Congress wants to limit your social media time by law

[Cal Jeffrey]

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.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/81222-congress-wants-limit-social-media-time-law.html

 

[stewi0001]

Senator introduces bill to combat 'internet addition'

What about "internet subtraction"? ;P

 

[RF Match]

Getting rid of infinite scrolling would be great but don't mess with my pull to refresh...

 

[Odium]

"to prohibit social media companies from using practices that exploit human psychology"
Then prohibit stores from using them too. No more 99.99$ prices, putting more expensive products on eye level and all that stuff they use to trick you into buying more and pricier things.

 

[rrwards]

The headline:
"Congress wants to limit your social media time by law"
The opening statement:
"Congress is considering a bill that will restrict the way that social media companies can manipulate us."

These are vastly different things and you know it. What a shitty clickbait headline.

 

[Uncle Al]

While it is probably a very good idea it simply doesn't stand a chance. Heck, we can't limit gun control, drug abuse, etc. and this is a relatively minor issue since there is no harm directly associated, unless of course you count all those *****s that wreck their cars or step out into traffic because of their cell phones but when you consider the benefit of cleansing the gene pool ..... well, there you go!

 

[rub900]

The headline:
"Congress wants to limit your social media time by law"
The opening statement:
"Congress is considering a bill that will restrict the way that social media companies can manipulate us."

These are vastly different things and you know it. What a shitty clickbait headline.

I see this all time on here. I like this channel. If you don't like what is posted why heck do come here. It is like I hate to drink alcohol. Why the hell are you in a bar?

 

[Cal Jeffrey]

The headline:
"Congress wants to limit your social media time by law"
The opening statement:
"Congress is considering a bill that will restrict the way that social media companies can manipulate us."

These are vastly different things and you know it. What a shitty clickbait headline.

Read the whole story rather than just the first line. The law would put a mandatory 30 minute limiting viewing time on social media sites that you would have to opt out of every month if you did not like the limit. Headline states that exactly.

 

[mbrowne5061]

The headline:
"Congress wants to limit your social media time by law"
The opening statement:
"Congress is considering a bill that will restrict the way that social media companies can manipulate us."

These are vastly different things and you know it. What a shitty clickbait headline.

Read the whole story rather than just the first line. The law would put a mandatory 30 minute limiting viewing time on social media sites that you would have to opt out of every month if you did not like the limit. Headline states that exactly.

That a user can adjust to suit their needs, be it longer, shorter, or none at all. The headline is sensationalist.

 

[Reallyhow]

Now if only they would implement or enforce legislation meant to limit or stop the rise of fascism...

 

[amstech]

While I don't like anything that strips citizens of freedom, social media is an addiction just like gambling, drinking and smoking and it needs to be regulated the same way. I don't have anything against this being applied to folks under 21 years of age.

 

[yRaz]

The headline:
"Congress wants to limit your social media time by law"
The opening statement:
"Congress is considering a bill that will restrict the way that social media companies can manipulate us."

These are vastly different things and you know it. What a shitty clickbait headline.

I see this all time on here. I like this channel. If you don't like what is posted why heck do come here. It is like I hate to drink alcohol. Why the hell are you in a bar?

What you did is called a false equivalency. If a journalist is manipulating titles(which they did) to get more clicks then they deserve to be called out on it. This is called journalistic integrity.

 

[arrowflash]

Not a bad idea, but I'd much rather see politicians working to remove platform status from social media sites, since almost all of them only allow publishing ideas and ideologies they agree with, with no respect for the first amendment. So they should be reclassified as publishers, not platforms.

 

[cliffordcooley]

I'd rather read - "Congress wants to limit their office term by law"

 

[Danny101]

The headline:
"Congress wants to limit your social media time by law"
The opening statement:
"Congress is considering a bill that will restrict the way that social media companies can manipulate us."

These are vastly different things and you know it. What a shitty clickbait headline.

Isn't this a manipulation in itself?

 

[Reallyhow]

Not a bad idea, but I'd much rather see politicians working to remove platform status from social media sites, since almost all of them only allow publishing ideas and ideologies they agree with, with no respect for the first amendment. So they should be reclassified as publishers, not platforms.

Private companies are not beholden to the first amendment. The specific function of this civil right is to protect your speech from government prosecution.

Hate speech is not protected speech. Consider removing yourself from the internet.

 

[Lew Zealand]

Article title is fine, not clickbait. Contents of the article reflect the title and I didn't find that I was misled by it.

It seems that recently a few people here are getting triggered by perceived clickbait, yet I don't see them suggest an alternate headline which is just as concise yet more accurate.

 

[arrowflash]

Private companies are not beholden to the first amendment. The specific function of this civil right is to protect your speech from government prosecution.

That's a common misconception. If your business is supposed to be an open, free access platform, you are subject to beholding the constitution (people often cite Marsh vs. Alabama case as an example of this). This doesn't mean that your business isn't allowed to silence speech you disagree with, but in that case you are not a platform, you are a publisher - which means you could be held personally responsible for any content that's published on it.
It's quite revolting how companies like Facebook, Youtube and Twitter have gotten away with it for so long, not surprising though, considering their pockets and government ties...

 

[brucek]

I do not have any confidence that Congress is the best user experience designer for all my internet sites. This is not their role. Maybe they can have one of their agencies publish a pamphlet from time to time.

Meanwhile, if I don't want to infinite scroll, I won't. Or I'll install an add-on that blocks it, or does so after a time limit, or puts up a warning timer. (I like HabitLab if anyone needs a recommendation.)

I do agree that our legal system does need to recognize that "consent" is not achieved by having a basically auto-click "I agree" paired with an all but hidden "I do not agree." But the fix there is not to have Congress specify font sizes, it is to have courts find that those mechanisms do not result in enforceable agreements. As that happens and precedents are achieved naturally over time, companies will willingly adapt on their own.

 

[rrwards]

The headline:
"Congress wants to limit your social media time by law"
The opening statement:
"Congress is considering a bill that will restrict the way that social media companies can manipulate us."

These are vastly different things and you know it. What a shitty clickbait headline.

I see this all time on here. I like this channel. If you don't like what is posted why heck do come here. It is like I hate to drink alcohol. Why the hell are you in a bar?

Someone already called you out on the false equivalency, but I'll expand anyways. It's because there's other things on Techspot I do enjoy reading about. I have the RSS feed on my phone because a lot of the tech they do cover is well done and interesting. Your analogy doesn't hold up, because unlike a bar that serves up one thing, they're a website that covers everything from hardware to software to whatever in tech.

 

[rrwards]

Article title is fine, not clickbait. Contents of the article reflect the title and I didn't find that I was misled by it.

It seems that recently a few people here are getting triggered by perceived clickbait, yet I don't see them suggest an alternate headline which is just as concise yet more accurate.

Here's one for you: Congress Proposes Bill to Limit Social Media Manipulation, Misses the Mark.

With that title we would know that the bill is targeting the manipulative practices of social media companies, but also that Congress isn't going about it the right way. 90% of the article is about the manipulative practices of social media companies. The "limit by law" part is two sentences long. Is it a dumb proposal because of the limit? Yes definitely. I didn't miss that (as the author implied in a response), my issue is that it's a Buzzfeed-tier title.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Not a bad idea, but I'd much rather see politicians working to remove platform status from social media sites, since almost all of them only allow publishing ideas and ideologies they agree with, with no respect for the first amendment. So they should be reclassified as publishers, not platforms.

Private companies are not beholden to the first amendment. The specific function of this civil right is to protect your speech from government prosecution.

Hate speech is not protected speech. Consider removing yourself from the internet.

"Hate speech in the United States is not regulated, in contrast to that of most other liberal democracies. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that hate speech is legally protected free speech under the First Amendment."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States

Literally the first google result.

If a platform moderates what is present on its platform, it has become a publisher, and thus should be moderated as such. You cant have your cake and eat it too.

Not that hard to figure out. If some naughty words trigger you so hard you literally cant stand it, get off of the internet and grow a pair.

 

[Graloc25]

Ah, oh, "The land of the Free". Be that for me, or only for thee? Best not forget the Pilgrim Fathers came to the US because they couldn't get away with their narrow-minded bigotry in the UK. Old habits die hard? You bet-ya.

 

[cliffordcooley]

narrow-minded bigotry

That's the way I see your comment.

 

[Raytrace3D]

The headline:
"Congress wants to limit your social media time by law"
The opening statement:
"Congress is considering a bill that will restrict the way that social media companies can manipulate us."

These are vastly different things and you know it. What a shitty clickbait headline.

Congress will consider how media outlets title their articles next... trust me.