New bill would ban autoplay videos and endless scrolling

[steven36]

Taking aim at ‘features that are designed to be addictive’

 

Image:  Sen. Josh Hawley

 

Snapstreaks, YouTube autoplay, and endless scrolling are all coming under fire from a new bill, which is sponsored by Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), targeting the tech industry’s “addictive” design.

 

Hawley’s Social Media Addiction Reduction Technology Act, or the SMART Act, would ban these features that work to keep users on platforms longer, along with others, like Snapstreaks, that incentivize the continued use of these products. If approved, the Federal Trade Commission and Health and Human Services could create similar rules that would expire after three years unless Congress codified them into law.

 

“Big tech has embraced a business model of addiction,” Hawley said. “Too much of the ‘innovation’ in this space is designed not to create better products, but to capture more attention by using psychological tricks that make it difficult to look away.”

 

Deceptive design played an enormous part in last week’s FTC settlement with Facebook, and Hawley’s bill would make it unlawful for tech companies to use dark patterns to manipulate users into opting into services. For example, “accept” and “decline” checkboxes would need to be the same font, format, and size to help users make better, more informed choices.

 

“Social media companies deploy a host of tactics designed to manipulate users in ways that undermines their wellbeing,” Josh Golin, executive director of campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood, said.

 

At a hearing late last month, senators heard from a panel of experts on persuasive tech. Tristan Harris, a former Google design ethicist, explained how platforms create products to increase the amount of time users spend on a site. “If I take the bottom out of this glass and I keep refilling the water or the wine, you won’t know when to stop drinking,” Harris told the committee. “That’s what happens with infinitely scrolling feeds.”

 

Some companies, like Apple, already have tools that help users track how much time they’re spending on different apps and websites. If this bill were to become law, social media companies would be required to implement similar tools that track use across all of the devices a user owns.

 

Source

 

[dhjohns]

The  bill is total BS, and anti-consumer making it more difficult for the user.  It is silly to try to legislate this stuff.  What does Senator Hawley want us to be like, the European Union?  Remember it gave us the crippled N versions of Windows.  I am sure this bill will die.

[steven36]

40 minutes ago, dhjohns said:

The  bill is total BS, and anti-consumer making it more difficult for the user.  It is silly to try to legislate this stuff.  What does Senator Hawley want us to be like, the European Union?  Remember it gave us the crippled N versions of Windows.  I am sure this bill will die.

Well  this guy and Microsoft have a lot in common then  nether one could gives 2 about what the consumer wants. Windows 10 itself  any consumer version is  anti-consumer.  They took all control consumer had over updates  away in Windows 10 . Just like this bill will most likely never sale nether will  Windows 10 to the home user , The only thing that keeps Windows desktop ship from sinking is the money they make off Enterprise . The PC sales have been in decline every since 2014 and the only growth it seen was  with Enterprise moving on to windows 10. consumer pcs are still not selling  .  

 

Really i could care less if  it pass or not . These services  are free so if your a consumer your paying with your data not with cash and  if you weren't addicted to it would never been a problem .  My media player and video players have auto play and this don't effect them because they not social media apps and that's all i'm worried about. Facebook ,Snapchat  and YouTube  could close down and i could care less  something else will just take it place. It would not really effect me because i was on the internet before they existed and life went on just fine without it.

[Matrix]

 

 

 

In context: There have been plenty of studies on the ill effects of social media. Excessive use has been linked to depression, and platforms use tricks to keep us viewing longer. Now Congress is considering a bill that will restrict the way that social media companies can manipulate us.

On Tuesday, Republican Senator Josh Hawley introduced a measure called the Social Media Addition Reduction Technology Act or SMART Act.

The bill looks “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,” reads the act’s introduction.

The practices that the bill refers to include features that coax users to continue viewing posts longer than they usually would. Things like infinite scrolling, engagement rewards, and auto-playing or auto-loading content that is not a function of the service would be banned from social media platforms. It also stipulates that icons used for accepting or declining agreements would have to be uniform — using the same font, size, and shape of buttons.

"It starts with techniques like ‘pull to refresh’, so you pull to refresh your newsfeed that operates like a slot machine."

These features allegedly to get users hooked to the scroll and meaningless gratification of gaining new trophies or awards for engaging. Tristan Harris, executive director of the Center for Humane Technology, testified before Congress last week about these addictive design practices.

“It starts with techniques like ‘pull to refresh’, so you pull to refresh your newsfeed,” Harris said. “That operates like a slot machine. It has the same kind of addictive qualities that keep people in Las Vegas hooked. Other examples are removing stopping cues. So if I take the bottom out of this glass and I keep refilling the water or the wine, you won’t know when to stop drinking. That’s what happens with infinitely scrolling feeds.”

The bill would also give platforms six months after the law is enacted to implement changes to help users control their usage. Site members would have to be allowed to set time limits. Companies would also have to provide regular usage reports spanning all devices. A 30-minute time limit would be mandatory as well. Users could opt-out of this restriction, of course, but it would reset once a month.

To me the legislation seems too overbearing. I’m all for time limits that users can voluntarily set. However, pushing restrictions on the public by force of law is too extreme. Users should be free to choose their limits without the government shoving arbitrary restrictions on viewing time down their throats.

 

 VIEW: Original Article.

[mp68terr]

As posted by @Mach1:

Quote

The bill looks “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,” reads the act’s introduction.

 

Practices that exploit human psychology or brain physiology are used in several areas, like for example in supermarkets in order to make customers to buy/spend more than they planned. All the areas where these practices are used should be affected, no solely social medias.

[steven36]

17 minutes ago, mp68terr said:

As posted by @Mach1:

 

Practices that exploit human psychology or brain physiology are used in several areas, like for example in supermarkets in order to make customers to buy/spend more than they planned. All the areas where these practices are used should be affected, no solely social medias.

Yes but the bill do not apply to supermarkets , the big difference is supermarkets is something  we must have , if you don't have money you can't buy nothing at all , they don't just sell things we want they sell things we need. So that is a bad comparison  it don't matter if supermarkets had music or not people would still use them. Social media is nothing we have to have there just big gossip boxes   a better comparison would be a social club  or a cult .🤣

[Karlston]

Similar topics merged.

[steven36]

The thing is right now both   the left and the right is going after  social media and big tech,  the left are running on tickets  too break up  big tech , so in 2019  it sucks to be  a Google fanboy or a Facebook zombie .Because that one thing we all agree on in  the USA ,  no one likes Big Tech . Even many Google employees  are donating to the ones who trying to break them up .  This not the only bill this guy has made.

 

Hawley, a Republican, has made a name for himself by arguing that relying on the goodwill of these companies isn’t enough. He’s also the author of a bill that would give the government power to police Twitter for political bias, and has introduced legislation to protect children’s data privacy. Another bill of his, introduced in May, tackles the addictive features of video games. Whether these bills make progress will show how much momentum is building in Washington for the view that the government needs to step in to curb Big Tech.

 

Source

[mp68terr]

1 hour ago, steven36 said:

Yes but the bill do not apply to supermarkets , the big difference is supermarkets is something  we must have , if you don't have money you can't buy nothing at all , they don't just sell things we want they sell things we need. So that is a bad comparison  it don't matter if supermarkets had music or not people would still use them. Social media is nothing we have to have there just big gossip boxes   a better comparison would be a social club  or a cult .

The point was not about where practices are used to exploit human behavior, the point was that if the bill is to stop 'practices that exploit human psychology or brain physiology to substantially impede freedom of choice' it should apply not only to social medias but also to all other areas. If passed it would only affect social medias, readers got it.

[steven36]

37 minutes ago, mp68terr said:

The point was not about where practices are used to exploit human behavior, the point was that if the bill is to stop 'practices that exploit human psychology or brain physiology to substantially impede freedom of choice' it should apply not only to social medias but also to all other areas. If passed it would only affect social medias, readers got it.

Well  when you start talking about other forms of  human psychology , besides the one the post is about you have went off topic . I don't see what  a store does to even be harmful , this guy who made this bill is not a psychotherapist . But his bills are  focused on Internet addiction , Internet privacy and  internet bias .They is shopping addiction as well but many of them are addicted because of television and shopping networks it don't have nothing to do with supermarkets that been around since 1915 that sells food . If you don't have food you  will die , If you don't have social media you will socialize in real life and be a better person , so you would be better off. Slowing people down as they shop  also helps them save money ,  If you grab  the 1st thing you see and don't look at what your going to buy to see whats the cheapest your going to  end up spending more .