Anyone who reads Careless People by the fired Meta executive Sarah Wynn-Williams, understands that the rot starts at the top. Zuckerberg denied under oath that Facebook's algorithms, lax moderation, tolerance of misinformation, and marketing tools for wanna-be tyrants made a difference in who got elected. He was shocked---shocked!--that anyone would suggest so. https://www.amazon.com/Careless-People-Cautionary-Power-Idealism/dp/B0DZ8KM7RR/
Thanks so much for writing this thorough article on the verdict against Meta and YouTube!! The news, I'm watching right now, had one sentence on it!!
I'm upset that the monetary amount, like you said, was a drop in the ocean. These companies should be held responsible for their algorithms on all of these plateforms.....the courts, if they could, should have ordered a algorithm expert to go into each of these companies algorithms and "fix" them. I know, that sounds ludicrous, but they definitely need more oversight on their platforms. These kids nowadays are glued to their devices. I don't have kids, but my neices and nephews in the late 1990s were glued to TV games, Tomb Raider, comes to mind, then in high school, their phones. I'd actually have to shut off the TV when I went home to Pittsburgh to visit family, and make them go outside w me to shoot some hoops.
I'm thinking parents should take their devices away from them, maybe an hour after school, have them do real things. I think schools are starting to store their phones while at school. I'm thinking maybe just let them use their devices for only an hour or so after school, if they are 13 or older.
These companies should have had to pay HUGE settlements, some going to the family, the rest to a good cause. They are liers and out of control. They control, watch, and record our every move, as you've said in other articles. It's completely wrong and insane.
"Her legal team argued that these platforms were designed the same way slot machines are designed, with features engineered to trigger compulsive behavior and keep users locked in. Infinite scrolling, autoplay videos, algorithmic recommendations that feed you more of what gets a reaction, push notifications timed to pull you back in, and beauty filters that warp how a young person sees their own face. Every single one of those features was a deliberate engineering decision. And every single one of those decisions was made to keep users on the platform longer so the company would sell more ads.¹"
We all knew that, though - that's the foundation of behavioral design oriented towards engagement. I do get that the courtroom requires a different evidentiary standard than a blog post or a Netflix documentary, so I'm glad this is happening. But, again, we/you/they could just ask any behavioral scientist if this is the case, because it is absolutely the case both formally and informally (whatever language is used internally will still surface strategic language/choices regarding the optimized reward). And variable ratio reinforcement schedules in gambling are already regulated = because the design itself arguably constitutes a form of manipulation, yes.
These companies employ said scientists, of course, because who else would be designing that? Pre-LLM (pre-bro-with-LLM-era), anyway. Nowadays the tech sector is rediscovering its own science, and quite frankly they had collectively likely ran many more true A/B behavioral experiments than the entirety of behavioral researchers.
Anyone who reads Careless People by the fired Meta executive Sarah Wynn-Williams, understands that the rot starts at the top. Zuckerberg denied under oath that Facebook's algorithms, lax moderation, tolerance of misinformation, and marketing tools for wanna-be tyrants made a difference in who got elected. He was shocked---shocked!--that anyone would suggest so. https://www.amazon.com/Careless-People-Cautionary-Power-Idealism/dp/B0DZ8KM7RR/
Dear Mitch,
Thanks so much for writing this thorough article on the verdict against Meta and YouTube!! The news, I'm watching right now, had one sentence on it!!
I'm upset that the monetary amount, like you said, was a drop in the ocean. These companies should be held responsible for their algorithms on all of these plateforms.....the courts, if they could, should have ordered a algorithm expert to go into each of these companies algorithms and "fix" them. I know, that sounds ludicrous, but they definitely need more oversight on their platforms. These kids nowadays are glued to their devices. I don't have kids, but my neices and nephews in the late 1990s were glued to TV games, Tomb Raider, comes to mind, then in high school, their phones. I'd actually have to shut off the TV when I went home to Pittsburgh to visit family, and make them go outside w me to shoot some hoops.
I'm thinking parents should take their devices away from them, maybe an hour after school, have them do real things. I think schools are starting to store their phones while at school. I'm thinking maybe just let them use their devices for only an hour or so after school, if they are 13 or older.
These companies should have had to pay HUGE settlements, some going to the family, the rest to a good cause. They are liers and out of control. They control, watch, and record our every move, as you've said in other articles. It's completely wrong and insane.
😔💔🐾🌿🌎🔆
Judy
"Her legal team argued that these platforms were designed the same way slot machines are designed, with features engineered to trigger compulsive behavior and keep users locked in. Infinite scrolling, autoplay videos, algorithmic recommendations that feed you more of what gets a reaction, push notifications timed to pull you back in, and beauty filters that warp how a young person sees their own face. Every single one of those features was a deliberate engineering decision. And every single one of those decisions was made to keep users on the platform longer so the company would sell more ads.¹"
We all knew that, though - that's the foundation of behavioral design oriented towards engagement. I do get that the courtroom requires a different evidentiary standard than a blog post or a Netflix documentary, so I'm glad this is happening. But, again, we/you/they could just ask any behavioral scientist if this is the case, because it is absolutely the case both formally and informally (whatever language is used internally will still surface strategic language/choices regarding the optimized reward). And variable ratio reinforcement schedules in gambling are already regulated = because the design itself arguably constitutes a form of manipulation, yes.
These companies employ said scientists, of course, because who else would be designing that? Pre-LLM (pre-bro-with-LLM-era), anyway. Nowadays the tech sector is rediscovering its own science, and quite frankly they had collectively likely ran many more true A/B behavioral experiments than the entirety of behavioral researchers.
I'm really, really glad there is now precedent.
Thank you for bringing this up / writing this up.