I don't think HN has either of these.
It does have these
"Addictive feed" is used, but it's circularly defined.
"Algorithmic feed" doesn't appear in the text.
Those uses are:
Section two of this bill adds a new Article 45-A to General Business Law
to require addictive social media platforms which feature predatory
features such as algorithmic feeds, push notifications, autoplay, infi-
nite scroll, and/or like counts as a significant part of the provision
of their service to post warning labels for all users upon access to the
platform. The bill features a series of specific exemptions for certain
types of notifications that fall beyond the scope of the bill (i.e.
those explicitly requested by a user or which are deployed for civic
communication). More broadly, the bill also exempts any feature which is
determined by the Attorney General via regulation to be offered for a
valid purpose unrelated to prolonging use of the addictive social media
platform.
...
... Additionally, as this bill covers only social media
platforms that deploy addictive features such as algorithmic feeds, push
notifications, autoplay, infinite scroll, and like counts, any platform
not wishing to display a warning label could simply limit their use of
these features.
"[S]uch as algorithmic feeds" in the description and justification remains undefined in the text of the bill itself.
> "Addictive feed" shall mean a website, online service, online application, or mobile application, or a portion thereof, in which multiple pieces of media generated or shared by users of a website, online service, online application, or mobile application, either concurrently or sequentially, are recommended, selected, or prioritized for display to a user based, in whole or in part, on information associated with the user or the user's device, unless any of the following conditions are met, alone or in combination with one another:
> (a) the recommendation, prioritization, or selection is based on information that is not persistently associated with the user or user's device, and does not concern the user's previous interactions with media generated or shared by other users;
> (b) the recommendation, prioritization, or selection is based on user-selected privacy or accessibility settings, or technical information concerning the user's device;
> (c) the user expressly and unambiguously requested the specific media, media by the author, creator, or poster of media the user has subscribed to, or media shared by users to a page or group the user has subscribed to, provided that the media is not recommended, selected, or prioritized for display based, in whole or in part, on other information associated with the user or the user's device that is not otherwise permissible under this subdivision;
> (d) the user expressly and unambiguously requested that specific media, media by a specified author, creator, or poster of media the user has subscribed to, or media shared by users to a page or group the user has subscribed to pursuant to paragraph (c) of this subdivision, be blocked, prioritized or deprioritized for display, provided that the media is not recommended, selected, or prioritized for display based, in whole or in part, on other information associated with the user or the user's device that is not otherwise permissible under this subdivision;
> (e) the media are direct and private communications;
> (f) the media are recommended, selected, or prioritized only in response to a specific search inquiry by the user;
(> g) the media recommended, selected, or prioritized for display is exclusively next in a pre-existing sequence from the same author, creator, poster, or source; or
> (h) the recommendation, prioritization, or selection is necessary to comply with the provisions of this article and any regulations promulgated pursuant to this article.
That does clear it up.
With that definition in mind, to answer the question "does HN need to have this label?" ...
... "unless any of the following conditions are met" ...
and it would appear that under (a) that the prioritization or selection of articles displayed is not associated with a user or a user's device, nor does it concern the user's previous interactions with media generated by others...
So my layman's read of this is that "No, Hacker News does not fall into the definition of an addictive feed."
> It does have these
If you consider "feeds" to be the home page, ask hn, etc. then afaik content is determined by user submission after spam/abuse filtering, and all users see the same content. Article position is largely determined by user votes, with some ageing. Again, everyone sees the same ordering (unless they choose to hid le articles).
Hard to see how this can be interpreted as "algorithmic".
It's an algorithmic feed.
"How are stories ranked?
"The basic algorithm divides points by a power of the time since a story was submitted. Comments in threads are ranked the same way.
"Other factors affecting rank include user flags, anti-abuse software, software which demotes overheated discussions, account or site weighting, and moderator action."
I don't know why you're trying to argue that this isn't an algorithmically driven social news feed website with an addictive homepage. It's exactly what the NY state law is targeting.
What "algorithmic feed" means in most discussion and publications is a feed that is personalized for the individual users based on their known or inferred interests and their past interactions.
https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-signs-legis...
> Legislation S4505/A5346, under the chapter amendment, requires social media platforms that offer addictive feeds, auto play or infinite scroll to post warning labels on their platforms.
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S4505
§ 1520. DEFINITIONS. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ARTICLE, THE FOLLOWING
TERMS SHALL HAVE THE FOLLOWING MEANINGS:
1. "ADDICTIVE FEED" SHALL MEAN AS DEFINED IN SUBDIVISION ONE OF
SECTION FIFTEEN HUNDRED OF THIS CHAPTER.
2. "ADDICTIVE SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM" SHALL MEAN A WEBSITE, ONLINE
SERVICE, ONLINE APPLICATION, OR MOBILE APPLICATION THAT PRIMARILY SERVES
AS A MEDIUM FOR COVERED USERS TO INTERACT WITH MEDIA GENERATED BY OTHER
USERS AND WHICH OFFERS OR PROVIDES COVERED USERS AN ADDICTIVE FEED, PUSH
NOTIFICATIONS, AUTOPLAY, INFINITE SCROLL, AND/OR LIKE COUNTS AS A
SIGNIFICANT PART OF THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY SUCH WEBSITE, ONLINE
SERVICE, ONLINE APPLICATION, OR MOBILE APPLICATION. "ADDICTIVE SOCIAL
MEDIA PLATFORM" SHALL NOT INCLUDE ANY SUCH SERVICE OR APPLICATION WHICH
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DETERMINES OFFERS THE FEATURES DESCRIBED HEREIN FOR
A VALID PURPOSE UNRELATED TO PROLONGING USE OF SUCH PLATFORM.
7. "LIKE COUNTS" SHALL MEAN THE QUANTIFICATION AND PUBLIC DISPLAY OF
POSITIVE VOTES, SUCH AS BUT NOT LIMITED TO THOSE EXPRESSED VIA A HEART
OR THUMBS-UP ICON, ATTACHED TO A PIECE OF MEDIA GENERATED BY A COVERED
USER.
HN doesn't have push notifications, autoplay, infinite scroll, or like counts.
"Addictive feed" is poorly defined.
---
Edit: The harmful nature of social media is something that HN has recognized for well over a decade. There is a feature "noprocrast" to help manage this if you do have this problem.
From 2010:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1492902
7 Nov: Anti-procrastination features
Like email, social news sites can be dangerously addictive. So the latest version of Hacker News has a feature to let you limit your use of the site. There are three new fields in your profile, noprocrast, maxvisit, and minaway. (You can edit your profile by clicking on your username.) Noprocrast is turned off by default. If you turn it on by setting it to "yes," you'll only be allowed to visit the site for maxvisit minutes at a time, with gaps of minaway minutes in between. The defaults are 20 and 180, which would let you view the site for 20 minutes at a time, and then not allow you back in for 3 hours. You can override noprocrast if you want, in which case your visit clock starts over at zero.Great. I’m sure this will be just as effective as California Prop 65 cancer warnings.
> The researchers analyzed concentrations of 11 chemicals placed on the Proposition 65 warning list and monitored by the CDC between 1999 and 2016. They included several types of phthalates, chemicals used to make plastics flexible; chloroform, a toxic byproduct from disinfecting water with chlorine; and toluene, a hazardous substance found in vehicle exhaust.
> They found that the majority of samples had significantly lower concentrations of these chemicals after their listing. But the levels didn’t just decline in California, they fell nationwide. [1]
Unfortunately, the NIH website [2] where the study is hosted is no longer operational. I don't think certain people want to support scientific inquiry. Maybe someone else can find the study text?
[1] https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2024-11-11/study-d...
I read the links to find the proposed mechanism (NIH link is dead btw), and it says that businesses pre-emptively reformulated to avoid having the label, but the LA Times story also says this is a mixed bag, often resulting in a switch to less-tested, possibly unsafe substitutes simply because they weren't on the list.
>>But swapping one chemical for an unlisted substitute has sometimes resulted in its own consequences.
>>For example, when bisphenol A, an ingredient in plastics, was listed in 2013, chemical concentrations in blood and urine samples subsequently fell by 15%. However, that was followed by a 20% rise in bisphenol S — a closely related chemical also linked with reproductive toxicity.
You’re right though that it’s going to take far bigger things like antitrust action and fining companies for making misleading statements about the health consequences and purposes of their products.
Another way this problem can be attacked is by changing the cultural perspective around working at companies like Meta.
There was a time where it was socially acceptable to work at s tobacco company. People would proudly tell their family that they work in marketing for tobacco companies but now? When have you ever heard someone tell you they work for big tobacco?
If the government mandated that social media had to have pictures of neckbeard nests in people’s feeds with warnings that this could happen to you with repeated social media use I bet the people who work at Meta would be a laughing stock in their social circles which would go a long ways to disrupting the pipeline of people willing to destroy our society for a quick buck.
Go to southern Virginia or North Carolina.
They did claim to find a very small link between TikTok/YouTube and mental health, but this seems to defy the narrative of "social" media being the culprit. YouTube was not significant if you adjust for multiple hypotheses, only TikTok
1) kids with worse mental health use social media more (unhealthily)
2) parenting is (very) important
Ok. Sounds about right. There is still a negative correlation with social media and mental health. So not seeing how this one paper shows we shouldn’t reasonably restrict social media.
This is a conservative angle on the problem: it’s about individual choices (or individual innate fitness) not about dangerous products in society. Not sure why we should ignore the fact that people are profiting of these dangerous products. And that these are man made dangers made for profit, not wild animals that just exist in nature.
But cigarettes are harmful for everyone, social media is not
Anecdotal, but I can assure you that no-one in their cohort feels that social media makes a positive contribution to their mental health. Neither did their teachers. The ones I know of tend to try to actively avoid it.
I know of older adults (late 20s / early 30s) who have had similarly negative experiences with anxiety and addictive engagement.
Results: The majority of studies linked social media use to adverse mental health outcomes, particularly depression and anxiety. However, the relationship was complex, with evidence suggesting that problematic use and passive consumption of social media were most strongly associated with adverse effects. In contrast, some studies highlighted positive aspects, including enhanced social support and reduced isolation. The mental health impact of social media use, specifically during the COVID-19 pandemic, was mixed, with the full range of neutral, negative, and positive effects reported.
Should people who post anti social media sentiment disclose that they've never worked on it, have never run experiments on well being, and have never looked at the data?
Disclosures are necessary only when something happened, not when something didn't happened.
throaway123123•1mo ago
nutjob2•1mo ago
websiteapi•1mo ago
in before: "HN isn't social media!"
joshdavham•1mo ago
It's just that HN is a social media that respects your time and doesn't try to get you addicted. For example, HN has a very useful 'noprocrast' feature and one of the co-founders, pg, has openly worried about HN's addictiveness in the past [0].
So while HN is social media, I feel like it's qualitatively different than other platforms.
[0] https://paulgraham.com/hackernews.html
petcat•1mo ago
It just seems like hn is very open about acknowledging that. They'll still very much be subject to the state law
joshdavham•1mo ago
Would you personally be in favor of HN being regulated though? I'm not sure if I would.
petcat•1mo ago
So yes, I think HN should still have to acknowledge that the website is addictive in accordance with this state law.
blell•1mo ago
petcat•1mo ago
This is a social media news feed-style website. Like Reddit, or old Digg.
krapp•1mo ago
Every forum I can remember shows the most popular threads first. Even 4chan does that with thread bumping, the most engaged-with threads sort to the top. Given the hyperbole of the times, that counts as "finely tuning their addictive homepage feed."
Hacker News, like Reddit, is both a forum and a link aggregator. It has features which are designed to influence you and to be addictive. And I promise you that people are as addicted to HN as others are to Facebook, Twitter, TikTok etc.
petcat•1mo ago
When I think of "forum" I think of pre-Web 2.0/social media like PHP BB. I don't think they would be categorized the same way.
krapp•1mo ago
They certainly could be categorized the same way. I don't think they will only because the political will isn't there and such forums aren't popular enough to matter. But if regulation of social media causes those forums to resurge in popularity then that might change.