This title is very dangerous, since it implies that it's the Internet that needs to be regulated and not the toxic enterprises that use it. It's like regulating breathing in a classroom because some guy keeps on farting in it.
Internet by itself is not addictive; enterprises that abuse their users are. They have to work like this, since their profit depends on how much attention they can steal and therefore how many advertisements they can display and how much data they can gather to further process and sell.
At some point, the addicts themselves have to be addressed. Sure, pushers are contributing to the problem. But internet addiction was a thing before the pushers found the internet. In fact, the first Internet Addiction diagnosis was made at my local University Hospital about 20 years ago (I knew the doctor).
They have a high chance of not being addicted to the Internet, but addicted in general. The main question isn't what addicts are escaping into but what they are escaping from.
In the US, I think there's a pretty strong First Amendment case against regulating the actual "engagement" mechanisms as the author suggests. That's assuming we could even come up with a sensible and effective set of regulations in the first place.
It also seems weird to me that the author describes how advertising has shaped this architecture, and then suggests that we tweak things at the browser and website level, leaving the advertisers alone. Shouldn't there also be a discussion about what ad networks are allowed to do in terms of the collection, retention, security, (de)anonymization, and sale of user data? How about punitive damages for networks that distribute ads with malware? Maybe if we didn't let that sector run wild, it would have less influence over website design.
Skip about 28 minutes through for the internet parts. He largely encourages us to open our minds beyond the good vs. evil thoughts on net neutrality and cites earlier efforts of bringing computing in a more intentional way (e.g. France’s minitel)
7 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 26.2 ms ] threadInternet by itself is not addictive; enterprises that abuse their users are. They have to work like this, since their profit depends on how much attention they can steal and therefore how many advertisements they can display and how much data they can gather to further process and sell.
It also seems weird to me that the author describes how advertising has shaped this architecture, and then suggests that we tweak things at the browser and website level, leaving the advertisers alone. Shouldn't there also be a discussion about what ad networks are allowed to do in terms of the collection, retention, security, (de)anonymization, and sale of user data? How about punitive damages for networks that distribute ads with malware? Maybe if we didn't let that sector run wild, it would have less influence over website design.
https://youtu.be/f1yJ8eeI2js
Skip about 28 minutes through for the internet parts. He largely encourages us to open our minds beyond the good vs. evil thoughts on net neutrality and cites earlier efforts of bringing computing in a more intentional way (e.g. France’s minitel)