"There is nothing wrong with capitalism, but..."

- said before any potential criticism of capitalism. In USA, you shall not criticize the Profit.

"peace be upon him"

- said after any mention of Mohammad. In Saudi Arabia, you shall not criticize the Prophet.

It's not capitalism gone wrong. It's a great example of a historic success of capitalism.

You can't expect capitalism to solve your addiction problems.

I agree with everything the article says. I think there are two questions that we should be asking.

1. Can we point to a time when Capitalism peaked in terms of a balance of maximal benefit for as many people as possible? In my lifetime, it was somewhere in the late 1990s and early 2000s. No singular answer but something better exists than where we are now.

2. How do we rewind capitalism to that point?

> "Meta did not adequately assess the risks of its addictive design on the physical and mental wellbeing of users" ...

ROFLMAO! They absolutely did adequately "assess the risks" and then decided "Meh... Who cares? Do it anyway!"

> I wonder how that time is being spent. Doomscrolling?

I hate, doom scrolling with a passion. And still I am doing it from time to time, On reddit, youtube shorts or even a little bit on HN. It just seems like wasting time by being bombarded with stimuli.

On one hand I give my self the fault, weak will power and missing volition to change it. On the other it true that the environment has real impact on my behavior. Maybe simply blocking reddit and shorts is the best approach.

But I dont know.

I am no fan of Zuck. But this is his whole deal.

Instagram was a purchase. Facebook wasn't his idea. Threads is a copy. The 1 thing that Zuck understands better than anybody is that engagement is the only thing that matters to social networks, and he's willing to throw the entire company at the problem. He has been for 20 years.

He's good at addiction. He knows how to build an org that's world-class at addiction. It's entirely reasonable that the EU regulate it, and Zuck is exactly the person to point the regulation at.

How come legislators want to stop social media companies from using their power to manipulate consumers, but aren’t as interested in other industries doing the same? Like imagine how much harm is caused by the luxury fashion industry manipulating people to spend $20,000 on ugly leather bags? Or the jewelry industry in getting people to buy shiny rocks? Or sports gambling companies? That money could have been used for something good.

I’m obviously biased. But my point is that the guy that wrote the linked article had preexisting biases too.

A lot of what is being said here could also be said of NBC packing Thursday nights with their top shows back in the day. They increased attention and revenue, but people spent a lot more time watching NBC because of it. Was that a problem?

> They are not even trying to hide it — and I suppose it is not a secret at all: The more time users spend on Facebook and Instagram, the more money Meta makes.

Why would they try to hide something that is obvious?

With the decline of Twitter as the place that it seemed like everyone used to be on, other similar services seeing a small increase is not too surprising. I'm wondering if traffic from Threads, which they launched in 2023 (after Musk bought Twitter in fall of 2022), gets counted under Instagram, since you use your Instagram account to login? I get that Zuck and co want to say those increases are tied to their magical AI to please investors, but was it really?

The way I understand doom scrolling (and all other forms of passive engagement, e.g. youtube, reddit, hacker news, etc.) is that when we dip below "baseline" mood (be it through stress or any kind of adversity), quick hits of stimuli momentarily bring us back up to that baseline.

At the same time, access to abundant entertainment establishes in us an unrealistically high baseline that we're destined to fall below whenever we're not actively "plugged in". When you fall below baseline, unrealistic though it may be, you feel lacking, like an addict, and you respond to that feeling exactly like an addict.

It's all too easy nowadays to forget that boredom is good. Adversity is good. Having the time to sit with your thoughts is good. We grow stronger through any form of perseverance, and weaker through any form of surrender.

This reads like someone who didn't get offered the job after going through a lengthy interview process at Meta.

Switching to a more ethical model than advertisements hardly helps. Most tech companies are competing for people's attention, so making one platform less addictive just means the attention will be consumed by the next most addictive platform.

Ads aren't really the problem, either. It's the fact that people are willing to fork over so much of their lives to media feeds. It's a false community, a sea of information filled with faux connection.

The only way out of this trap is to invest in your local community. Meet people in real life and spend time with them and form mutual relationships. Media feeds aren't necessarily bad, but you need to prioritize them according to the innate human need for real community.

There will come a time when we need to have an honest conversation about the limitations of an economy which is based on encouraging sociopathic behavior.

This is a specific example of a more general problem: the ability of capital to manufacture demand and not merely satisfy it. An implicit assumption about supply and demand is that they are largely independent market forces, that demand is an organic and emergent phenomenon arising from the desires and ambitions of free individuals, and that supply reacts to demand. But first mass marketing and now hyper-targeted marketing turn that assumption on its head, and given sufficient capital, you can manipulate consumers into buying something that, left to their own devices, they otherwise would not. The harm that this can cause is most easily seen in the addictive context, but it appears throughout the market as a lost opportunity cost: to what more beneficial use would they have put that money had they not been subject to the manipulation?

You’re being very nice towards Meta and giving too much of a benefit of the doubt as to their intentions.