
US could ban 'addictive' autoplay videos and infinite scrolling online - tmpfs
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/jul/31/us-could-ban-addictive-autoplay-videos-and-infinite-scrolling-online
======
merricksb
Earlier discussion:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20565141](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20565141)

------
madiathomas
I don't like sites with autoplay. I only expect autoplay when the page I am
about to visit is in a video site like YouTube. I hate it when I am reading a
news article and a video autoplays.

Autoscrolling also can be irritating. If I click a TechCrunch article on HN, I
don't want TC to load more articles at the end of the article I was reading
without my consent. It is better to suggest related articles and give me an
option to click on them if I am interested.

~~~
tiborsaas
> I only expect autoplay when the page I am about to visit is in a video site
> like YouTube.

Here's the problem with it. There are exceptions, but it's extremely difficult
to write the law in a way that can't be gamed if you allow exceptions.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Let's ban interfering with ad blockers then. Let's enshrine the spirit of the
HTTP protocol by legally reinforcing the core idea - the server only provides
content and suggests how to show it; the User Agent renders it however it
likes.

Do this, and autoplay issue will sort itself out.

------
wojcikstefan
Regulating infinite scrolling seems like a major overregulation. Even if it
kinda makes sense in terms of FB, Twitter, and other social media newsfeeds,
it's still a great (and beneficial) UX in many other cases.

Overusing social media could be solved via e.g. Screen Time or a similar time-
limiting solution (perhaps w/o an option to "snooze" the daily limit if a
parent set it on a child's device).

~~~
kd5bjo
At the very least, it shouldn’t be allowed to put the links to regulatory
information (like the terms of service or privacy policy) in a footer _below_
an infinite scroller.

~~~
nerdponx
You could have a separate provision about deceptive practices or something.

------
rafpaf
The internet giants are trying to addict us to their products. I despise this
and welcome solutions including regulation. However, the proposed law is
stupendously overbroad.

It bans "the use of a process that, without the user expressly requesting
additional content, loads and displays more content into a content feed than
the typical user scrolls through in 3 minutes." So long, Google Maps? (Unless
scrolling the map counts as an 'express request', but if it does then
scrolling to the bottom of an infinite-scrolling page would count.)

The bill also bans "providing a user with an award for engaging with the
social media platform (such as a badge or other recognition of a user’s level
of engagement with the platform) if such award does not substantially increase
access to new or additional services, content, or functionality." The point of
this clause is to ban "Snapstreaks" as the Guardian article says. But if
"substantially increase" is a low bar, then Snapchat can meet it. And if it's
a high bar, then many nonaddictive karma systems would be banned. So long,
StackOverflow and Hacker News.

The proposed law requires social media platforms to "allow a user to set a
time limit that blocks the user’s own access to those platforms" — that sounds
more helpful. But it goes on to require them to "automatically limit the
amount of time that a user may spend on those platforms across all devices to
30 minutes a day unless the user elects to adjust or remove the time limit
and, if the user elects to increase or remove the time limit, resets the time
limit to 30 minutes a day on the first day of every month." This just sounds
bananas. Today, the techlash; tomorrow, the regulation-lash.

The law says, "When an operator requests a user to make a selection from among
options, no option may be preselected." MY BRAIN IS MELTING. So, in an address
form, I can't pre-guess the user's country/state/province (even if those
guesses are based on previous input)? My forms can't have DEFAULTS?

The law is overbroad — but in another way, it's too easy to elude. It says
you're not a social media platform unless you "enable users to create accounts
or profiles specific to [your platform]." But then, as long as accounts on
YouTube are really Google-wide accounts, the law doesn't apply to YouTube —
even though it mentions YouTube as one of its targets.

Who wrote this bill?

------
kragen
I hope that if they ban addictive autoplay, they apply the ruling first to
broadcast TV.

~~~
Upvoter33
"addictive" being the key word, I think - which implies machine intelligence
picking the next show, not network executives.

~~~
lrem
But isn't the network executive executing the same intent as the machine, just
at a lower quality level?

------
rcar1046
Yes, infinite scroll is doing as much harm, if not more, than tobacco and
alcohol combined. /s

~~~
corodra
Search "social media mental health study". Theres a flood of universities that
have pretty good evidence of social media causing a lot of mental health
issues. Namely towards teens and young adults who grew up with it.

Yes, it does seem silly, but the rise of anxiety and depression in society is
linked to social media. Theres a good reason why people do the social media
fasts and cleanses. A lot don't go back.

~~~
tooop
That is a social media problem not infinite scrolling problem.

~~~
orbifold
Tell that to a person in bed, scrolling through Facebook for hours on end. If
the content stopped at some point they would do something else hopefully.
Compared to TV the pacing is such that people get hooked like on slot
machines.

~~~
tooop
I highly doubt that showing something like "There are X new great posts from
blah blah blah, check them out" instead of using infinite scroll will resolve
the problem. At the end of the day one could simply load a million posts
(probably needs some code/data optimizations but we are talking here about
billion dollar companies) and now it is a finite scroll (EDIT: seems that the
bill addresses this case).

~~~
jjulius
Sure it will. Infinite scrolling triggers a dopamine response just like a slot
machine[1]. Its sole purpose is to keep users hooked. Telling the user "you're
done now, unless you want to keep going" removes that addictive reaction in
the brain.

[https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/automatic-
you/201208...](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/automatic-
you/201208/infinite-scroll-the-webs-slot-machine)

~~~
tooop
"Dopamine is a chemical released in the brain, often when we experience reward
or pleasure. The "dopamine feedback loop" is sometimes held up as evidence
that social media can affect our brains in the same way drugs do. The idea is
that we become chemically dependent upon bursts of dopamine triggered by
people 'liking' our posts on Facebook, or retweeting us on Twitter.

But while it's true that interacting with social media can give your brain a
dopamine shot, that does not mean you're getting high. Your brain releases
dopamine on an everyday basis.

"Dopamine research itself shows that things like video games and technologies,
they're in the same realm as food and sex and learning and all of these
everyday behaviours."

This was a year ago - Neither Professor Przybylski nor Amy Orben rule out the
possibility that social media can negatively affect human behaviour, but both
emphasise the need for further research.

------
epistasis
The Republican Party in the US is famously anti-regulation of large
corporations, and "pro-business," yet this is coming from the Republican side.
Is there any sort of rationale provided for this seemingly massive ideological
shift? Regulation of industry is usually off the table when this party is in
control, at least when it comes to pollution or other consumer harms by
business.

~~~
JasonFruit
American politicians are famously unable to articulate consistent principles,
and their voters are little better. I don't find it surprising that
Republicans are unable to see this sort of invasive regulation in the same
light they see regulation of other business practices. Maybe nobody's making
it worth their time to see it that way. Maybe they see this as a bone they can
throw to the public to get a few votes before they go back to guarding their
power hoard. At any rate, there are only about seven or eight people with
real, consistent principles in the U.S. Congress, and I'm not aware that Josh
Hawley is among them.

------
blodovnik
Good to hear the politicians are focusing on the big issues of our time.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Arguably, advertising is one of the bigger problems of our time, and it
indirectly contributes to the usual suspects (global warming, social unrest).

------
luxuryballs
Talk about a nanny state, what’s next, mandatory go outside and play?

------
mic47
Does it apply only to web browsers? What about apps? As far as I understand,
huge part of Facebook, Twitter users use the apps and not the web, so if the
bill does not ban it also there, then it will be kind of toothless (and
motivate those companies to even more aggressively nudge people to use apps).

------
dx87
I don't know if the proposed solution is the best way of handling it, but I'm
glad something is being done about the way some large companies are
manipulating users and causing widescale mental harm. It'd be interesting to
see social media sites with warnings similar to cigarrette labels. Require the
sites to regularly display a warning along the lines of "Warning: Long term
exposure to social media is shown to cause anxiety, low self-esteem, and
depression. If you experience these symptoms, call <HOTLINE>"

------
33mhz
The scope of this bill is within social media networks, and is not blanket
autoplay and infinite scroll - it seems to be aiming specifically at automated
UI that the user has not indicated they want, and has no option to stop. It
has a number of other provisions. It requires the defaults to be "off". It
requires legal agreements' Yes/No buttons be standardized on the site and
neutral (no split fonts, colors, sizes, etc).

~~~
33mhz
"To prohibit social media companies from using practices that exploit human
psychology or brain physiology to substantially impede freedom of choice, to
require social media companies to take measures to mitigate the risks of
internet addiction and psychological exploitation, and for other purposes."

"...unlawful for a social media company to operate a social media platform
that uses..."

* Infinite scroll/auto refill beyond what a user has specified

* No natural stopping points

* Autoplay without user intent

* Badges/awards linked to engagement but not linked to services/content/function

* Opt-in options have to be standardized

It then requires companies to allow users to set limits on their own daily
use, automatically set defaults, and regularly notify users of their continued
use.

But "...shall not apply to any portion of a social media platform that
consists only of a predominantly text-based, direct message service such as
email or a service that is substantially similar to email."

[https://www.hawley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2019-07/So...](https://www.hawley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2019-07/Social-
Media-Addiction-Reduction-Technology-Act.pdf)

------
gitgud
Is this the first bill to reduce something addictive _" on the internet"_?

------
yrro
How would such a bill not be struck down on first amendment grounds?

~~~
corodra
These are mechanisms, not speech. Huge difference.

------
maitredusoi
Can we ban people from being stupid ? uuh ;)

------
indigochill
I mean, sure, I agree on the motives. But there are the usual questions about
tech regulation:

1\. How hard will it be enforced? Turns out GDPR, for example, has been
significantly harder to enforce than the EU expected.

2\. How punitive is the punishment? Does this become just one more "cost of
doing business" that further raises the barrier to entry to competition to the
tech giants?

