems only results in governments coming up with solutions that are as helpful as their age verification measures - some of which, as it happens, also use AI. The only thing that I, as a user can do, to contribute to fixing the problems with AI directly is... well, never using any AI service. And at that point, the benefits I may or may not be extracting from AI are irrelevant because I want to solve those concerns. That, right there? That's how your position reads.
@quanin I didn't understand the last of what you said. My position reads how?
-
@quanin I didn't understand the last of what you said. My position reads how?
@JustinMac84 Your position reads like this: "These concerns with AI exist, therefore, stop using AI". And we should either agree with those concerns and thus stop using AI, or justify why the benefits we're receiving outweigh those concerns. Because if you, as a user, want to directly contribute to addressing those concerns, not using AI is your only option. And at that point, any benefits you're extracting from AI do not matter.
-
@JustinMac84 Your position reads like this: "These concerns with AI exist, therefore, stop using AI". And we should either agree with those concerns and thus stop using AI, or justify why the benefits we're receiving outweigh those concerns. Because if you, as a user, want to directly contribute to addressing those concerns, not using AI is your only option. And at that point, any benefits you're extracting from AI do not matter.
@quanin I would modify from that assessment to specify AI in its current implementation and, rather than stop using, I would say don't use or use as little as possible. Rather than saying the benefits to you don't matter, I would say the benefits are outweighed by the costs, both to you personally and to society. Otherwise, I would say that's pretty accurate.
-
@quanin I would modify from that assessment to specify AI in its current implementation and, rather than stop using, I would say don't use or use as little as possible. Rather than saying the benefits to you don't matter, I would say the benefits are outweighed by the costs, both to you personally and to society. Otherwise, I would say that's pretty accurate.
@JustinMac84 "stop using" and "don't use" are basically the same thing, Justin. What you're saying is escentially, if you haven't started, don't, and if you have, stop. If you use AI, then those concerns are not a priority. That is an absolutist position, and that's what turns people off.
-
@quanin I would modify from that assessment to specify AI in its current implementation and, rather than stop using, I would say don't use or use as little as possible. Rather than saying the benefits to you don't matter, I would say the benefits are outweighed by the costs, both to you personally and to society. Otherwise, I would say that's pretty accurate.
@quanin I would also amplify that position to say that the jaenie is out of the bottle now. We're stuck with it. Personally, I wish we weren't, but, since we are, I would argue it's our responsibility, both individually at the user level and societally, to use it in as ethical, considerate and environmentally friendly way as possible.
-
@JustinMac84 "stop using" and "don't use" are basically the same thing, Justin. What you're saying is escentially, if you haven't started, don't, and if you have, stop. If you use AI, then those concerns are not a priority. That is an absolutist position, and that's what turns people off.
@quanin The crucial difference I was trying to get across is that, if you have to use it, use it as little as possible. To me that is different from don't use, at all,ever. It acknowledges that there may be a need for use, but that it would be in everyone's interests, except perhaps the people pushing the tech, if that use was heavily moderated. Perhaps it is an absolutist, or virtually absolutist position. I'm not seeing a practicable 3rd way atm.
-
@JustinMac84 "stop using" and "don't use" are basically the same thing, Justin. What you're saying is escentially, if you haven't started, don't, and if you have, stop. If you use AI, then those concerns are not a priority. That is an absolutist position, and that's what turns people off.
@quanin With all the info I have that I have alluded to here, knowing that the same companies pushing AI have deliberately and knowingly made all the rest of their stuff addictive and they don't want AI regulated at all, hence Meta's spending 65 mil to endorse AI-friendly politicians, to me, saying a little AI is fine, is like saying you'll be fine if you only do smack occasionally. To be clear, I neither like nor want to have that view and would love to be wrong.
-
@quanin With all the info I have that I have alluded to here, knowing that the same companies pushing AI have deliberately and knowingly made all the rest of their stuff addictive and they don't want AI regulated at all, hence Meta's spending 65 mil to endorse AI-friendly politicians, to me, saying a little AI is fine, is like saying you'll be fine if you only do smack occasionally. To be clear, I neither like nor want to have that view and would love to be wrong.
@JustinMac84 Do we know that, though? Or are we just telling ourselves that? https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/29/the-social-media-addiction-narrative-may-be-more-harmful-than-social-media-itself/
-
@JustinMac84 Do we know that, though? Or are we just telling ourselves that? https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/29/the-social-media-addiction-narrative-may-be-more-harmful-than-social-media-itself/
@quanin Execs have gone on record to say that they know they're making stuff addictive. One such was quoted in "Screen Time Stand-off" a book I am currently reading. Internal Ticktock memos were cited in the recent case against them by the US wanting to shut them down.
-
@quanin With all the info I have that I have alluded to here, knowing that the same companies pushing AI have deliberately and knowingly made all the rest of their stuff addictive and they don't want AI regulated at all, hence Meta's spending 65 mil to endorse AI-friendly politicians, to me, saying a little AI is fine, is like saying you'll be fine if you only do smack occasionally. To be clear, I neither like nor want to have that view and would love to be wrong.
@quanin Which brings me back to my OP in this thread suggesting that a more constructive way forward might be to allay the substantial concerns so that a non absolutist position might emerge, rather than suggest that those considerably alarmed with multiple, independent good reasons to be so just pipe down and let everyone else get on with it. If it is possible, I am eager to be shown what I'm missing, if not, I see no other alternative than that I'm right.
-
@quanin Which brings me back to my OP in this thread suggesting that a more constructive way forward might be to allay the substantial concerns so that a non absolutist position might emerge, rather than suggest that those considerably alarmed with multiple, independent good reasons to be so just pipe down and let everyone else get on with it. If it is possible, I am eager to be shown what I'm missing, if not, I see no other alternative than that I'm right.
@JustinMac84 You realize the US only wanted to shut TikTok down because they wouldn't sell to Oracle, right? IT's why they no longer want to shut TikTok down. Did you happen to read what I linked you to? Because even the experts can't agree social media is addictive. What's happening is we've trained ourselves to see things that way, so they are. 2% of adult social media users actually display the signs of addiction, but 18% will say they think they're addicted. Tell yourself something often enough it'll become true.
-
@JustinMac84 Do we know that, though? Or are we just telling ourselves that? https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/29/the-social-media-addiction-narrative-may-be-more-harmful-than-social-media-itself/
@quanin That! Was an interesting article and thanks for sharing. My response would be that a both and approach would seem most appropriate, i.e. tech giants should be restricted in making habit-forming apps and should be punshed for having done so, but we should use language around those who have fallen pray to that deliberate, bad faith practice, that doesn't disempower them. This should have the most positive impact.
-
@quanin That! Was an interesting article and thanks for sharing. My response would be that a both and approach would seem most appropriate, i.e. tech giants should be restricted in making habit-forming apps and should be punshed for having done so, but we should use language around those who have fallen pray to that deliberate, bad faith practice, that doesn't disempower them. This should have the most positive impact.
@quanin Still catching up. the biggest problem I had with the article was that it equates addiction with powerlessness. Tain's necessarily so. Addicts overcome addictions all the time. Second issue I had was: the reference to chemical addiction. Something doesn't have to be heroine-style chemically addictive to be addictive. Psychological addiction, without a chemical basis, is well-documented, and doesn't have to imply powerlessness.
-
@JustinMac84 You realize the US only wanted to shut TikTok down because they wouldn't sell to Oracle, right? IT's why they no longer want to shut TikTok down. Did you happen to read what I linked you to? Because even the experts can't agree social media is addictive. What's happening is we've trained ourselves to see things that way, so they are. 2% of adult social media users actually display the signs of addiction, but 18% will say they think they're addicted. Tell yourself something often enough it'll become true.
@quanin Caught up now with this post. Yes I know the motivation behind that case, but that doesn't mean the internal memos cited don't exist. If a company is trying to develop a platform that will be so habit-forming as to discourage physical movement, my best memory of the quote from the memo I heard on NPR's Up First, how else can you describe that big tech behaviour other than misanthropic and counter to users' interests and health.
-
@quanin That! Was an interesting article and thanks for sharing. My response would be that a both and approach would seem most appropriate, i.e. tech giants should be restricted in making habit-forming apps and should be punshed for having done so, but we should use language around those who have fallen pray to that deliberate, bad faith practice, that doesn't disempower them. This should have the most positive impact.
@JustinMac84 You can't regulate psychology, though. Everything can be habit-forming if you let it. The important question is why are these people leaning so hard into social media? And like I said, the answer could be as simple as they're getting something from social media that we're not getting from the people around us. As for the article, it's not the author trying to link addiction to powerlessness. It's the people pushing the social media addiction angle doing that. The same people who blame the social media for the addiction are the same people who blamed drugs before that. You might also be interested in: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/06/07/schools-social-media-ban-backfires-jeopardizing-student-privacy/