I don't get how exactly this is measured though. For many app projects, keeping the user in the app is obviously one of the most important metrics, especially for free apps (hence more ads to show and more money to make).
Many UX patterns are fine tuned to keep people in more, which is perfectly understandable as the primary goal is to keep the user in.
Now, who defines "addictive" using which aspect? And even if it is defined, how are they going to outlaw "addictive design"? Blocking UX patterns? Imposing a limit on how quick a user can swipe to next content (which would do more harm than good in general)? Limiting displayed relevant recommended content at the end of content (again, more harm than good in general)?
Don't want to play devil's advocate here but it's not the apps'/platforms' fault here, but parents' fault.
Sugar is addictive. Do we ban sugar, or regulate its consumption? No! Instead we educate parents to limit their childrens' sugar intake.
Parents need to be educated the same way about addictiveness of social platforms and limit their children's usage, but they are probably perfectly okay with status quo as giving a tablet to a kid "snoozes" them for hours so the parent can do whatever they want without interacting with their children, which is wrong in the first place.
I do not work for any big social media platform nor benefit from them, but stop blaming successful social media platforms that have mastered UX optimization, for stupid parents' actions that cause their children to get addicted.
Educate the parents instead to spend more right time with their children.
Obesity in the US is epidemic because of food producers using your same antisocial logic. "But if we don't add sugar, people won't keep choosing our brand over the sweeter ones, this is our most important metric." Sugar should absolutely be more regulated, it's killing people.
It's a proven fact that the sugar producers have hidden the real dangers of overconsumption for decades to protect their precious money. Same thing with cigarettes, same with apps that use psychological and/or emotional manipulation to boost their "most important metric".
Here's a metric that might be more important than money to you: the teen suicide rate has increased by 62% since the advent of social media.
So, how much of the social media company's resources get spent increasing their most important metric vs educating parents and kids on the dangers of the technology they're trying to get them addicted to? If they do it responsibly, it's going to negatively impact their most important metric, and so they don't, and instead continue profiting from the negative externalities.
How many children ending their own lives is a 10% bump in your market cap worth? Perhaps that's a ratio that should be shown on an electronic display on the walls in these companies.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and claim that obesity is an epidemic because of the misguided anti-fat crusade driven by well-meaning but naive people who (still!) believe that "eat fat get fat". You can walk down the ice cream isle and see countless sorbets advertising "fat free!" as if it's healthy.
We are at the tail of a huge shift to a carbohydrate-rich diet, and refined sugars are only part of the problem. Your body converts bread and starch to glucose almost as quickly.
The fearmongering about social media sounds a bit like the anti-fat crusade to me. The evidence is thin yet it makes people incredibly loud and angry. And remember one of the first rules of statistics, correlation is not causality. I don't need to quote the relevant xkcd number to this audience.
I would argue that apps resemble gambling more than they resemble sugar. And gambling is banned for children and heavily regulated for adults.
More to the point, I don't think it's fair to call parents stupid. Even if parenting weren't hard (which it is) it is not fair to expect everyone to get a Bachelor's in Software Engineering to use the one device that's almost indispensable for daily life. Nor is it fair to expect parents to monitor their children 24/7.
I'd argue this is one of those problems that are so ubiquitous and so difficult to solve that we appoint people to deal with them as a full-time job in order to keep them from spiraling out of control. They usually solve it with regulation, which is exactly what the EU is doing here.
Right. Social media companies explicitly use the same addictive psychological reward mechanisms that are leveraged by companies that make slot machines.
They have? Do you play popular video games?
Many of them have had to change their presentation or behavior based on regulation that's mostly sourced from the EU. Many games have region locks so they can perform more or less spying on people.
Considering the fact that obesity rates continue to climb despite approximately everyone knowing that eating too much sugar is bad for them at some point you need to acknowledge that a systemic problem requires a systemic solution. Education is great, but seems insufficient when pitted against companies actively trying to ensnare and addict the populace. We decided that the harms done by cigarettes and drug addiction were bad enough that an intervention was necessary to stop the pervasive abuse of the public by their purveyors. Companies do not have some sacred inalienable right to actively harm their customers so long as the invisible hand of the market allows it, the only question is whether the harms of sugar or social media addiction meet a threshold such that action is warranted.
"approximately everyone knowing that eating too much sugar is bad for them"
That's not really the case. For many people, if they know that too much sugar is bad for them, they think of sugar as in white sugar they add to the coffee or in terms of candybars, when instead they should think about carbohydrates as a whole. Replacing soft drinks with orange/apple juice many people would consider a healthy choice, but in the end you're still trading sugary water for sugary water (unlike eating whole fruit which has fiber and other elements to balance out the fructose). Then you get into potatoes, pasta, rice and bread which don't help when trying to lose or maintain weight.
Ask around amongst your friends and family. Tell them that you're trying a low fat diet. They will congratulate you on your life choices. Tell them you're trying a low carb diet. They will tell you you're killing yourself and you should stop because body needs energy to survive. Most "diet" products replace fats with carbs, which may even be a net negative in some cases when trying to diet.
The average knowledge of dietary advice is poor at best. I’ve heard so many people tell me that the vegetable for their meal is potatoes that it stopped being funny years ago.
I don’t even blame them. I was taught similar in high school, and I specifically recall them suggesting juice over soda as if there was a big difference.
The sugar industry paid for the early studies that blamed fat for weight gain and resulting health issues. That’s why everyone hates low carb diets. I still think there needs to be a tobacco industry level lawsuit against and crackdown of high sugar items.
I also don’t think anything containing high levels of sugar should be marketed as for children. Look at the absolute trash they market to children, and half of them claim to be healthy! Fruit juice, fruit snacks, sugary breakfast cereal, garbage drinks like Capri Sun, Oreos, chips, etc.
Practically the only healthy thing marketed to children is pre-packed apple slices (as if apples dont come in natural packaging, sigh).
Why can’t we market healthy stuff to kids? Whole grain breads can be good in the right sandwich. There’s gotta be at least one veggie they like, there are like a billion different vegetables. Olives are delicious.
As an American who travels to Europe from time to time, I find the prevalence of smoking in Europe to be what I used to experience as a kid in the states in the 90s. I always wonder why that is when I visit.
When I visited Paris and Rome last summer. I was pleasantly surprised to find little to no smoking among the young people. Only old people continue that habit as far as I could see.
Do European countries require printing pictures of diseased lungs on the side of cigarette boxes? Because if not that might have something to do with it. Nudging is quite effective at influencing average behavior.
"Sugar-sweetened beverage taxes in the WHO European Region" "Taxes were in place in Belgium, Finland, France, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Monaco, Norway, Portugal and the United Kingdom" "The taxes were implemented in the context of health policy commitments to prevent NCDs, which present a major health burden." (NCD = Non-communicable disease)
I don’t think it is fair to pitch parents against multi-billion dollar international companies who have dedicated tens of thousands of staff to the job of getting children addicted to their sites, by any means they can get away with.
I think it is. What does Meta's annual revenue have to do with a parent's ability to say "no, you can't install Instagram"?
Because that's the crux of the issue; children should not have access to social media, and the solution is not to weave intricate legislation regulating the entire industry, or obliging me to hand over my ID, it is for parents to not give children access to social media.
They go to the website. They turn off wifi to evade the home filter. They get a buddy from school to show them how to set up a VPN or use a proxy. They use their (required!) school computer you don't have admin rights on. They log in at a friend's house.
How can a parent enforce that, though? Did you listen to your parents as a kid about what you installed on your computer or when you could use it? I know I snuck around their rules a lot.
When our kids reached 12, they were almost the only ones in their class to not have a smartphone, nor any social media.
So what to do ?
Trying by ourselves to educate every parents whom made bad decisions letting their children get access to social media way too early ?
Continue holding to our valor and isolate them from any outside school social interaction with their schoolmate ?
Bend the knee to the power of social media that have rotten our society so deep, and let our kids use WhatsApp to communicate with their mates ?
Of course, in my ideal world, it would be the first option. But I've tried and failed (may be I'm not a good talker ?) so many times that I gave up.
So if any government rule was made to protect my kids and protecting other's ones, well I'll sure want a debate on it. And a people debate, not a lobbyist one of course.
> Educate the parents instead to spend more right time with their children.
This is kind of assuming that the parents have full control over the lives of their children. Which:
a. Isn't true
b. Shouldn't be true (because some parents are bad)
As a parent you go to work for 8+ hours per day. During that time your child is in the care of "society" (school / daycare / whatever). And during that time the only thing that protects them is laws and regulations.
How can someone get so close to seeing the problem and not take the final logical step?
If your app is just addictive adtech, it has no moral, political, or even economic right to exist.
Once upon a time apps provided useful services. Many still do.
But the gamification/addiction plague is an absolute horror and needs to be shut down. It's the psychological equivalent of tobacco, alcohol, opioid, sugar, oil, and money addiction.
All of these things are incredibly toxic and cause astounding levels of social and individual harm.
"But money..." is the least credible argument for any of them.
> Sugar is addictive. Do we ban sugar, or regulate its consumption? No! Instead we educate parents to limit their childrens' sugar intake.
I don't find it totally unlikely to think of a future where sugar is more strongly regulated, since it's linked to real dangers that used to be disregarded, and children are particularly targeted by sugary food.
More importantly, how can parents protect children if the same brain-hacking, attention grabbing mechanisms target them? "Honey, don't be on your mobile constantly, while daddy is busy using his mobile all day long".
> Don't want to play devil's advocate here but it's not the apps'/platforms' fault here, but parents' fault.
I think it's both, with most of the blame with apps/platforms. And parents are as much prey as their children. It's like a "socially acceptable" addiction; maybe we shouldn't make it so acceptable, like smoking isn't anymore?
How can parents teach their kids not to eat sugar if they're constantly eating sugar?
You might be right about regulations of sugar, but regulations shouldn't just target companies individually. They should figure out the actual problem and try and regulate that.
Agreed about sugar! If you look at my initial comment, I find it "not unlikely" that some sort of regulation could be enacted against sugary foods in the future.
>> In addition, FNS is correcting the breakfast cereal sugar limit. The final rule provided a sugar limit of no more than 6 grams of sugar per dry ounce (no more than 21 grams sucrose and other sugars per 100 grams of dry cereal). The intent of that limit was to be consistent with the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Woman, Infants, and Children (WIC). However, due to rounding, the breakfast cereal sugar limit in the final rule that appears in 7 CFR 210.10(o)(3)(ii), 210.10(o)(4)(ii), 210.10(p)(2), 220.8(o)(2), 226.20(a)(4)(ii), 226.20(b)(5), and 226.20(c)(1) through 226.20(c)(3) is inconsistent with WIC’s breakfast cereal sugar limit of no more 21.2 grams of sucrose and other sugars per 100 grams of dry cereal. This correction amends the breakfast cereal
sugar limit to align with WIC’s breakfast cereal sugar limit and corrects the other errors described above. Note that the Special Milk Program regulations at 7 CFR part 215 were amended in the final rule, but no technical corrections are
necessary in this amendment.
> Sugar is addictive. Do we ban sugar, or regulate its consumption? No! Instead we educate parents to limit their childrens' sugar intake.
And... It's not working, right? More and more kids and people are obese, sugar is added to many products that shouldn't have it in the USA because it's not regulated, so competitors adding sugar have an advantage over others who want to keep it out of their products.
> I do not work for any big social media platform nor benefit from them, but stop blaming successful social media platforms that have mastered UX optimization, for stupid parents' actions that cause their children to get addicted.
> Educate the parents instead to spend more right time with their children.
You are falling into the trap of thinking individual action will solve systemic issues.
The parents might be educated and want to curtail their children's usage of social media but for a kid in 2024 to be denied access to these platforms by their parents is to be ostracised from their peers who will continue using it. You need a majority of parents from the same social circle to curtail all of their kids usage, how do you approach that? If the most popular kids are using it and shun away the non-users as "weird" or "lame", there's an immense peer pressure to participate in it.
I will keep blaming "successful" social media companies for creating ways to manipulate people into using their products, even when those products are causing harm.
Wouldn't you blame the tobacco companies for creating products (and advertisement campaigns) that are harmful to people? Or would you also ask for people to be educated instead of actions taken by governments to forbid advertisement of tobacco products, heavy taxation to create deterrents for usage, etc.?
The how part is interesting to me. In many jurisdictions a bartender can be charged if they over serve a patron. Maybe something similar could be applied to services like Instagram and Facebook?
Their metrics are driven by advertising goals. Maybe limit the number of ads that can be shown to a user in every 24h period? If Facebook were only allowed to show ads for the first 30 minutes of any user’s session per day, a lot of the incentives for addictive design are reduced.
The parents are educated, they elected representatives and those representatives are pushing for this. Democratically elected officials aren't some otherworldly force, you argue that the people should act, this is the people acting.
On TV and Radio (ie Broadcast Media) in most countries in the world, there are rules on how many ads (or limit on total duration) broadcasters can show per period of time.
Big tech bypassed those rules claiming the internet has so much choice unlike in the past were Broadcasters were few. But it never mattered that the internet has more choice cause Total Available Attention of the consumer is still the same. And if a significant amount of that Attention bandwidth is dominated by Advertising/Influence Ops its very easy to manipulate people. Not just kids.
If enforcing the good habits of good parenting is not a problem, then 'apps' wouldn't have a problem with it. But they do. Because they're doing the equivalent of promoting cigarettes as a health elixr, something many on HN are complicit in through 'educational' branding of gamified (addictive) social media and even NFTs.
You are arguing about what is best for the app developer vs what is best for society. It's a really hard argument and even more so growing up in a capitalist society.
> Sugar is addictive. Do we ban sugar, or regulate its consumption? No! Instead we educate parents to limit their childrens' sugar intake.
This is also incorrect, there are plenty of places where sugar is regulated/limited/outright banned.
Calling parents "stupid" reveals a deplorable lack of parenting experience on your part - you don't know what you're talking about. Children spend 8 hours per day or more outside the home, and they share devices, so it's simply not feasible for parents to exert any great control over their offspring's digital lives. Regulation seems to be the only possible response.
> Now, who defines "addictive" using which aspect?
Addictive is whatever that creates a dependence that doesn't allow you to function correctly and productively, because it produces a natural reward.
In this case, design patterns that promote and provoke addictions, like gamification, attention grabbing, etc. that kids don't have tools to be aware of, need to be regulated. In fact, sugar content regulation in foodstuff have shown to be very effective at reducing obesity on kids. It's not a "ban", it's a regulation.
With your whole chest, think of the corporations! Let them use dark patterns! It's not their fault they didn't read carefully! It's not illegal, but it's deceptive! Also, buy my crypto AI course, it's totally legit.
> Sugar is addictive. Do we ban sugar, or regulate its consumption? No! I
I can't believe you chose sugar as an example. As a healthy lifestyle minority I would love to see some regation on cane sugar and syrups. One idea would be to tax it by volume and make it as expensive as premium honey or maple syrup. Of course, if something like this happened I think people would be mind blown at the effect of food prices as they'd immediately realize just how much of this bullshit is in everything.
It’s nice to think that the EU’s goal is actually the betterment of society, and not to simply replace Facebook, et al with their homegrown corporations.
I mean, that sounds like a rational thing to do from the EUs perspective. I expect a EU based social media that would replace it would at least not be worse for the consumer. One of the better things as a citizen in the EU is the stricter consumer protection.
Sounds very reasonable. These very large and influential companies require some special oversight imo and I do think the EC is probably the right org for the job.
The answer to this is going to be everyone losing more privacy through draconian age verification requirements for all major platforms, not positive news.
While I love a lot of the EU legislation, this seems to be something that is unenforceable at large. By all means target the voluminous data collection, but "addictive design" seems something in itself that would be challenging to define and regulate.
I'm not so sure. There's plenty of patterns in software that are obviously addictive. Think of time limited items in a store or loot boxes in games with big splashy animations.
I suspect there are patterns in social media that contribute to addictive design (visible up/down votes, for instance.)
There needs to be a recognition that giving developing minds devices that are capable of unrestricted access to information is not ideal because it makes parenting impossible.
This needs to be tackled at every level. If schools are expecting kids to do everything on tablets then that needs to be scrapped.
Most of us have tremendously successful careers in software off the back of pen and paper maths textbooks.
I firmly believe the issue is that society has rapidly switched into expecting everyone to use computers and if you don't want to you're just locked out.
I wonder if we at as a society at some point will decide that any "flow which which constantly provides short feedback loop high and lows with no substantial user interaction between" should be treated like gambling. I I mean AFIK they do affect the brain in similar ways as gambling and seem to have the potential to do quite a bit of damage for the development of young children, and at least in case of Ticktock in combination with other mental/social issues can drain you wallet as much as gambling). That might inst kill Tiktok, YT Shorts and affect any software providing engagement optimized endless feeds or similar to at least some degree (i.e. Instagram).
Sure that would be a radical step.
But from the limited knowledge I have, it would be a clear strong net positive for society, with drawbacks limited to the companies which provided such services and a small number (compared to the population) of creators which due to there focus area/skills aren't cable to have success with other content creation.
This has been debated to death for centuries already: of course it's a clear net positive, in the same sense that prohibiting alcohol, cannabis, regulating video games, legislating sex, putting ankle monitors on fat people to monitor their activity levels—all these things are "obvious" social improvements: in practice, not at all. These isn't a novel debate. It's a revisited, misguided paternalism to imagine you can fix people's (admittedly defective!) lives, make them healthier and better people, through coercive political agencies supervising and guiding them. (A less charitable comment would substitute "authoritarian" for "paternalistic").
There's two experiments running in parallel right now. If you want to live a free human in a free society, live in the West; if you want to try the alternative of a benevolent father-government, go to the Middle Kingdom—go somewhere where you can assume that lifestyle, where government shuts off your addictive video games, puts social credit scores on your alcohol purchases, sends social police to re-harmonize your life when it's un-harmonized. Where (of course) TikTok has been banned for a long time already, and all dis-harmonious, time-wasting social media is already helpfully filtered out of your life by a nationwide internet filter.
Please don't turn the West into the East: speaking for myself, I would like the option of living in a free society, somewhere. Unfiltered internet access is a core part of that.
But it would be silly to classify opioid use as gambling, which was the proposal. Figuring out the real issue, and banning that for kids, might well be a good idea. But to my mind the thinking from parents is still very open around what kids should be allowed to do, so it might be too soon.
I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I'd say this thing with attention grabbing/addictive feedback loops seems to be qualitatively different. Are you truly a "free" citizen if corporations have hacked your brain?
This wouldn't be a ban on consumption either. It's not penalizing the person who drinks alcohol or uses cannabis or pays for sex. It's going after the providers, who are not small-time like hookers, but huge businesses like Facebook and YouTube. And it'd not be banning the content itself (so it's not Thought Police) but regulating the ways to provide such content; it's going after the hack-your-brain marketing tactic.
I don't know if it's feasible but it seems fundamentally different to your other examples, and doesn't seem an example of Nanny State either. An addict doesn't really have "free choice".
You can’t just call people addicts to justify paternalistic policy over them, you can similarly justify total tobacco bans, alcohol prohibition, etc etc etc
Some things are banned and we don't consider that paternalistic.
Besides, each thing must be considered individually, e.g. tobacco bans make sense because tobacco affects second-hand smokers; many countries forbid selling alcohol to underage people and some place some restrictions on even adults.
You're also glossing over the nuances of my comment.
I don't think I would agree with banning addictive social media platforms, but I would like to see them heavily regulated, meaning:
* Opt-in to "engagement algorithms". By default, people should only be seeing things that they're explicitly following and in some sort of neutral way (e.g. sorted by date).
* "Engagement algorithms" need to be transparent. It should be clear why I'm seeing what I'm seeing. This implies accountability of the platforms themselves. If the Facebook algorithm ends up promoting genocidal violence, they shouldn't be able to hide behind "it was the algorithm".
My idea was to tread it like gambling (and to be more clear that doesn't mean classify it as gambling).
Which in case of the country I'm from means it's not allowed for children, and in general with some subtle exceptions neither for teenagers.
But is allowed for adults.
But is also regulated quite a bit when used by adults (e.g. regarding to transparency, advertisements, age verification and other topics).
That still would kill Ticktok and YT Shorts their main mode of operation had been to capture new users in the teen and child age range and then beet on them staying around.
Jonathan Haidt has a book out (The Anxious Generation) arguing for a causal link between children having smartphones with social media, and the massive increases in depression, suicidality, anxiety and other negative effects in teenagers and young adults over the last decade or so (I believe 2012 is roughly when Haidt claims it all started).
It may well be that Tiktok and the like turn out to have worse second-order effects than DDT, smoking, CFCs, leaded gasoline and other things we've banned or heavily restricted.
You mean like "Jonathan Haidt’s new book 'The Anxious Generation' blames youth mental health issues on social media in a way that’s easy, wrong, and dangerous."? (The subtitle of the article.)
The poster upthread is demanding specifics that are contained in the very article they're asking for specifics from.
You asked for specifics. The other guy asked for a one-sentence summary. The specifics you seek are in the article.
As an example:
> Looking at suicide rates (which are more indicative of actual depression rates, rather than self-reported data, given the decreasing stigma associated with admitting to dealing with mental health issues), the numbers show that in many countries it has remained flat or decreased over the past 20 years. Indeed, in countries like France, Ireland, Denmark, Spain, and New Zealand, you see a noticeable decline in youth suicide rates. If social media were inherently causing an increase in depression, that would be an unlikely result.
or:
> Specifically, they note new guidance in the U.S. under the Affordable Care Act in 2011 that increased screening of adolescent girls for depression (the rise in depression rates for adolescent girls being key to Haidt’s argument), and a second change in instructing clinicians to record suicidal ideation differently than in the past.
No, not particularly, (although I would need to see more to know if the first claim is true) and what you just did is just a couple of sentences.
I just don't like it when people link to potentially-polemics to be waded through, rather than do what you did in your most recent comment. If you disagree with that, fair enough, but I didn't anticipate that that preference would be an emotive topic for you. Apologies for any upset caused in that regard.
I'm simply a bit baffled at someone meeting a comment saying essentially "this is disputed, here's a collection of specific critiques" would be met with "you didn't provide any specific critiques".
I found the article easy to skim, with well-linked sources throughout. Again, it already contained exactly what you were asking for.
As someone who hasn't researched to this topic at all, and therefore has no dog in this race, I don't like when people link to something and say "this guy says I am right." That goes to both linking the book in the first place and it's refutation. I especially dislike when people post the names of books on these types of topics because these are really topics that need to be treated academically, while popular books try to persuade you to their opinion for 400 pages while leaving out or rewording fair criticisms. I would much rather read 150 pages from 3 articles published in reputable journals than 400 pages of a biased viewpoint. I should note that academics can also be biased but 1) they are less free than book authors to make things up 2) you can read multiple opinions 3) they do not use as much rhetoric as book authors. Basically, the name of a book is not an argument or a discussion. Posting the argument(s) of the book is much better, whether accompanied to a link to the book or not.
The way I would have preferred the discussion to have been had would to be something like "Jonathan Haidt has a book out (The Anxious Generation) arguing for a causal link between children having smartphones with social media, and the increases in depression, suicidality, anxiety and other negative effects in teenagers and young adults over the last decade or so. Specifically Haidt notes that/ claims that x factor caused y result." If the only thing you can mention about the book is the conclusion, ie. that social media causes depression, then there may be little substance to the book. This is part of why academic journals have book reviews. Similarly, "read my link that refutes your book" is not helpful as it now requires me to read the book (which, as explained above, I don't want to do) and the refutation. It ends up just as people trading links without having an actual discussion. So I agree that it would be better to just post the relevant point(s) directly by both sides.
a. social media is strongly positive for kids, and Haidt is at best cherry-picking evidence and at worst being actively dishonest.
b. social media is strongly negative for kids, but there's lots of money involved and so people are trying to shut down anyone who says otherwise, just like the tobacco industry kept yelling "it's disputed! it's not proven!"
c. social media is negative and positive, probably averaging negative, but people writing pop-sci tend to be hacks. It's possible for someone to be directionally correct and all their evidence is garbage; a common problem in progressive social causes.
It's an untypical episode, usually Tyler just rapid-fires questions, but here he takes the opposite view (on the balance, social networks are a good thing for teens) and debates quite a bit.
I think it should open adult safety probes. Facebook algorithm absolutely rots the brains of middle aged people. Kids are relatively fine compared to that.
Many UX patterns are fine tuned to keep people in more, which is perfectly understandable as the primary goal is to keep the user in.
Now, who defines "addictive" using which aspect? And even if it is defined, how are they going to outlaw "addictive design"? Blocking UX patterns? Imposing a limit on how quick a user can swipe to next content (which would do more harm than good in general)? Limiting displayed relevant recommended content at the end of content (again, more harm than good in general)?
Don't want to play devil's advocate here but it's not the apps'/platforms' fault here, but parents' fault.
Sugar is addictive. Do we ban sugar, or regulate its consumption? No! Instead we educate parents to limit their childrens' sugar intake.
Parents need to be educated the same way about addictiveness of social platforms and limit their children's usage, but they are probably perfectly okay with status quo as giving a tablet to a kid "snoozes" them for hours so the parent can do whatever they want without interacting with their children, which is wrong in the first place.
I do not work for any big social media platform nor benefit from them, but stop blaming successful social media platforms that have mastered UX optimization, for stupid parents' actions that cause their children to get addicted.
Educate the parents instead to spend more right time with their children.