6 ms·

Question is not whether they were designed to be addictive (of course it was - that’s the product), but whether it can be proven.

by matterhorn2000 2mo ago

rg2004 2mo ago
Feels like you'd just need a former employee who was in an engagement engineering meeting.
- amelius 2mo ago
  ... who can't be bribed for a fraction of $1.4T.
  - ceejayoz 2mo ago
    Has to be a pretty decent sized fraction. https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/whistleblower-program https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/whistleblower-pro... > The Commission is authorized to provide monetary awards to eligible individuals who come forward with high-quality original information that leads to an SEC enforcement action in which over $1 million in sanctions is ordered. The range for awards is between 10% and 30% of the money collected.
    - nradov 2mo ago
      This case isn't an SEC enforcement action.
      - ceejayoz 2mo ago
        I'm aware. Start one.
- kridsdale1 2mo ago
  Here I am.
rafterydj 2mo ago
If you know it, and I know it, and everybody knows it, why the hell are we paying huge amounts to mince words over the proof?
- solumunus 2mo ago
  Because that is how the law operates.
- andsoitis 2mo ago
  Are you saying everyone knows it was designed to be addictive and thus no proof that it was is needed PLUS people actually got addicted to it (similar to drugs)? If so, what is your definition of addictive because it seems to differ from mine.
- ozgrakkurt 2mo ago
  This is more of a learning question. I recommend reading why law exists in the first place
- stronglikedan 2mo ago
  because sometimes what everyone thinks they know is wrong, and law is extremely nuanced, so everyone deserves a chance to defend themselves
pier25 2mo ago
Social media is the new tobacco
CJefferson 2mo ago
From the article there's this. If this isn't proof, well, I don't know what would be: A 97-page internal presentation, “Teen Fundamentals,” in May 2020, described its goal as to “look … to biological factors that are relatively consistent across adolescent development and gain valuable unchanging insights to inform product strategy….” That presentation conceded, “due to the immature brain they have a much harder time stopping even though they want to – our own product foundation research has shown teens are unhappy with the amount of time they spend on our app.”

Question is not whether they were designed to be addictive (of course it was - that’s the product), but whether it can be proven.

rg2004 2mo ago

Feels like you'd just need a former employee who was in an engagement engineering meeting.

amelius 2mo ago
... who can't be bribed for a fraction of $1.4T.
- ceejayoz 2mo ago
  Has to be a pretty decent sized fraction. https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/whistleblower-program https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/whistleblower-pro... > The Commission is authorized to provide monetary awards to eligible individuals who come forward with high-quality original information that leads to an SEC enforcement action in which over $1 million in sanctions is ordered. The range for awards is between 10% and 30% of the money collected.
  - nradov 2mo ago
    This case isn't an SEC enforcement action.
    - ceejayoz 2mo ago
      I'm aware. Start one.
kridsdale1 2mo ago
Here I am.

rafterydj 2mo ago

If you know it, and I know it, and everybody knows it, why the hell are we paying huge amounts to mince words over the proof?

solumunus 2mo ago
Because that is how the law operates.
andsoitis 2mo ago
Are you saying everyone knows it was designed to be addictive and thus no proof that it was is needed PLUS people actually got addicted to it (similar to drugs)? If so, what is your definition of addictive because it seems to differ from mine.
ozgrakkurt 2mo ago
This is more of a learning question. I recommend reading why law exists in the first place
stronglikedan 2mo ago
because sometimes what everyone thinks they know is wrong, and law is extremely nuanced, so everyone deserves a chance to defend themselves

pier25 2mo ago

Social media is the new tobacco

CJefferson 2mo ago

From the article there's this. If this isn't proof, well, I don't know what would be: A 97-page internal presentation, “Teen Fundamentals,” in May 2020, described its goal as to “look … to biological factors that are relatively consistent across adolescent development and gain valuable unchanging insights to inform product strategy….” That presentation conceded, “due to the immature brain they have a much harder time stopping even though they want to – our own product foundation research has shown teens are unhappy with the amount of time they spend on our app.”