SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the price-of-liberty-is-constant-vigilence dept.
A cursory reading of the 14-page Social Media Addiction Reduction Technology bill suggests that it may apply to SoylentNews.
What do you think?
US Could ban 'Addictive' Autoplay Videos and Infinite Scrolling Online:
The Social Media Addiction Reduction Technology (Smart) Act takes aim at techniques and features that, according to its author, Republican Senator Josh Hawley, are created to encourage and deepen addictive behaviours.
The bill targets "practices that exploit human psychology or brain physiology to substantially impede freedom of choice" and specifically prohibits four general practices:
Infinite scroll or auto refill, such as the Facebook newsfeed or a Twitter timeline, which automatically loads in new content when the user nears the end of the existing content, without requiring any specific request from readers.
Autoplay, when a site automatically plays music or video "without an express, separate prompt by the user", as on YouTube and Facebook. Curiously, the bill explicitly excludes autoplaying advertisements from its coverage, despite the general unpopularity of that content. It also provides exceptions for autoplaying music on music streaming services, and autoplaying from a pre-built playlist.
Badges and other awards linked to engagement with the platform. These are most notably used by Snapchat in the form of the Snapstreak badges, which mark how long two friends have exchanged daily messages. Parents have complained that the Snapstreak mechanic leads to problematic behaviour from children, who fear their friendship is at risk if the streak ends.
"Elimination of natural stopping points", a catch-all category for any website that loads more content than a typical user scrolls through in three minutes without the user expressly requesting that additional content.
Proposed US law Would Ban Infinite Scroll, Autoplaying Video, Limit Daily Use:
The technique for compliance as outlined in the bill, however, seems to be to annoy consumers into abandoning their social accounts altogether.
As described in the text, social media companies would have to limit users to 30 minutes of use per day by default. Users would be allowed to choose their own time limits for daily and weekly use, but companies would have to reset that time limit to half an hour every single month, as well as providing "conspicuous pop-up" displays at least once every 30 minutes showing how much time you have spent using a service in the past day, across all devices.
Hawley, whose website features an automatically playing video loop in the header image, said in a statement that the tech sector has "embraced a business model of addiction."
So, are we in the clear, or not?
Also at Vox, Digital Information World, Techdirt, Futurism, The Verge, TechSpot, Washington Examiner, Washington Post, Engadget, The Hill, The Washington Times & CNET.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 01 2019, @08:13AM (4 children)
The most idiotic bullshit invented. There are websites that have links at the bottom of the page, and then they use infinite scroll too on the same fucking page.... How fucked up is that?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by EvilSS on Thursday August 01 2019, @02:34PM (1 child)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 01 2019, @03:23PM
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20120011430A1/en [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday August 01 2019, @04:20PM
I dunno, there's always the blink tag.
https://thehistoryoftheweb.com/blink-marquis-tag/ [thehistoryoftheweb.com]
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday August 01 2019, @04:41PM
What really happened!
A politician didn't like a treadmill, which implied exercise, and thought the treadmill was an infinite scrolling web page.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by progo on Thursday August 01 2019, @08:52AM (10 children)
The mainstream web is a cesspool of offensive, abusive design, but what good can stupid unenforceable laws do?
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday August 01 2019, @09:07AM (2 children)
If it helps more shit-consiuming zomboids end up under cars, busses, and lorries, then I'm all for it.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 01 2019, @11:34AM (1 child)
Why do you want to give the rich more money?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 01 2019, @12:56PM
Because he hates:
[ ] People
[ ] Dumb People
[ ] Dumb People Who Use Social Media
[ ] Freedom
[ ] Choice
[ ] Puppies
[ ] Money
[x] Surveys
[ ] Bones In His Ice Cream
[ ] All of the above
(Score: 4, Insightful) by FatPhil on Thursday August 01 2019, @09:18AM (6 children)
The only way a site can tell the difference is if they use high-granularity snooping (e.g. is the accelerometer registering movement, if so it's still in the user's hand) to work out exactly when you're "interacting", and when you're not. It would have to be clever enough to know that when you prop the phone in the stand and watch a boring video, it can distinguish between you actually watching it versus trolling on #shitlords instead - so probably facial recognition and eye-tracking are needed too.
And the law appears to demand that, for the benefit of the users?
This law weren't writ by smart peeps.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday August 01 2019, @04:25PM (4 children)
This calls for a new web extension.
One that will scroll for a bit. Pause. Scroll some more. Pause. Scroll more. Repeat infinitely. Just leave the tab open, and it will keep auto scrolling the website.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday August 01 2019, @06:52PM (3 children)
For I have resurrected the technique I invented whilst playing with /The Nice/ - namely that I stab a knife into my keyboard, and then let the force of the knife hold down the down key (I forget if I used down arrow or page down, now, but I'm dead, so my memory isn't what it used to be), so that 180 slices of not-quite-infinite scroll fetches can be done, such that I can read the final element of a list sorted on a particular field, after heading off to make myself a cup of coffee, and drink all of it.
True Story.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Funny) by DannyB on Thursday August 01 2019, @07:04PM (2 children)
Maybe infinite scroll web pages are actually finite in length. The top and bottom edges of the web page are taped together. They are on rollers. Eventually if you scroll far enough down the web page, you will see the tape that holds the beginning and end of the web page together. Then the content will repeat.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by toddestan on Saturday August 03 2019, @05:23AM (1 child)
Eventually, something has to give. The website, after all, only has a finite amount of content. So will the page stop actually scrolling, or will it repeat content, or will it just be an endless scroll of nothingness?
Unfortunately, the answer is still unknown as any modern browser will consume all your system's ram and crash before you can hit that point.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Saturday August 03 2019, @08:06PM
The website's infinite scroll generator, coupled with its fact simulator and information misquoter can provide infinite content. Or at least enough content until your browser runs out of resources. It will become an arms race between:
scenario 1:
... between the infinite scroll web sites and Microsoft to see who can crash your system first.
scenario 2:
... between the infinite scroll web sites and the hardware innovators to see whether hardware can keep up with the infinite scroll nonsense generators.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday August 02 2019, @02:41AM
Yeah, all that -- and as I read the bill, I had these thoughts:
Too much of whatever, according to whose definitions? where's the defining limit of social media -- any site that allows comments?
So which research on "human psychology or brain physiology" shall we take as gospel for purposes of this bill?
Why is how I spend my time anyone else's business, most especially the government's business??
Someone else's addiction should not be made into MY problem (as site operator or as fellow user).
Computers all have an OFF switch. Is forcing regular reboots the next step in the chain?
If you're going to define social media as an attractive nuisance, just do so; don't beat around the bush.
How do you plan to deal with noncompliant non-US sites? block the whole rest of the world??
We're going to need a new class of popup blockers, that automagically and invisibly acknowledge and dismiss the damned required timer notices. Because there's nothing more annoying when I'm actually doing something on a site, than being interrupted by irrelevant bullshit.
I hate infinite scroll, but mostly because it's a PITA (sometimes impossible) to save or search the page, and frequently has its own ideas about How To Scroll which disagree with mine.
I can't see ANY upside on this bill. Methinks it's scratching a personal itch.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 01 2019, @10:04AM (3 children)
Essentially everything in the bill is an unconstitutional violation of free speech and/or free association.
Infinite scrolling is awful, and the solution is to not use websites that have it. Not to try to outlaw it.
(Score: 3, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday August 01 2019, @11:09AM
Pretty much, yeah. A random public defender fresh out of law school could get this thrown out. While drunk.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday August 01 2019, @04:26PM
A true defender of freedom would also defend websites' choice to make awful decisions. Like infinite scrolling. Or God forbid, Perl.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by everdred on Friday August 02 2019, @11:42PM
I'm not so sure. Heard of cigarette advertising?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by theluggage on Thursday August 01 2019, @10:45AM (14 children)
Well done USA for coming up with something even more stupid than the EU Cookie law (training people to automatically click 'accept cookies' since 2011 so they didn't notice when the GDPR changed that to 'consent to sharing all my data' in 2018).
TwitFaceTubeagram will love this - they'll come up with new ploys to addict kids in no time at all, their ranks of lawyers will tie up any prosecutions for years and, if the worst happens, they'll just fish down the back of the sofa for some loose change to pay the fine. Meanwhile, any small-fry competition that might try to follow TwitBook's rags-to-riches route, or independent sites that want a comment facility will face a disproportionate regulatory burden, give up, and just create a Twitter channel.
Expect a 'Don't throw us into the briar patch' protest from Big Social Media, but don't expect them to try too hard.
NB: Soylent News isn't a social media site: its obviously a web app for information exchange (if not, then Slack, Zoom, Github etc. should be subject to a 30 min/day time limit, too)
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Thursday August 01 2019, @10:56AM
Hmmm. That would probably promote more effective use of the named tools.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday August 01 2019, @11:07AM (11 children)
The difference being ours isn't a law, just a bill proposed by one chucklehead.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday August 01 2019, @01:29PM (9 children)
To distract us from...?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday August 01 2019, @01:46PM (1 child)
His actual record, I expect. It can't be made into a big enough issue for much of anything more.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday August 02 2019, @02:45AM
To my eye, the bill reads like someone scratching a personal itch -- family member with internet-addiction problems, perhaps.
So obviously everyone has the same problem and we must all be frog-marched to the timer gulag.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday August 01 2019, @03:46PM (4 children)
More like to establish how protective of internet users the person is. It doesn't matter if it passes, it can still be used by the congressperson to promote how dedicated they are to the subject of . It can also be used as a bludgeon to "prove" that is so soft on while they are strong on .
And more to the point, this is what one gets when one takes one's political news from outlets that have no clue about politics. If a person was to worry about every single dumb-assed piece of legislation proposed you could spend the rest of your days in panic over the action of only one congressional session, literally.
One can confirm this here [govtrack.us], that shows that last Congress there were over 13,500 bills proposed and 443 laws and 774 resolutions were passed, which is under 10% of the total.
Does legislation like this have a hope in hell of passing? Nope. If passed, would it get an injunction and then be struck down as unconstitutional? Almost certainly.
Much better to worry about legislation that has traction and may actually have a prayer of passing.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday August 01 2019, @03:51PM
Wups. Lost my <psuedovariables>. It almost reads better that way though than <insert topic here>.
<Cauterize brain tissue to think before executing shift-comma in future.> maybe I need legislation to help with that.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Reziac on Friday August 02 2019, @02:47AM (2 children)
Good points. However, citizens who are aware of and raise hell about crappy legislation are part of why some of the dumber ones don't get passed.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday August 02 2019, @03:15PM (1 child)
Well said, although there isn't the interest or support to raise Cain about every bill that passes through. Energy is better spent by calling attention to things that actually do have any sort of shot at making it, like the CASE act elsewhere. That's a story that deserves being shouted from the rafters because it is both harmful and very likely to pass. But as you say and there are such things as longshots.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Reziac on Friday August 02 2019, @04:38PM
True, tho one has a better chance of killing dumb legislation by never letting it get out of committee, at which point it can garner wider support and becomes more difficult to stop.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday August 01 2019, @04:28PM (1 child)
...from the fact that "But Hillary's Emails!" doesn't seem to work as well now as an answer to every awful new headline.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday August 02 2019, @02:49AM
Here I was peacefully reading Hillary's emails, which scroll on and on and on, and every 30 minutes this damned popup reminded me that I was wasting my time!
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday August 01 2019, @06:08PM
Literally! It doesn't even have any co-sponsors yet!
(Score: 1, Interesting) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Thursday August 01 2019, @11:26AM
We can be friends.
The fact that there are millions of people who hate what facegag is who can now never meet each other because there is no platform for people who think for themselves that has been able to grow to more than a thousand people without being subverted.
This type of measure 'protect us from ourselves by taking away freedom to do very specific things that are abused by people with mental illnesses' is a very good example of what it looks like when you are trimming the leaves of evil while ignoring the root.
It will look like our alleged representatives are getting tough, but the core mechanism of vacuuming private data and selling it to anyone who is willing to pay, is ignored and also conveniently out of the headlines for this entire discussion.
So I am suspicious of whoever posted this or suggested it, they are likely consensus crackers getting paid good fees.
So someone will have to have 2 google accounts in order to evade this dreadful daily play limit? Or will they have to identify us all individually by IP in order to make this work?
If anyone didn't think these thoughts without me having to tell you, then you might be trapped in a paper bag and not know it, or in other words, allowed to think because you don't know how.
We need to be destroying these entities and imprisoning the perpetrators who are ruining the internet and psychologically attacking society.
The question you should be asking is if we all worked together could we create enough junk data to ruin these monsters? And further thinking along those lines will be rewarded with freedom.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 01 2019, @12:41PM (1 child)
Make Javascript a public offense. the rest of problems are only consequences.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Thursday August 01 2019, @01:34PM
public offense?
Crime against humanity!
If they want to outlaw something, outlaw the trackpad
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Interesting) by richtopia on Thursday August 01 2019, @02:04PM (1 child)
I can understand a lot of the requests, but this last catch-all point is silly. Almost any Wikipedia article fails for this definition. What this catch-all seems to be promoting is articles with 20 pages you need to click through in order to read all of the content, something the users of Soylent News regularly complain about.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 01 2019, @06:05PM
He wants to outlaw letting people read bills before (or even after) they become law. Anyone ever seen a bill that could be read in 3 minutes?
(Score: 4, Funny) by fustakrakich on Thursday August 01 2019, @03:04PM (1 child)
Start with FOX and CNN...
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday August 01 2019, @04:31PM
(Score: 4,
IncitefulInsightful)I never watched FOX. I quit CNN in 2013. Haven't looked back.
On occasion there is big enough news happening that I'll turn to CNN's website. But rarely. And suspiciously. There's also the BBC. And Jerusalem Post which has more JavaScript than any site I think I've ever scene on one page.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday August 01 2019, @03:57PM (1 child)
I'm no fan of infinite scrolling and obviously think this attempt at regulation isn't going to do anything. But I'm just hung up on the wording here. When a "reader" is on a website and uses the scrollbar or their finger or whatever to "move down," is this not a "specific request from readers" for something? It's not like the scrolling is just happening automatically and the reader is forced to view content that just keeps coming into view. (I mean, such things can exist, but I don't think they are the target of the proposed legislation here.) Users are taking the initiative to scroll down. How different is this from a site that has multiple pages with a link to "next page" or an "arrow" or whatever to advance to the next content? Particularly when said link is sometimes accompanied by a "teaser" about what's going to be on the next page/next part of the article/whatever, as is common practice.
I mean, I'm not being dense here -- I do realize the "infinite scroll" does suck more people in to keep going down and reading compared to, say, a link to "next page" or whatever. But by scrolling down, the "reader" is "requesting" more content, particularly when they are familiar with a platform such as Facebook and see how it behaves.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday August 02 2019, @02:52AM
And how does any of this prevent the user from just closing the browser window? It's not like they've been clockwork-oranged to the screen...
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 1) by hwertz on Thursday August 01 2019, @04:37PM (1 child)
This LIMITING use per day is first of all ridiculous, and probably unconstitutional (I don't believe in the "corporations are people" but setting an arbitrary time limit is probably over the line in limiting speech.) You don't here anyone planning to limit TV use, or even say "Why are these movies over 2 hours long". A notice saying it's been 30 minutes might not be a bad idea, to kind of snap people out of it if they're on there a long time.
But how is 30 minutes decided? A person gets a note and replies; like 30 seconds. When they get a reply 3 minutes later, are they "using" it for 3 minutes? I would say no. On a computer, one can have a twitter feed AND something else open; on a phone one could have something open but the phone's in their pocket when they aren't just getting a message, so you can't really conclude they're "using" it just because it's on screen either. Honestly, this kind of stupidly planned rule could be turned into a joke, if a company measured actual server usage.. "welp, that message took 2 milliseconds to process. Only 1799998 milliseconds left!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 01 2019, @05:05PM
Stick to yer guns, no "probably" about it!
"but setting an arbitrary time limit is
probablyover the line in limiting speech"Small nitpick, I don't think this is a Freedom of Speech issue. Just a regular freedom issue.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Thursday August 01 2019, @06:40PM
FFS!
WTF? And there was me thinking the useless cookie warnings were bad...
Will the "conspicuous pop-up" displays autoplay and autoscroll?
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?