New bill would ban autoplay videos and endless scrolling(theverge.com)
theverge.com
New bill would ban autoplay videos and endless scrolling
https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/30/20746878/josh-hawley-dark-patterns-platform-design-autoplay-youtube-videos-scrolling-snapstreaks-illegal
247 comments
> When I worked there the product team at Netflix had two KPIs all new features were tested against: hours watched and retention.
So, I totally understand retention: that one makes sense to me, as that's revenue for Netflix; if I'm more likely to renew my account, then Netflix makes more money. But... I honestly don't understand why Netflix is optimizing for hours watched, and in fact I had assumed it would be the opposite (leading to Netflix actually making it kind of annoyingly difficult to watch the full credits on movies, for example).
> But...the product team at Doritos does the same thing.
This makes sense to me: the more Doritos I eat, the more money Doritos makes. This isn't true of Netflix: every time I watch something, it costs Netflix money. I would, naively, expect that what Netflix would want to optimize for is some weird balance of retention (at high priority) and least hours watched (at a much lower priority).
> So yes, Netflix wants you to spend more hours watching Netflix and the product team is scientifically engineering the product to make it more addictive.
I also appreciate that the more hours I watch of Netflix, the more I might be "addicted" to doing so... but the reason I'd expect Netflix to care about that is because it means higher retention, which is already being directly measured. Any other aspects of my addiction don't seem to benefit Netflix: it costs Netflix money every time I stream something from them...
...and, it would seem to me crucially, it means that Netflix is "on the hook" for more and more content. If, on a relatively short-term basis (such as during an experiment), my measured retention is the same, but my hours watched is higher, then it means I'm burning through content I like to watch at a faster rate, and so Netflix needs to spend more money to rotate their catalog and create more originals.
It just seems so weird that Netflix would be optimizing for "hours watched", and I'd love to learn from someone more on the inside who was involved in that why they would do that. I understand why YouTube and Facebook optimize for "engagement" (even though I also think it is abhorrent) as 1) their revenue is based on advertisements and 2) they spread using network effects; neither of these are true for Netflix.
So, I totally understand retention: that one makes sense to me, as that's revenue for Netflix; if I'm more likely to renew my account, then Netflix makes more money. But... I honestly don't understand why Netflix is optimizing for hours watched, and in fact I had assumed it would be the opposite (leading to Netflix actually making it kind of annoyingly difficult to watch the full credits on movies, for example).
> But...the product team at Doritos does the same thing.
This makes sense to me: the more Doritos I eat, the more money Doritos makes. This isn't true of Netflix: every time I watch something, it costs Netflix money. I would, naively, expect that what Netflix would want to optimize for is some weird balance of retention (at high priority) and least hours watched (at a much lower priority).
> So yes, Netflix wants you to spend more hours watching Netflix and the product team is scientifically engineering the product to make it more addictive.
I also appreciate that the more hours I watch of Netflix, the more I might be "addicted" to doing so... but the reason I'd expect Netflix to care about that is because it means higher retention, which is already being directly measured. Any other aspects of my addiction don't seem to benefit Netflix: it costs Netflix money every time I stream something from them...
...and, it would seem to me crucially, it means that Netflix is "on the hook" for more and more content. If, on a relatively short-term basis (such as during an experiment), my measured retention is the same, but my hours watched is higher, then it means I'm burning through content I like to watch at a faster rate, and so Netflix needs to spend more money to rotate their catalog and create more originals.
It just seems so weird that Netflix would be optimizing for "hours watched", and I'd love to learn from someone more on the inside who was involved in that why they would do that. I understand why YouTube and Facebook optimize for "engagement" (even though I also think it is abhorrent) as 1) their revenue is based on advertisements and 2) they spread using network effects; neither of these are true for Netflix.
> So, I totally understand retention: that one makes sense to me, as that's revenue for Netflix; if I'm more likely to renew my account, then Netflix makes more money. But... I honestly don't understand why Netflix is optimizing for hours watched, and in fact I had assumed it would be the opposite
Hours watched differences may predict retention differences farther in the future better than short-term measurements of retention, which may measure reaction to changes more than it measures the steady-state effect of the change.
If you want to act on A/B tests faster than directly measuring long-term retention would allow, having a proxy measure of long-term retention that mitigates the risk of optimizing for transitional rather than steady-state retention has value.
Hours watched differences may predict retention differences farther in the future better than short-term measurements of retention, which may measure reaction to changes more than it measures the steady-state effect of the change.
If you want to act on A/B tests faster than directly measuring long-term retention would allow, having a proxy measure of long-term retention that mitigates the risk of optimizing for transitional rather than steady-state retention has value.
At least for my case, these optimizations directly led me to stop watching Netflix.
Unstoppable play-while-browsing plus the price hikes has me poised to drop it as soon as I finish two shows I'm near the end of. Probably in the next month. Either problem alone wouldn't get me over the "bother to cancel" speedbump, but I dread opening Netflix unless I'm browsing straight to something I already know is on there, these days. If it were still super cheap, whatever, but I can get a couple cheap services for its price now. Out it goes.
I'll just start picking it up a month a year or so to binge whatever I've missed.
Playing-on-the-menu and autoplay-after-episode would keep me from recommending it to older relatives. The last thing they need is their devices doing shit without their telling them to, especially with audio and video involved for extra confusing-the-hell out of them, doubly so when they're trying to direct it to do something (browsing the media selection). Probably direct them to Hulu, I guess, if they asked.
I'll just start picking it up a month a year or so to binge whatever I've missed.
Playing-on-the-menu and autoplay-after-episode would keep me from recommending it to older relatives. The last thing they need is their devices doing shit without their telling them to, especially with audio and video involved for extra confusing-the-hell out of them, doubly so when they're trying to direct it to do something (browsing the media selection). Probably direct them to Hulu, I guess, if they asked.
You could just turn it off in the settings.
You can shut off auto-play junk on the menus? Didn't used to be able to. Great news, one of the worst UI features I've ever seen (as in, intended behavior, not a bug).
Why hours watched? Because Netflix wants as much of your time as you're willing to give. The more ingrained they are in your life, the less elastic your demand. We've seen them raise prices and remove just about all of the worthwhile content, and they have more subscribers than ever. Stay tuned for more of this.
They didn’t “remove” content. It was taken from them by the owners.
That is an incredibly pedantic statement. They chose not to pay the cost that the owners charged them. Netflix is an equal actor.
There was no “cost” they could have paid Disney (and now Fox), Warner, or NBC Universal to keep their content when they wanted it back to start their own streaming service with exclusive content.
I wonder how many of those extra hours watched are because the stream just didn't stop after the person fell asleep. I can't tell you the number of times I've fallen asleep while Netflix played (or walked away) and it went right into some other show I didn't care to watch (and never actually did).
If hours streamed is your metric for engagement.. of course having the stream continue on its own would make that number rise. It doesn't actually say anything at all about real engagement.
If hours streamed is your metric for engagement.. of course having the stream continue on its own would make that number rise. It doesn't actually say anything at all about real engagement.
Ours has definitely ended up playing to an empty room for a good long while, a few times.
I'm not on the inside, but I have a possible explanation.
Netflix has competitors. If we assume that leisure-time hours are fixed in the short term, the more hours you spend watching Netflix, the less you have available for Hulu, Amazon Prime, CBS, HBO, MLB, or Disney streaming services. Thus, if all those have comparable prices, more hours watching Netflix translates to greater subscriber-perceived entertainment value for money spent on watching Netflix than on the other services.
Netflix does not have to be number one, but it does have to be high enough on people's ranked lists to be above their individual fragmentation threshold.
If a customer's hours watched is low and dropping, Netflix is in danger of losing them as a customer, especially when Disney comes online later.
Perhaps if CBS All Access tracked that number, they would give up, and contract with Netflix or Hulu to stream their content. It seems to me that it is the service that would be least likely to get subscribers that are already at or near their fragmentation tolerance.
Netflix has competitors. If we assume that leisure-time hours are fixed in the short term, the more hours you spend watching Netflix, the less you have available for Hulu, Amazon Prime, CBS, HBO, MLB, or Disney streaming services. Thus, if all those have comparable prices, more hours watching Netflix translates to greater subscriber-perceived entertainment value for money spent on watching Netflix than on the other services.
Netflix does not have to be number one, but it does have to be high enough on people's ranked lists to be above their individual fragmentation threshold.
If a customer's hours watched is low and dropping, Netflix is in danger of losing them as a customer, especially when Disney comes online later.
Perhaps if CBS All Access tracked that number, they would give up, and contract with Netflix or Hulu to stream their content. It seems to me that it is the service that would be least likely to get subscribers that are already at or near their fragmentation tolerance.
> Netflix has competitors. If we assume that leisure-time hours are fixed in the short term, the more hours you spend watching Netflix, the less you have available for Hulu, Amazon Prime, CBS, HBO, MLB, or Disney streaming services.
Not only those competitors but any other activity, from reading HN to working to going out with friends, etc.
Not only those competitors but any other activity, from reading HN to working to going out with friends, etc.
We could lump those together as screen-time versus non-screen-time.
I hypothesize that converting an hour from one subcategory of screen-time to another is easier than converting it from non-screen-time to screen-time. I.e. it's easier to convince someone to watch Netflix instead of watching Hulu, than it is to convince them to watch Netflix or Hulu instead of hosting/attending a summer outdoor grilling party.
Netflix would show greater gains relative to competitors by converting more hours spent watching their streams. Any attempt to bring in more hours from the outside would also tend to help competitors, since they would then have an easier time poaching those hours from Netflix later. That might be beneficial in a nascent industry, but I think we're past that now. Nobody is going to be launching an explicit "stay in, and watch more TV" campaign any time soon, but apparently they all will whisper "now that you're already watching TV, why not just keep doing it?" via autoplay mechanisms.
And time spent working is definitely not leisure time, by definition.
I hypothesize that converting an hour from one subcategory of screen-time to another is easier than converting it from non-screen-time to screen-time. I.e. it's easier to convince someone to watch Netflix instead of watching Hulu, than it is to convince them to watch Netflix or Hulu instead of hosting/attending a summer outdoor grilling party.
Netflix would show greater gains relative to competitors by converting more hours spent watching their streams. Any attempt to bring in more hours from the outside would also tend to help competitors, since they would then have an easier time poaching those hours from Netflix later. That might be beneficial in a nascent industry, but I think we're past that now. Nobody is going to be launching an explicit "stay in, and watch more TV" campaign any time soon, but apparently they all will whisper "now that you're already watching TV, why not just keep doing it?" via autoplay mechanisms.
And time spent working is definitely not leisure time, by definition.
Hours watched is a leading indicator of retention. The more people watch, the more likely they are to remain a customer.
This makes sense but I'm guessing there are diminishing returns that may actually turn negative at some point.
I.e. How much more likely is someone who watches 21 hours vs 20 hours to be retained? Then how much more likely is someone who watches 41 hours vs 40 hours to be retained? I'm guessing that on average there is a much smaller difference between 41 and 40 than between 21 and 20.
I'm also guessing it may turn negative as some people have shown they will subscribe for a month, binge on their favorite/new shows, and then cancel. Perhaps renewing in a few months time to do it again.
Would also be curious about other metrics such as search time : watch time. I'd imaging people spending more time searching and less time watching get frustrated and are more likely to cancel. With autoplay it eliminates searching for some.
I'm also curious why there isn't a setting to enable/disable autoplay.
I.e. How much more likely is someone who watches 21 hours vs 20 hours to be retained? Then how much more likely is someone who watches 41 hours vs 40 hours to be retained? I'm guessing that on average there is a much smaller difference between 41 and 40 than between 21 and 20.
I'm also guessing it may turn negative as some people have shown they will subscribe for a month, binge on their favorite/new shows, and then cancel. Perhaps renewing in a few months time to do it again.
Would also be curious about other metrics such as search time : watch time. I'd imaging people spending more time searching and less time watching get frustrated and are more likely to cancel. With autoplay it eliminates searching for some.
I'm also curious why there isn't a setting to enable/disable autoplay.
There are probably so many angles to this but I will give one. Netflix is more likely to be used and loved if it gives someone something similar to the thing they just finished watching (like the next episode) then if they lose them to something they might not like by giving them the opportunity to find other content.
Also even if the content is not the next episode I feel I would be more likely to go with a suggested (new) video or content rather than something that takes me time to find (and therefore in theory happier with the service). For example there are so many choices on Netflix that I find I often might decide to not even take a look because of what I think the content is. [1]
[1] An example of this is the most excellent (now in S3) 'Money Heist'. The Dali masks were an instant turnoff for me that for whatever reason (rightly or wrongly) made me think it was some kind of fantasy rather than a crime drama (not saying my thoughts were right but that is what I thought).
Also even if the content is not the next episode I feel I would be more likely to go with a suggested (new) video or content rather than something that takes me time to find (and therefore in theory happier with the service). For example there are so many choices on Netflix that I find I often might decide to not even take a look because of what I think the content is. [1]
[1] An example of this is the most excellent (now in S3) 'Money Heist'. The Dali masks were an instant turnoff for me that for whatever reason (rightly or wrongly) made me think it was some kind of fantasy rather than a crime drama (not saying my thoughts were right but that is what I thought).
While you watch Netflix, you don't watch a competitor. In a way, this autoplay feature removes a friction for the customer that doesn't have to decide what to watch next. This removes the "danger" that the customer think about that cool show that is not provided by Netflix.
At the end of the month, the customer may think about how much they use a TV provider and not the other, and decide to keep Netflix and ditch any other subscription they may have.
It's true that it burns through Netflix content but they made 1,500 hours of original content in 2018, content that they have to create anyway for other reasons, so a lot of your free time is already covered.
At the end of the month, the customer may think about how much they use a TV provider and not the other, and decide to keep Netflix and ditch any other subscription they may have.
It's true that it burns through Netflix content but they made 1,500 hours of original content in 2018, content that they have to create anyway for other reasons, so a lot of your free time is already covered.
But isn't that just a proxy for retention then? Why optimize for hours watched which correlates with retention when you can just measure and optimize for retention directly?
Ah, I understand what you mean. Well, if you know variable X is a proxy for Y, but Y is a lot longer to measure than X, then I guess it makes sense to optimize X knowing that it will increase Y (if you are sure X will bring Y).
It's not exactly a proxy, but a leading/lagging indicator, which has its own value.
I would assume that Netflix has data that shows hours watched is directly correlated with retention.
Think of hours watched as a leading indicator for retention. You don't want to only track retention because by the time it drops, it's too late.
Think of hours watched as a leading indicator for retention. You don't want to only track retention because by the time it drops, it's too late.
The cost produce something is sunk already. If everyone watches (birdbox) and talks about it can get more people to subscribe.
The more you watch the more likely you are satified. They won't make new content for you because you watch more. They know you will watch a variety of shows and will watch some less known content.
Plus view numbers are important for awards and privately they share with producers to encourage them to sell new content/partner up. No matter how much you pay artists still want the world to see what they created.
The more you watch the more likely you are satified. They won't make new content for you because you watch more. They know you will watch a variety of shows and will watch some less known content.
Plus view numbers are important for awards and privately they share with producers to encourage them to sell new content/partner up. No matter how much you pay artists still want the world to see what they created.
Just taking a guess that the more you watch, the more value you feel that you're getting for your monthly subscription fee.
If I'm watching Netflix, I am fine with autoplay. Youtube too, while we're at it. I.e. if I'm there specifically to watch videos, and you want to autoplay the next video after I'm done, that's fine.
What I'm not fine with is places that autoplay that have no business doing it, especially if they do that specifically to brag about how many autoplays it has (i.e. CNN). CNN in particular is my main annoyance, as when I go there I just want to read their news article, NOT watch video, and yet I have to scramble to hit the pause button on their video the moment I launch one of their pages (even by accident, because I'm just clicking a google link or a Hacker News link).
So long story short; Netflix and Youtube or sites that are just about serving video (and nothing else), autoplay to the next video is fine and expected. EVERYTHING ELSE, DON'T AUTOPLAY.
What I'm not fine with is places that autoplay that have no business doing it, especially if they do that specifically to brag about how many autoplays it has (i.e. CNN). CNN in particular is my main annoyance, as when I go there I just want to read their news article, NOT watch video, and yet I have to scramble to hit the pause button on their video the moment I launch one of their pages (even by accident, because I'm just clicking a google link or a Hacker News link).
So long story short; Netflix and Youtube or sites that are just about serving video (and nothing else), autoplay to the next video is fine and expected. EVERYTHING ELSE, DON'T AUTOPLAY.
Autoplaying a series makes sense. Autoplaying videos as one scrolls down the cnn website causing the site to take hours to load is foolish.
> But...the product team at Doritos does the same thing.
This is a good comparison because we know it's a public health disaster. Unfortunately he junk food industry was powerful enough to repeal this kind of rules in their domain, and I'd actually be surprised if this one was enacted.
This is a good comparison because we know it's a public health disaster. Unfortunately he junk food industry was powerful enough to repeal this kind of rules in their domain, and I'd actually be surprised if this one was enacted.
You wouldn't happen to know the guy/gal that implemented the automatic preview when hovering over a selection, would you? Curious as to how they felt about it, and how much that really affected retention (it bugs the everloving shit out of me, I try to use my old smart tv with an outdated version as it lacks this "feature").
I've never been able to understand why netflix benefits from autoplaying - you're not selling anything, you're just delivering content - so why does autoplaying, which presumably has some measurable, additional cost for bandwidth, end up benefiting the company?
Does the perceived value of netflix increase when autoplay is enabled? I really want to understand this, I've been strung up on this for a while.
Does the perceived value of netflix increase when autoplay is enabled? I really want to understand this, I've been strung up on this for a while.
When you have to choose between "watch the next episode" or "watch something else", Netflix benefits when the default is "watch the next episode".
When you have to consciously choose to watch the next episode, you can also make the choice to turn off Netflix and do something else. The more you watch Netflix, the more likely you are to keep paying for it. When you actively choose to do something else, the less likely you are to keep paying for Netflix.
It's not the perceived value, it's the choice.
When you have to make the choice, you could choose to spend more time with something else (like a video game, a Hulu show, etc...). If you choose to do that, you might get sucked into that game or show and decide to not come back to Netflix. Netflix would rather spend the few cents it costs to stream you a new video (which is probably already cached at your ISP) than make your choice to do something else explicit.
That said, I think it's a great feature that makes it easy to binge through a series. Its beneficial to both parties in that way -- I get to not move from my couch and they get to send me more entertainment (and keep me paying them).
Also -- the more you watch of a series, the more you'll talk about it to your friends. And the more likely they are to watch it. If you get stuck on Episode 2 of 10, you're not as likely to talk about it. But if you keep going to episode 3, 4, 5, then you are more likely to finish the series. And if you finish, you'll probably talk about it, and then the cycle continues...
When you have to consciously choose to watch the next episode, you can also make the choice to turn off Netflix and do something else. The more you watch Netflix, the more likely you are to keep paying for it. When you actively choose to do something else, the less likely you are to keep paying for Netflix.
It's not the perceived value, it's the choice.
When you have to make the choice, you could choose to spend more time with something else (like a video game, a Hulu show, etc...). If you choose to do that, you might get sucked into that game or show and decide to not come back to Netflix. Netflix would rather spend the few cents it costs to stream you a new video (which is probably already cached at your ISP) than make your choice to do something else explicit.
That said, I think it's a great feature that makes it easy to binge through a series. Its beneficial to both parties in that way -- I get to not move from my couch and they get to send me more entertainment (and keep me paying them).
Also -- the more you watch of a series, the more you'll talk about it to your friends. And the more likely they are to watch it. If you get stuck on Episode 2 of 10, you're not as likely to talk about it. But if you keep going to episode 3, 4, 5, then you are more likely to finish the series. And if you finish, you'll probably talk about it, and then the cycle continues...
The probability of you cancelling Netflix in a given month is inversely proportional to the amount of Netflix you or your household watched [1]. The expense of a marginal delivery of a particular episode's worth of resources is a great deal less for Netflix than the revenue of your subscription.
[1]: To a first approximation, anyhow. I bet there's a bump at zero, where people just entirely forget Netflix exists but they are still subscribed. If someone watches a single thing a month they're probably more likely to eventually realize they're not using it enough.
[1]: To a first approximation, anyhow. I bet there's a bump at zero, where people just entirely forget Netflix exists but they are still subscribed. If someone watches a single thing a month they're probably more likely to eventually realize they're not using it enough.
I suspect there's also an inverse relationship at the high end, because of people like me who'll subscribe for a month, watch all the new content, then cancel.
When you start measuring something, that thing tends to become what you optimize for, regardless of if it actually makes sense. Hours spent watching is some kind of indicator of whether people enjoy using the service, and is also a nice clean metric to be able to report on.
Serious question: how do you feel about having been involved in that feature, knowing that you were creating an addictive product and trying to get people more hooked on it?
You might try to say that people have free will and can do what they want, but you know that the reason it’s done is exactly because it’s addictive.
You might try to say that people have free will and can do what they want, but you know that the reason it’s done is exactly because it’s addictive.
I left Netflix mostly because of this. I've always believed that too much TV was bad for you and I didn't like thinking about how to get people to spend more time on the couch. It doesn't feel great.
To me, Netflix is probably the most benign out of FAANG. I wonder how many people there are at the other companies wringing their hands over the effects of their work. Facebook in particular, what with the exacerbation of vitriol in the country, as well as potential for foreign actor misuse.
I respect you for leaving. I decided a long time ago that the boost in resume for working for one of these companies really wouldn't be worth the moral baggage (Netflix being a possible exception for the reason I stated above).
I respect you for leaving. I decided a long time ago that the boost in resume for working for one of these companies really wouldn't be worth the moral baggage (Netflix being a possible exception for the reason I stated above).
Did being responsible for a feature so important to the growth of Netflix result in a reward or promotion outside of your expected compensation?
And as a father with 3 young children, you don't know how much I appreciate what you built. Not having to click next between episodes of "word party" for my toddlers is sanity saving.
Also to the people without kids who will be judging this comment, you may not realize that many children's programs are not always 30 minutes long. Episodes of Peppa Pig can be ~ 8 minutes. And on iTunes you cannot make a playlist or autoplay episodes, making Peppa Pig during car rides on the iPad an experience akin to visiting Hell.
And as a father with 3 young children, you don't know how much I appreciate what you built. Not having to click next between episodes of "word party" for my toddlers is sanity saving.
Also to the people without kids who will be judging this comment, you may not realize that many children's programs are not always 30 minutes long. Episodes of Peppa Pig can be ~ 8 minutes. And on iTunes you cannot make a playlist or autoplay episodes, making Peppa Pig during car rides on the iPad an experience akin to visiting Hell.
Now that my kids are old enough to control Netflix, it's awful all around. Needs much better parental controls. I suppose they don't do that because any useful ones would make their preferred metrics drop. Gonna feel good to cancel soon, for that and other reasons.
Are you condoning replacing children's autonomy and sidestepping parenting responsibilities with incessant dopamine depleting screentime/fostering electronic addiction at such an impressionable young age?
Why not read a book and play with some cool science toys and limit screentime?
I'm not a father but removing my children's autonomy with tech screentime and encouraging tech/media addiction worries me deeply...
Thoughts?
Why not read a book and play with some cool science toys and limit screentime?
I'm not a father but removing my children's autonomy with tech screentime and encouraging tech/media addiction worries me deeply...
Thoughts?
Before having kids I thought EXACTLY as you do....
But its hard to explain exactly how difficult this is, and how little time discretionary time you have, especially if you have more than one child under five, and I have 3.
I'm not trying to avoid responsibility, but for example there are days when I really have to go to the bathroom at 5:00pm, and that just can't happen until 8:30 when I get them to bed. Also "Word Party" is as about as educational as a 2 year old can handle and assists in learning the alphabet.
And I think letting them watch educational programs during our commute the best use of that time I can think of. There isn't really a lot of cool science toys for when they are in a car seat.
But its hard to explain exactly how difficult this is, and how little time discretionary time you have, especially if you have more than one child under five, and I have 3.
I'm not trying to avoid responsibility, but for example there are days when I really have to go to the bathroom at 5:00pm, and that just can't happen until 8:30 when I get them to bed. Also "Word Party" is as about as educational as a 2 year old can handle and assists in learning the alphabet.
And I think letting them watch educational programs during our commute the best use of that time I can think of. There isn't really a lot of cool science toys for when they are in a car seat.
Well, if it makes you feel a bit better, I love autoplay because most of the time I'm watching Netflix I'm cooking/cleaning/etc. I definitely clean less when there's nothing left that I want to watch, and autoplay means I don't have to break that flow.
[deleted]
Something I keep wondering about: For as far as I can recall there has always been something people are addicted to. In the 90s and early 2000s people were worried about TV time. Now that attention has moved around a bit: Netflix, facebook, instagram, YouTube, etc. So, who cares? Do people worrying about this have some grand idea that if humans legislated this addiction away then.. what?
> Do people worrying about this have some grand idea that if humans legislated this addiction away then.. what?
People can make decisions about where to spend their attention with a lesser burden of addiction design. That's it and that's a fine goal.
People can make decisions about where to spend their attention with a lesser burden of addiction design. That's it and that's a fine goal.
At least I can turn this ‘feature’ off, unlike the obnoxious auto playing trailers.
>But...the product team at Doritos does the same thing.
True, but they can't make the end of the bag of Doritos lead you to the counter to get another one in 5 seconds. (yet!)
True, but they can't make the end of the bag of Doritos lead you to the counter to get another one in 5 seconds. (yet!)
Yeah, but they make HUGE bags of Doritos now! :D
Yeah, ever so often when I want to continue watching the current series I realize that autowatch made me watch the whole season while I was asleep on the couch.
Really wish autoplay would stop every three or four episodes.
I've been annoyed with it on series that have unique end credit songs per episode. They put that song in there and I'd like to hear it, but autoplay cuts it off and just starts the next episode.
It does stop after 3 or 4 episodes.
It does stop for me.
> But...the product team at Doritos does the same thing.
I get awfully suspicious any time someone so clearly on today's side of the digital divide feels the need to hop the fence back to yesterday to elucidate an ethical argument. (And esp. on HN where you'd be hopping away from the place we're all standing.)
What's the threshold of addiction beyond which a digital streaming service becomes unethical in your opinion? How about dangerous?
I ask because you unequivocally refer to the product you worked on as "addictive." I can't imagine working on such a product without a clear sense of what the boundaries are.
I get awfully suspicious any time someone so clearly on today's side of the digital divide feels the need to hop the fence back to yesterday to elucidate an ethical argument. (And esp. on HN where you'd be hopping away from the place we're all standing.)
What's the threshold of addiction beyond which a digital streaming service becomes unethical in your opinion? How about dangerous?
I ask because you unequivocally refer to the product you worked on as "addictive." I can't imagine working on such a product without a clear sense of what the boundaries are.
[deleted]
The time in seconds should be also user definable.
Too much of A/B testing is good only for people who never want to change defaults.
Too much of A/B testing is good only for people who never want to change defaults.
Funny, for my account the timer is 20 seconds. I wonder if it differs per user.
I love this feature :) So thank you.
[deleted]
Things like requiring accept and decline checkboxes to be the same font seem somewhat reasonable, even if I disagree with it, but banning autoplay videos and endless scrolling is insane. There are legitimate uses for autoplay videos (ex. Netflix playing next episode, YouTube playing next song when you are listening to music) which I personally use all the time and appreciate, and endless scrolling is great when you don't need to refer back to previous results, and don't want to keep clicking "next". I think people should have the freedom to consume content how they want, the government shouldn't compensate for their lack of self control.
While I agree that it's hard to support legislation that's likely to have a lot of unintended consequences, it's also important to realize what's driving folks to introduce a bill like this. It's also worth pointing out that (in particular with Netflix) your example is its own counter-argument. You can't turn off autoplay, and that's the opposite of letting me make choices for myself.
There's also plenty of other examples of government regulating or banning things which exploit human weakness. Ponzi schemes, meth, gambling, and more are all controlled. It's pretty clear that a lot of tech-company design is (intentionally or not) probably scratching a lot of the same itches. It's reasonable to expect regulation.
There's also plenty of other examples of government regulating or banning things which exploit human weakness. Ponzi schemes, meth, gambling, and more are all controlled. It's pretty clear that a lot of tech-company design is (intentionally or not) probably scratching a lot of the same itches. It's reasonable to expect regulation.
> You can't turn off autoplay
I'm pretty sure you can turn it off for all devices from desktop Netflix's settings.
I somehow don't have autoplay enabled when I watch any series.
I'm pretty sure you can turn it off for all devices from desktop Netflix's settings.
I somehow don't have autoplay enabled when I watch any series.
It doesn't work if you're on PS4, which is where I watch. No matter what those settings are it always auto-plays the next episode and also the really annoying trailers. It's actually driven me to consume most of my content from Amazon instead.
Are you watching Netflix on your PS4 in a web browser, or a Netflix app?
Personally, I'd love to ban autoplay videos, but I'm really concerned about web pages here. A custom app, to me, doesn't fall under this purview. Netflix can do just about whatever they want in their own app AFAIC.
For websites that have a legitimate use for autoplay, but are still websites and not custom apps, I would support making it a user-controlled preference that only works for logged-in users. Usually, people view YouTube as a logged-in Google user, so that can be used to allow them to turn on autoplay for that.
Personally, I'd love to ban autoplay videos, but I'm really concerned about web pages here. A custom app, to me, doesn't fall under this purview. Netflix can do just about whatever they want in their own app AFAIC.
For websites that have a legitimate use for autoplay, but are still websites and not custom apps, I would support making it a user-controlled preference that only works for logged-in users. Usually, people view YouTube as a logged-in Google user, so that can be used to allow them to turn on autoplay for that.
> from desktop Netflix's settings
Isn't that an indicator that something's wrong when the company says "technically you can turn this off, it's just buried in the form of the product that people use the least. But technically you can turn it off."
Isn't that an indicator that something's wrong when the company says "technically you can turn this off, it's just buried in the form of the product that people use the least. But technically you can turn it off."
Definitely something is wrong because offering the ability to turn it off seems to be the way to fix the problem.
What do you mean "desktop Netflix"? You mean the web site? Please let me know where this setting is! I would love to turn this off but have never found a way.
Go here: https://www.netflix.com/HdToggle and then read from step 6, or...
go to: https://www.netflix.com/HdToggle#bxid_autoplay_true so you can move straight to step 7, or...
1. Select your profile
2. Hover mouse pointer over your avatar in upper right corner
3. Click "Account"
4. Scroll to "MY PROFILE" section
5. Click "Playback settings"
6. Scroll to "Auto-Play" section
7. Uncheck "Play next episode automatically"
8. Click "Save"
go to: https://www.netflix.com/HdToggle#bxid_autoplay_true so you can move straight to step 7, or...
1. Select your profile
2. Hover mouse pointer over your avatar in upper right corner
3. Click "Account"
4. Scroll to "MY PROFILE" section
5. Click "Playback settings"
6. Scroll to "Auto-Play" section
7. Uncheck "Play next episode automatically"
8. Click "Save"
You can turn off autoplay from the website, under Playback Settings:
https://i.imgur.com/gctaiHK.png
https://www.netflix.com/HdToggle
https://i.imgur.com/gctaiHK.png
https://www.netflix.com/HdToggle
This is it. You want autoplay? Make it opt in. Problem solved. Make more features opt in. I'm not sorry that this makes things harder for companies to make money.
When they keep failing at self regulating shit behaviors that consumers don't want, this is what happens.
When they keep failing at self regulating shit behaviors that consumers don't want, this is what happens.
What's driving bills like this is simple - people need things to campaign on and instead of addressing real problems they're busy trying to 'solve' easy ones.
You turn off autoplay by exiting netflix.
That makes it a zero sum game--all or nothing. Not good enough.
Or you could just press the "back" button on the remote.
I think the choice is to just leave Netflix when you are done an episode. Maybe it's just me but I've never felt like the autoplay makes me much more likely to keep watching, it is just convenient so I don't have to go through all of the menus again.
If we ban autoplay on Netflix, we should also ban cable I suppose (not a big loss, really), since cable will autoplay indefinitely.
If we ban autoplay on Netflix, we should also ban cable I suppose (not a big loss, really), since cable will autoplay indefinitely.
This kind of sounds to me like "you can stop smoking by not buying anymore cigarettes". True, but glosses over the addictive aspects which led to cigarettes being regulated as they are. And this isn't an accidental property of these apps, they're intentionally engineered features to drive "engagement"/addiction.
The difference is that actually addictive things, rather than just rewarding stimuli, produce increases in incentive salience regardless of actual reward outcome. In cigarettes this is mediated through nicotinic acetylcholine receptors on cells with inputs to dopaminergic systems that predict reward.
There's a vast distance between directly effecting the substrate of thinking chemically and reactions to rewarding stimuli coming in normally.
There's a vast distance between directly effecting the substrate of thinking chemically and reactions to rewarding stimuli coming in normally.
And what would that difference be when you are just describing different methods for affecting dopaminergic reward pathways?
If you scan the brain with an fMRI, the reward pathway lights up and suggest over time you will have reinforced that pleasurable activity and have created a strong affinity towards repeated activations, further strengthening those pathways.
Have there been any studies to show withdrawals from inhibiting consuming pleasurable visual media?
I mean if you were watching a series on Netflix that really resonates with you and you make a strong connection with the characters and feel as if you are a part of the scenes taking place (game of thrones etc), with characters faces activating your fusiform gyrus and dramatic scenes activating your amygdala making you emotional etc, how is autoplay facilitating the pleasurable dopamine response from imagining/anticipating/looking forward to how great the next episode will be, not as compelling of an issue as consuming exogenous substances that activate similar dopamine release?
If you scan the brain with an fMRI, the reward pathway lights up and suggest over time you will have reinforced that pleasurable activity and have created a strong affinity towards repeated activations, further strengthening those pathways.
Have there been any studies to show withdrawals from inhibiting consuming pleasurable visual media?
I mean if you were watching a series on Netflix that really resonates with you and you make a strong connection with the characters and feel as if you are a part of the scenes taking place (game of thrones etc), with characters faces activating your fusiform gyrus and dramatic scenes activating your amygdala making you emotional etc, how is autoplay facilitating the pleasurable dopamine response from imagining/anticipating/looking forward to how great the next episode will be, not as compelling of an issue as consuming exogenous substances that activate similar dopamine release?
Are you implying here that watching TV is not addictive? If this is the case, what do you think about videogames and why?
That's fair, but personally I am much more comfortable with the government regulating things which actually have chemicals which cause people to be addicted to them (cigarettes, hard drugs, etc.) than services which people can get addicted to. The fact that their is actually a chemical in cigarettes is the critical difference, to me. Maybe psychologically there isn't much difference, but that's where I draw the line personally.
I realize, I'm not the typical customer (I think autoplaying the next episode was the last feature Netflix introduced that didn't annoy me and made me think about canceling), but for me the only thing that matters when watching TV in the evening is if it's the penultimate episode (because those tend to end with cliffhangers and I'll want to watch the final one as well) and how tired I am/how late it is.
All autoplay does for me is saving me the click on next which I'd click 100% of those times when I don't close Netflix right at the end of the old or start of the next episode.
I can't even understand how it would make people watch more (unless they barely watch and just didn't realize a new one started)
All autoplay does for me is saving me the click on next which I'd click 100% of those times when I don't close Netflix right at the end of the old or start of the next episode.
I can't even understand how it would make people watch more (unless they barely watch and just didn't realize a new one started)
I find autoplay on Netflix highly inconvenient. Disable it and you can continue to watch the next episode with just one button press. There is no need for navigating around. Also super useful when you happen to fall asleep in front of the TV so that it doesn't keep pumping all the way through the night. Autoplay on Netflix is IMHO a dark pattern to feed on attention and FOMO.
Is it any different than traditional TV?
I don’t find traditional TV to be any good. Having no autoplay is an improvement.
Traditional TV usually switches shows, indicating I'm done. Netflix skips credits and openers, turning an entire season into one 20 hour episode.
I personally love that about it. I can watch more episodes in less time with Netflix, whereas I have to sit through the openers and credits for TV.
I also like watching shows while doing something else (e.g. folding laundry), so autoplay makes it so I don't have to worry about engaging with the service between episodes.
Afaik, you can disable it in the settings.
I also like watching shows while doing something else (e.g. folding laundry), so autoplay makes it so I don't have to worry about engaging with the service between episodes.
Afaik, you can disable it in the settings.
I find autoplay on Netflix highly convenient. Enable it and you can choose not to watch the next episode with just one button press.
I strongly disagree. Autoplay does exactly what I want when binging through series. I would watch it either way, but why would I need to click buttons for each episode when it can be automatic.
I support automation, not manual labor.
I support automation, not manual labor.
This would be fine if it were opt-in (and especially, opt-in per session). It's not. It's opt-out, and the opt-out is rather hidden (IIRC you have to use a web browser, you can't even opt out from devices running Netflix).
A good analogue is how certain TV shows (I'm thinking of Househunters, because I'm an addict) run one episode into another without a commercial break. You don't even notice you're on a new episode until you're already 60 seconds into it and hooked.
And we'll have to ban Radio.
We'll also need to ban most major highways, as they keep going and going and going. And don't forget to ban unlimited refills at McDonalds, I'm sure those get people into trouble too. How does the fast food industry get such a big free pass on all the trouble it's caused?
We'll also need to ban most major highways, as they keep going and going and going. And don't forget to ban unlimited refills at McDonalds, I'm sure those get people into trouble too. How does the fast food industry get such a big free pass on all the trouble it's caused?
Your cup at McDonalds doesn't automatically refill though. It's more like actively clicking next.
It does at many restaurants. The waiter comes by and refills my drink, often without asking if it has unlimited refills. It's kind of like Netflix, which says "next episode starting in 10 seconds", where inaction gets you more content.
And I don't see a problem with that. If you know you'll drink too much with unlimited refills, don't order drinks with unlimited refills.
I really don't think government has any business in this at all, but I guess I could see something where certain classes of product need to support setting limits on use from the customer side (as in, X hours of Netflix per day on this profile). That still sounds like overreach to me, but if it's a real problem for people with addictive personalities, I think it could be a workable solution while avoiding a lot of the unintended consequences.
And I don't see a problem with that. If you know you'll drink too much with unlimited refills, don't order drinks with unlimited refills.
I really don't think government has any business in this at all, but I guess I could see something where certain classes of product need to support setting limits on use from the customer side (as in, X hours of Netflix per day on this profile). That still sounds like overreach to me, but if it's a real problem for people with addictive personalities, I think it could be a workable solution while avoiding a lot of the unintended consequences.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFalla...
Here you go chief.
Here you go chief.
Your examples are from video sites. So having an autoplay there makes sense. There is no need for it to be the default setting.
Once the regulate everything people aggressively invited the government in, there was no going back. It's going to get extremely bad over the coming decade. Laughably bad. Politicians will regulate every possible inch of the Internet. And they rarely remove stupid regulations, so it will all pile-up deep. It will mirror the physical world, every click and every feature will involve breaking numerous laws. There is nothing that can stop this outcome now, the fox is in the hen house. The result will inevitably be stagnation, as creating anything online will be very burdensome in all possible regards. Most simply won't do it, they'll just work for a bigger corporation that can deal with the regulatory mess. Want to launch a simple service? Hire a lawyer, do a six month review before you write the first line of code, spend tens of thousands of dollars, and you're still going to be breaking some stray law if you dare to launch. Compliance requirements stacked up to your ears, placating every special interest group that wants their cause accounted for in regulations. And that's before we get deep into the big corporations buying/bribing/lobbying thousands of new regulations for their own protection.
> legitimate uses for autoplay videos
also saving bandwidth on gifs
also saving bandwidth on gifs
I’m torn about endless scrolling. I wholeheartedly agree with a ban on auto playing sound or video. It’s gratingly irritating.
It’s rather anti-human, experience wise.
It’s rather anti-human, experience wise.
> It’s gratingly irritating.
Right. But just because something is irritating does that mean it should be illegal? This seems like something that we don't need to waste taxpayer money on IMO. I feel like there's bigger fish to fry so to speak.
Right. But just because something is irritating does that mean it should be illegal? This seems like something that we don't need to waste taxpayer money on IMO. I feel like there's bigger fish to fry so to speak.
It doesn't waste taxpayer money for Congresscritters to write a law and pass it. They're paid a salary anyway, so it's just a bit of their time, and something like this shouldn't take long to debate and pass.
Plus, they could make money on it by levying enormous fines on websites that break the law. I'd love to see various news websites get slapped with $100M fines for having autoplay videos.
>I feel like there's bigger fish to fry so to speak.
Like what? Fixing our utterly broken healthcare system? That isn't realistic at all because they can't get enough agreement in Congress to pass such legislation. So they need to focus on things they can get done, like banning autoplay.
Plus, they could make money on it by levying enormous fines on websites that break the law. I'd love to see various news websites get slapped with $100M fines for having autoplay videos.
>I feel like there's bigger fish to fry so to speak.
Like what? Fixing our utterly broken healthcare system? That isn't realistic at all because they can't get enough agreement in Congress to pass such legislation. So they need to focus on things they can get done, like banning autoplay.
I'm not torn at all. I despise it and it's awful. But I don't want to legislate it either.
Endless scrolling is bad pattern. Things should have a natural stop, some sort of effort to move forward.
It's not because of irritation but rather to protect easy preys from getting stuck.
It's not because of irritation but rather to protect easy preys from getting stuck.
Irritation is not a valid reason for the government to step in and assert their power.
I agree, irritation isn't a valid reason. Addiction, on the other hand, is valid. Endless scrolling is designed to help keep people glued to their phones, continuously triggering a dopamine response that makes them keep scrolling, liking, and following. The purpose of it is to keep you hooked.
So where do we draw the line here? Ive implemented infinite scrolling on various forms of list-views over the years for dashboards here and there.
Do we categorize and label what would or would not be 'intentionally addictive' content and then ban that specifically?
Do we categorize and label what would or would not be 'intentionally addictive' content and then ban that specifically?
It looks like this bill is targeted towards social media apps, which would be an OK line, at least IMO.
That's not exactly a super well defined line though.
Slack has infinite scrolling and is mostly used for work, but I also use it with friends and you can't deny there's the same social media type feedback loop with Slack reactions.
LinkedIn and Yammer are "professional" social networks. People use them to get "real work" done, but they're absolutely social media too.
Slack has infinite scrolling and is mostly used for work, but I also use it with friends and you can't deny there's the same social media type feedback loop with Slack reactions.
LinkedIn and Yammer are "professional" social networks. People use them to get "real work" done, but they're absolutely social media too.
But isn't that done all the time? My neighbor blasting their music at 3AM isn't physically hurting anything, but it sure is irritating. And it's also illegal for that reason. Seems fine to me.
No, noise ordinances are in place to prevent people from interrupting each others sleep, which is necessary for maintaining a relative level of sanity. It is not analogous to preventing companies from forcing a specific UI pattern on a website.
But autoplay do you mean sounds and videos that autoplay when you go on a website, or sounds and videos which are automatically queued up after something you are already watching? Because I agree that the first is very irritating (there is nothing that I hate more than Netflix autoplaying previews with sound), but I find queuing up the next video very useful.
It seems pretty self-evident that "autoplay" means something that plays automatically. Queuing isn't playing.
I do not think it is self evident. In the article (and bill), queuing is considered autoplay if you do not explicitly select playlist of things to play. The definition in the bill is:
AUTOPLAY — The use of a process that automatically plays music or videos (other than advertisements) without an express, separate prompt by the user (such as pushing a button or clicking an icon), unless
(A) before any content is loaded to the user’s display, that user or a different use compiled a playlist of multiple music videos or audio files that the user designated should be played without interruption, and the immediate user selected one of the videos or files in that precompiled playlist; or
(B) the predominant purpose of the social media platform is to allow users to stream music, but only if the only files the platform automatically plays are audio files or advertisements
AUTOPLAY — The use of a process that automatically plays music or videos (other than advertisements) without an express, separate prompt by the user (such as pushing a button or clicking an icon), unless
(A) before any content is loaded to the user’s display, that user or a different use compiled a playlist of multiple music videos or audio files that the user designated should be played without interruption, and the immediate user selected one of the videos or files in that precompiled playlist; or
(B) the predominant purpose of the social media platform is to allow users to stream music, but only if the only files the platform automatically plays are audio files or advertisements
Considering other discussions in adjacent threads, it's quite clearly not uniformly self evident whether auto-play does or does not include continuing an existing "play" session with new media.
[deleted]
The bill as written[0] is limited to social media sites and has an exception for music playlists, so both your examples would be allowed.
[0]https://www.hawley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2019-07/So...
[0]https://www.hawley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2019-07/So...
For YouTube I don't use a playlist, I just let it pick the next recommendation, so that would still be banned.
They added an exception for advertisements, which is too bad since that is the only kind of autoplay video I would really be excited about getting rid of. The definition of autoplay in the bill is "The use of a process that automatically plays music or videos (other than advertisements) without an express, separate prompt by the user." If you are going to get rid of autoplay videos, don't have exceptions for advertisers, that just gives them more power.
They added an exception for advertisements, which is too bad since that is the only kind of autoplay video I would really be excited about getting rid of. The definition of autoplay in the bill is "The use of a process that automatically plays music or videos (other than advertisements) without an express, separate prompt by the user." If you are going to get rid of autoplay videos, don't have exceptions for advertisers, that just gives them more power.
Autoplaying advertisements are one of the main reason autoplay is so annoying. WhyTF would they make an exception for this? This seems like obvious corruption.
Yeah, but they kind of have to autoplay ads. Would you find it less annoying to (1) manually click to start playing an ad, and then (2) manually click after the ad is done to play the video? I hope it would be violation of the regulation to play ads ad infinitum after playing a video.
Yes, I'd find it much less annoying to have to manually click to play an ad, because then I can just not click at all, and read the article without having to listen to some stupid video.
Ah I see. This bill seems to only deal with social media / entertainment though (Facebook, YouTube), (unfortunately) not with those super-annoying autoplaying videos on news websites.
Yeah, those are the things I really hate. An ad on YouTube I'm not worried about, because I'm already there to view a video, and at least they have a "click to skip" button that shows up after a certain amount of time.
Its possible to me the auto-play setting something that is enabled voluntarily by the user. This would solve your problem.
> I think people should have the freedom to consume content how they want
Absolutely! That doesn't mean corporations should have a right to decide for people how they should consume their content.
Absolutely! That doesn't mean corporations should have a right to decide for people how they should consume their content.
Yes!
Instead of coming up with insane laws, the government can point people towards tools that will help them. For example, the govt could simply point people towards a chrome plugin that prevents those features from working, or a plugin that removes the links of any sites that have those features.
Instead of coming up with insane laws, the government can point people towards tools that will help them. For example, the govt could simply point people towards a chrome plugin that prevents those features from working, or a plugin that removes the links of any sites that have those features.
I was with you until
> the government shouldn't compensate for their lack of self control.
Quite frankly, I don't believe in complete self-autonomy. I think it's a great trait to strive towards, but the rise of behavioral psychology by itself shows that we can be poked, prodded, and nudged to do things that we otherwise wouldn't do, because "what we want to do" is a muddy non-singular fuzzy idea that can be tipped in whatever way the environment happens to be arranged or designed.
It's not about regulating people's lack of self-control, it's about acknowledging there are proven techniques that influence behavior and figuring out when those techniques are being taken advantage of in a socially detrimental way.
We can discuss whether continuous scrolling really is socially detrimental, but calling it "government compensation for lack of an individual's self control" is flat-out dishonest given that half of us here are about to go evaluate our latest adwords optimization spend or look at our next A/B test results.
> the government shouldn't compensate for their lack of self control.
Quite frankly, I don't believe in complete self-autonomy. I think it's a great trait to strive towards, but the rise of behavioral psychology by itself shows that we can be poked, prodded, and nudged to do things that we otherwise wouldn't do, because "what we want to do" is a muddy non-singular fuzzy idea that can be tipped in whatever way the environment happens to be arranged or designed.
It's not about regulating people's lack of self-control, it's about acknowledging there are proven techniques that influence behavior and figuring out when those techniques are being taken advantage of in a socially detrimental way.
We can discuss whether continuous scrolling really is socially detrimental, but calling it "government compensation for lack of an individual's self control" is flat-out dishonest given that half of us here are about to go evaluate our latest adwords optimization spend or look at our next A/B test results.
The text of the bill specifically allows this:
"REFILL.—The use of a process that automatically loads and displays additional content, other than music or video content that the user has prompted to play"
https://www.hawley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2019-07/So... (pp. 3-4)
"REFILL.—The use of a process that automatically loads and displays additional content, other than music or video content that the user has prompted to play"
https://www.hawley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2019-07/So... (pp. 3-4)
I can't think of a single situation where autoplay is remotely acceptable for anything but opt in.
I guess endless scrolling doesn't have to be bad. But I've yet to experience an implementation that isn't awful.
I don't think legislation is a good way to make developers behave. But I also don't know how to break the mess we are in.
I guess endless scrolling doesn't have to be bad. But I've yet to experience an implementation that isn't awful.
I don't think legislation is a good way to make developers behave. But I also don't know how to break the mess we are in.
If politicians could focus their efforts on actually solving problems instead of giving hand outs to their tort lawyer buddies, we might get a better system.
The lawsuits would include:
- autoplay of gifs vs web videos
- does Pinterest count as an auto scroll ad
- does an endless scroll populated with 50% real content count as non-ad?
The law will just create more headaches for the producers and less innovation thanks to having to fight lawsuits.
Example of the depths lawyers can class action: Godiva is being sued in court for putting “Godiva 1927” on the label; the lawyer is arguing that people believe that the chocolate was made in 1927.
*edited the content away from ideas.
The lawsuits would include:
- autoplay of gifs vs web videos
- does Pinterest count as an auto scroll ad
- does an endless scroll populated with 50% real content count as non-ad?
The law will just create more headaches for the producers and less innovation thanks to having to fight lawsuits.
Example of the depths lawyers can class action: Godiva is being sued in court for putting “Godiva 1927” on the label; the lawyer is arguing that people believe that the chocolate was made in 1927.
*edited the content away from ideas.
Outlawing X doesn't mean almost-X is completely fine. That said, none of your examples make much sense (to me).
> - autoplay of gifs vs web videos
Presumably the content is what matters, not the particular compression format. Does it show animated content continuously without being triggered by active user interaction? Yes, so it's an auto-playing video.
> - does Pinterest count as an auto scroll ad
It's primarily focused on a call to action, so yes, it's an ad. Would they show an equivalent popup for ordinary user-generated content that they have no stake in?
> - does an endless scroll populated with 50% real content count as non-ad?
Is there an ad that appears when the user scrolls? I don't even see what this example was supposed to demonstrate.
> The law will just create more headaches for the producers and less innovation thanks to having to fight lawsuits.
More headaches and less innovation in how to sell bullshit sounds like a very positive outcome to me.
> - autoplay of gifs vs web videos
Presumably the content is what matters, not the particular compression format. Does it show animated content continuously without being triggered by active user interaction? Yes, so it's an auto-playing video.
> - does Pinterest count as an auto scroll ad
It's primarily focused on a call to action, so yes, it's an ad. Would they show an equivalent popup for ordinary user-generated content that they have no stake in?
> - does an endless scroll populated with 50% real content count as non-ad?
Is there an ad that appears when the user scrolls? I don't even see what this example was supposed to demonstrate.
> The law will just create more headaches for the producers and less innovation thanks to having to fight lawsuits.
More headaches and less innovation in how to sell bullshit sounds like a very positive outcome to me.
> Presumably the content is what matters, not the particular compression format. Does it show animated content continuously without being triggered by active user interaction? Yes, so it's an auto-playing video.
By that logic a loading spinner is an auto-playing video. Does me logging in count as "active user interaction" for showing me a loading spinner? I didn't request the spinner, I requested access to my skype chats.
By that logic a loading spinner is an auto-playing video. Does me logging in count as "active user interaction" for showing me a loading spinner? I didn't request the spinner, I requested access to my skype chats.
A spinner isn't a "video", it's just a moving graphic.
Our legal system has many problems, but one problem it thankfully doesn't have is catering to ridiculous pedantry like you find with software programmers. Anyone trying to argue spinners in front of a judge is going to have their case dismissed with prejudice, because clearly the intent of the law wasn't to ban spinners or other such UI elements.
Our legal system has many problems, but one problem it thankfully doesn't have is catering to ridiculous pedantry like you find with software programmers. Anyone trying to argue spinners in front of a judge is going to have their case dismissed with prejudice, because clearly the intent of the law wasn't to ban spinners or other such UI elements.
The spinner fulfils a purpose (by notifying you that the content is still not quite ready) and is temporary (it goes away once the content is loaded). That said, you could always just replace it with a static "Loading.." label.
Plus, it's not exactly "content".
Unless there are two cases, the Godiva lawsuit is actually for putting "Belgium 1926" on the label and the argument is primarily that the chocolate is not made in Belgium or of Belgian quality. I didn't find any discussion of 1926 in the filing. https://www.faruqilaw.com/case/183/hesse-et-al-v-godiva-choc...
I apologize for making a comment with regard to politics, but I can't help feeling frustrated by the narrative around curbing "addictive behavior" coming from the political party that consistently extols the virtues of "personal responsibility" and regularly characterizes the desire to regulate harmful behavior as the machinations of a "nanny state". I find it especially frustrating in this case because the specifics of this proposal seem to be pretty poorly reasoned from a technical perspective.
The Republican party is about personal responsibility as much as the Democrats are for ending wars.
Both parties are essentially the same now, and have been for several years.
> Both parties are essentially the same now, and have been for several years.
This is very obviously and demonstrably false. I don't understand how anyone can believe this.
This is very obviously and demonstrably false. I don't understand how anyone can believe this.
As someone who generally votes for Republicans, I agree 100% with you. It'll be interesting to see how much support it gets from other Republicans, but I'm not sure that it's good for the brand of "bias toward letting the market decide" to have a bill that will swoop in and decide for us. Based on his biography page (https://www.hawley.senate.gov/biography), this seems to be more about making life hard for tech companies. If anything though, it seems like it will make life harder mostly on new entrants.
Also, it seems impractical to implement. As soon as those specific tactics are gone, others will be implemented that do something similar in spirit if not in letter.
Also, it seems impractical to implement. As soon as those specific tactics are gone, others will be implemented that do something similar in spirit if not in letter.
This is textbook regulatory capture.
Want to host your own website? Be sure to hire a specialized lawyer to audit and sign off on the user interface choices you made (and be sure to retain them indefinitely as your dependencies and the law evolve).
Want to host your own website? Be sure to hire a specialized lawyer to audit and sign off on the user interface choices you made (and be sure to retain them indefinitely as your dependencies and the law evolve).
> This is textbook regulatory capture.
I do not think it means what you think it means. (Or maybe I don't! :-)
I do not think it means what you think it means. (Or maybe I don't! :-)
The suggestion is that only large established firms can navigate the regulatory requirements.
I don't buy that.
I don't buy that.
Because it is nonsense. A lawyer isn't some sort of rocket or satellite, fundamentally they are accessible to anyone who is even remotely in the middle class.
Based on the discussion about plastic earlier this week we should just tax websites that auto play videos.
“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 not how drinking works. That's not how anything works.
That's not how drinking works. That's not how anything works.
including analogies.
It is a dumb analogy to be sure, but I think the point is valid. As intensely social creatures, humans are not particularly well adapted to handle the never-ending waterfall of synthetic social interactions you get from the likes of Facebook/Instagram/Twitter/etc.
In the past, getting as much social information as possible about your tribe was a huge reproductive advantage, but now that modern social network products have boosted the populations of our "tribes" into the thousands, trying to consume all that information has downsides that far outweigh the positive.
Facebook is basically the psychological equivalent of high fructose corn syrup.
In the past, getting as much social information as possible about your tribe was a huge reproductive advantage, but now that modern social network products have boosted the populations of our "tribes" into the thousands, trying to consume all that information has downsides that far outweigh the positive.
Facebook is basically the psychological equivalent of high fructose corn syrup.
He utterly mangled it, but there is an experiment which proves the underlying concept (which I'm guessing was his intent, live testimony is hard):
Bottomless Bowls: Why Visual Cues of Portion Size May Influence Intake
Objective: Using self‐refilling soup bowls, this study examined whether visual cues related to portion size can influence intake volume without altering either estimated intake or satiation.
Research Methods and Procedures: Fifty‐four participants (BMI, 17.3 to 36.0 kg/m2; 18 to 46 years of age) were recruited to participate in a study involving soup. The experiment was a between‐subject design with two visibility levels: 1) an accurate visual cue of a food portion (normal bowl) vs. 2) a biased visual cue (self‐refilling bowl). The soup apparatus was housed in a modified restaurant‐style table in which two of four bowls slowly and imperceptibly refilled as their contents were consumed. Outcomes included intake volume, intake estimation, consumption monitoring, and satiety.
Results: Participants who were unknowingly eating from self‐refilling bowls ate more soup [14.7 ± 8.4 vs. 8.5 ± 6.1 oz; F(1,52) = 8.99; p < 0.01] than those eating from normal soup bowls. However, despite consuming 73% more, they did not believe they had consumed more, nor did they perceive themselves as more sated than those eating from normal bowls. This was unaffected by BMI.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1038/oby.2005.12
Bottomless Bowls: Why Visual Cues of Portion Size May Influence Intake
Objective: Using self‐refilling soup bowls, this study examined whether visual cues related to portion size can influence intake volume without altering either estimated intake or satiation.
Research Methods and Procedures: Fifty‐four participants (BMI, 17.3 to 36.0 kg/m2; 18 to 46 years of age) were recruited to participate in a study involving soup. The experiment was a between‐subject design with two visibility levels: 1) an accurate visual cue of a food portion (normal bowl) vs. 2) a biased visual cue (self‐refilling bowl). The soup apparatus was housed in a modified restaurant‐style table in which two of four bowls slowly and imperceptibly refilled as their contents were consumed. Outcomes included intake volume, intake estimation, consumption monitoring, and satiety.
Results: Participants who were unknowingly eating from self‐refilling bowls ate more soup [14.7 ± 8.4 vs. 8.5 ± 6.1 oz; F(1,52) = 8.99; p < 0.01] than those eating from normal soup bowls. However, despite consuming 73% more, they did not believe they had consumed more, nor did they perceive themselves as more sated than those eating from normal bowls. This was unaffected by BMI.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1038/oby.2005.12
There are reasons to be skeptical about the results of this study:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2018/feb/1...
https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2018/feb/1...
That's polite! I would say that I doubt nearly everything that's come out of that lab…
A much better analogy, however I still think the generalization of "videos" as a single body of liquid is an overstep. It's not like the plot of a YouTube video just extends forever, you are aware you're starting a new video each time.
Much the same way that you're aware of each spoonful scooped up.
EDIT: see caveat from K-Wall below. Can't trust anything these days :-/ </edit>
That's exactly how it works, to an extent. In a study [1], people with self-refilling soup bowls ate 73% more soup (p < 0.01) than those eating from normal soup bowls. Similar with popcorn [2]. I first read about this either in Nudge or in Mindless Eating.
[1] Wansink, B., Painter, J.E., & North, J. (2005). Bottomless Bowls: Why Visual Cues of Portion Size May Influence Intake Obesity Research, 13 (1), 93-100
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1038/oby.2005.12
[2] http://projectputthatcookiedownnow.com/2011/bottomless-bowls...
That's exactly how it works, to an extent. In a study [1], people with self-refilling soup bowls ate 73% more soup (p < 0.01) than those eating from normal soup bowls. Similar with popcorn [2]. I first read about this either in Nudge or in Mindless Eating.
[1] Wansink, B., Painter, J.E., & North, J. (2005). Bottomless Bowls: Why Visual Cues of Portion Size May Influence Intake Obesity Research, 13 (1), 93-100
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1038/oby.2005.12
[2] http://projectputthatcookiedownnow.com/2011/bottomless-bowls...
How replicated has the study been? Even a fully credible researcher should not be trusted when their research has not been replicated due to just how prevalent replication issues are in psychology.
In anything…
People like to rag on psychology for this, but the same replicability problem affects a lot of fields. Some of it is sloppiness (or straight-out fraud, which is more likely here) but it's also just that science is hard!
People like to rag on psychology for this, but the same replicability problem affects a lot of fields. Some of it is sloppiness (or straight-out fraud, which is more likely here) but it's also just that science is hard!
At least in physics you don't see nearly the level of trust until a study have been replicated and confirmed. You might see a few news articles about someone's cold fusion reactor, but there is far more skepticism and scientists in related fields are much quicker to not trust it unless it has independent replication.
Soft sciences don't seem to have a similar culture.
Soft sciences don't seem to have a similar culture.
You’re probably right that half-baked psych and biomedical articles show up in the media more, but I think it’s a mistake to extrapolate from that to the actual work going on in the field.
I wouldn't cite Wansink... the guy had 15 retractions in the past year for making shit up.
Oh, good to know. Are you aware of more details? Replications or critiques of those studies? (As I said, I came across them in pop-sci books.)
The unit I'm affiliated with was tasked by the university to run replications and ultimately assist with the retractions. This was all done by my colleagues but I heard about it quite often. Past that I am going to refrain on commenting more as I'm unqualified to do so.
Two published replication studies (used for retractions) can be found here:
https://cisermgmt.cornell.edu/go/PHPs/catalogSingleStudy.php...
https://cisermgmt.cornell.edu/go/PHPs/catalogSingleStudy.php...
Two published replication studies (used for retractions) can be found here:
https://cisermgmt.cornell.edu/go/PHPs/catalogSingleStudy.php...
https://cisermgmt.cornell.edu/go/PHPs/catalogSingleStudy.php...
Bottomless margaritas have led to many a poor decision.
(They remain legal, though.)
(They remain legal, though.)
I imagined this as a glass attached to a table with a false bottom that constantly refills the glass. When you drink some of the liquid (presumably with a straw?) the glass is instantly refilled, which makes it hard to tell how much you've drank.
In other words: I agree, this really isn't a great example.
In other words: I agree, this really isn't a great example.
We know that portion size matters, because people will eat/drink what’s in front of them.
Like when my brother decided to keep my glass full all the time at the bar. I got soo wasted, didn't even realise.
Even if we could all agree that autoplay videos and endless scrolling are terrible ideas, I still don't understand why we should get the government involved. Use a service that has them, or refuse to. Find another service that doesn't use them. "There should be a law..." is often the wrong response. At least in my opinion.
Its coming out of a social initiative that deals with the inability of parents to keep social media (and tech in general) addiction of their kids under control. Human beings have a lot of psychological vulnerabilities and, if you watched the senate hearing, you'd know how tech companies exploit some of our innate addictive personality traits to get people hooked on their product. Pick-up "artists" use this to get laid. Advertisers use it to sell their junk products, etc.
Its easy to point out whats wrong, but nobody sticks their neck out and tells people how to fix the situation. Here, someone seems to be trying, and for that I give them some props..
Its easy to point out whats wrong, but nobody sticks their neck out and tells people how to fix the situation. Here, someone seems to be trying, and for that I give them some props..
Absolutely agreed. There are plenty of things I want politicians removed from - but possibly getting fined over a website I design is absolutely ludicrous. It's like getting rid of deer coming on to your property and eating your flowers by planting landmines. Pretty sure there's something less extreme than making something illegal.
Although these days, everything has to be either extreme this or extreme that, and common sense (like just not using those websites, or utilizing this thing called personal responsibility to recognize and curb your own addictions) has gone the way of the 8-track. Nope, we need the government to start fining people.
This doesn't do anything except make instant-criminals out of people overnight, signed into law by politicians who aren't even remotely close to being experts at the subject matter.
Although these days, everything has to be either extreme this or extreme that, and common sense (like just not using those websites, or utilizing this thing called personal responsibility to recognize and curb your own addictions) has gone the way of the 8-track. Nope, we need the government to start fining people.
This doesn't do anything except make instant-criminals out of people overnight, signed into law by politicians who aren't even remotely close to being experts at the subject matter.
This sounds like complete joke. Next another bill will ban pagination?
Another bill will mandate that websites display a banner if the user has been there for too long (to protect internet addicts from being sedentary for too long). Pretty soon only big corps will be able to make a website because there is a phonebook sized stack of regulations you have to comply with.
> Another bill will mandate that websites display a banner if the user has been there for too long
Why wait? From Ars's writeup of the same bill[0]:
> As described in the text, social media companies would have to limit users to 30 minutes of use per day by default. Users would be allowed to choose their own time limits for daily and weekly use, but companies would have to reset that time limit to half an hour every single month, as well as providing "conspicuous pop-up" displays at least once every 30 minutes showing how much time you have spent using a service in the past day, across all devices.
This is just political grandstanding. (I hope) nobody would ever actually vote for this.
[0]: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/07/proposed-us-law-...
Why wait? From Ars's writeup of the same bill[0]:
> As described in the text, social media companies would have to limit users to 30 minutes of use per day by default. Users would be allowed to choose their own time limits for daily and weekly use, but companies would have to reset that time limit to half an hour every single month, as well as providing "conspicuous pop-up" displays at least once every 30 minutes showing how much time you have spent using a service in the past day, across all devices.
This is just political grandstanding. (I hope) nobody would ever actually vote for this.
[0]: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/07/proposed-us-law-...
This is what they do on gambling websites in the UK.
Similarly if you are in a Casino you will never see a clock anywhere. Also generally food and drink is pretty cheap and there is normally table service in a Casino because they want you to be at the tables spending your cash.
Similarly if you are in a Casino you will never see a clock anywhere. Also generally food and drink is pretty cheap and there is normally table service in a Casino because they want you to be at the tables spending your cash.
Seems intentional.
It always is when it comes to regulation. If you find a regulation that seems to benefit the consumer more than the incumbent firms you don't understand that market well enough.
GDPR?
This seems like an extremely short sited, overly broad and unlikely to pass bill, and to make it all worse, based on the title, I thought that someone was attempting to ban videos that play automatically when you visit a website, which would have been a deeply noble cause.
I have suspicion that these politicians know what they are doing and they are doing these stupid things with the fullest knowledge that the bill does not help the addicted people. Also probably they know these things don't even threaten the tech giants. Then why are they spending their precious time for such a meaningless bill?
This makes me think of McConnell gaining support or lobbying from tobacco industry. Maybe this is a thinly veiled threat or request to the tech giants?
This makes me think of McConnell gaining support or lobbying from tobacco industry. Maybe this is a thinly veiled threat or request to the tech giants?
You don't seem to be familiar with this. They had a hearing in the Senate, which featured testimony of experts in this field.
https://gizmodo.com/this-is-how-youre-being-manipulated-1835...
https://gizmodo.com/this-is-how-youre-being-manipulated-1835...
Do you think this is an important enough issue for a Senate hearing or a bill? I honestly do not.
Well,.. the government is taking drug addiction seriously, so on principle I don't see why tech addiction should be a-priori excluded from discussion. I'm sure good people on both sides can disagree as to the measures that need to be taken..
Tech needs to fight. There are tons of new regulations being pushed to regulate tech with politics. It's going to end very badly. This is not about caring for people, but controlling tech. People care about high hospital bills, expensive insurance and high college costs. Why are these same politicians not writing new bills to fix those? Why do they want to tame Netflix, Youtube, Facebook, Google, Amazon?
Because tech companies are run by the “liberal elite” and they don’t bribe enough congressmen.
People in tech should be much more concerned than they are about the government encroaching on it. The government does not represent big states/big cities in proportion to the population once you consider the tiniest state has the same two senators as the largest.
People in tech should be much more concerned than they are about the government encroaching on it. The government does not represent big states/big cities in proportion to the population once you consider the tiniest state has the same two senators as the largest.
It seems like a lot of the bill could run up against first amendment challenges. The only parts that seem "safe" are checkbox parts that deal with contracts; agreeing and disagreeing to terms. I am not a lawyer.
An app I worked on had a similar feature to Snapstreaks, but it was used to help people quit smoking. This bill would have killed this feature that helped many people lead healthier lives.
This bill would only apply to social media sites, so unless your 'quit smoking' app was such, it woulnd't have affected it at all.
I would like to see warnings on certain websites which use user retention tactics such as these to prominently display warnings like cigarette companies are required to do. Something like the following:
"Facebook is known to be addictive and use deceptive practices in user interface design to influence you into spending an unhealthy amount time on their platform in order to maximize the number of advertisements you view."
"Facebook is known to be addictive and use deceptive practices in user interface design to influence you into spending an unhealthy amount time on their platform in order to maximize the number of advertisements you view."
That would be a much better law than the lawmakers'.
Uh, TV is unending, constantly "scrolling" to new content meant to addict you as well, correct? How does this differ from having the TV on and just consuming what's on it versus Netflix autoplay feature? Is it possible to distinguish autoplay (auto-continuation) from just regular TV streaming over the airwaves or cable?
From TFA...
> 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.
So don't use color. Make the two choices equally clear.
Example:
Would you like to enroll in our craptacular offer which is free for 90 days and then costs $9.95 per month thereafter?
Please check one of the following options:
[_] No. Please DO NOT add me to the list of people to be excluded from being automatically enrolled in our special craptacular offer.
[_] Yes. Please DO add me to the list of people ineligible to not be excluded from not being enrolled in our special craptacular offer.
If you do not select one of the options, then default will automatically be selected for you.
Thank you for enrolling in our craptacular special offer!
> 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.
So don't use color. Make the two choices equally clear.
Example:
Would you like to enroll in our craptacular offer which is free for 90 days and then costs $9.95 per month thereafter?
Please check one of the following options:
[_] No. Please DO NOT add me to the list of people to be excluded from being automatically enrolled in our special craptacular offer.
[_] Yes. Please DO add me to the list of people ineligible to not be excluded from not being enrolled in our special craptacular offer.
If you do not select one of the options, then default will automatically be selected for you.
Thank you for enrolling in our craptacular special offer!
The government has nothing better to do priority-wise than regulate UI/UX behaviors like video autoplay? This is not essential to the functioning of society; it's bureaucrats avoiding the real issues. Also, ironic coming from the party that is ostensibly for less government intrusion.
I thought I was going insane with all these videos auto playing in Facebook and Twitter. It truly is annoying.
I'm not sure if I am against endless scrolling, however. I would, though, accept the loss of endless scrolling if that would stop videos from auto playing.
I'm not sure if I am against endless scrolling, however. I would, though, accept the loss of endless scrolling if that would stop videos from auto playing.
I could support something like this if, instead of banning it, simply made these practices opt-in. Autoplay is great if you want it. It sucks if you don't. And Netflix makes it so dang hard to disable (you have to use a web browser and find an obscure preference). So instead of autoplay, it should require interaction the first time, with an option to autoplay for the rest of the session. Similarly for infinite scrolling, how about we don't infinitely scroll the first time, but have a footer you can click to load more, with an option to infinitely scroll for the rest of the session.
This is the last shreds of personal responsibility disappearing from the culture.
While we are at it, ads need to be marked in contrast colors and show business details of the ad buyer and if its an app, what kind of contract you are entering. My Android nags me "Enable anti-malware" and I don't know if it came from the OEM or from some originally minimal app that sold itself to a unscrupulous buyer. Elders's Androids (in India) have undismissable notifications many times taller than 2000s IE toolbars nagging them to install intrusive system tools.
This seems silly of course, but you can't have companies such as Google and Facebook claim they are a carrier while they promote and curate content, even if they are only curating via AI (which turns out at to be really smart at connecting people to extreme content). It's like the phone company putting up an ad to suggest your child call a pedophile and then saying we're not responsible for the call, we're just the phone company.
> you can't have companies such as Google and Facebook claim they are a carrier while they promote and curate content
Do you have any examples of google or facebook claiming to be a "carrier"?
Do you have any examples of google or facebook claiming to be a "carrier"?
The article does not support your position that Facebook claims to be a carrier.
If you want to extract some specific sections of the article that you believe support your position I'm happy to discuss them, but I'm not seeing it.
If you want to extract some specific sections of the article that you believe support your position I'm happy to discuss them, but I'm not seeing it.
Banning things is obviously silly but I wouldn't mind regulations that force media outlets to give subscribers some simple options so we can choose exactly how we consume the media we pay for.
That might wreck the holy grail of A/B testing that these companies live and die by, but it would be fantastic for the consumer.
That might wreck the holy grail of A/B testing that these companies live and die by, but it would be fantastic for the consumer.
You can disable Netflix auto-play following these steps:
https://help.netflix.com/en/node/2102
I disabled Netflix autoplay for the reasons mentioned in this article.
I disabled Netflix autoplay for the reasons mentioned in this article.
I'm not sure if banning can fix anything. They will come up with different ideas. Every company is heavily focused to optimize digital products for business values now.
Auto-play-video is probably very high on list of things that wasted so much time in human history.
Auto-play-video is probably very high on list of things that wasted so much time in human history.
I think it makes more sense to require apps to let people know how much time they spend using them (especially if more than a few hours per week), and encourage people to take breaks. Banning one type of UI is not going to change anything.
If this is something people want, why does it need a legislative fix? Couldn't we just implement a technical solution and let people choose whether to use it? Like a browser plugin that stops videos from automatically playing?
This could just as well be said about opiates. Human's are not very good at regulating ourselves, when we encounter artificial signals that would have meant success in an earlier time. Not to mention minors, who do not yet have the physical capacity to regulate themselves. Not to say I support this regulation, but there is something to be said for protecting us from our primal selves.
I know you're not saying the government should fully regulate everything, but I see drugs used to demonstrate need for government intervention in people's choices despite drug policy being perhaps the most visible and painful failure of such paternalistic policymaking. Namely because it hasn't protected people from themselves, it hasn't treated anybody's addiction, it mainly just creates violent black markets and saddles nonviolent offenders with a permanent criminal record.
Cynically, I think the real purpose of these laws always looks more like protecting entrenched interests rather than helping people who would get better if only they had some legislator making their life choices from a thousand miles away.
Cynically, I think the real purpose of these laws always looks more like protecting entrenched interests rather than helping people who would get better if only they had some legislator making their life choices from a thousand miles away.
Human's are not very good at regulating ourselves
So why wasn't a ban necessary for the ultimate autoplaying video, television?
Infinite scrolling is just good UI. I've implemented it in Libr, the Tumblr replacement (https://librapp.com)
Umbrella bans are never a good thing - there are tons of legitimate and corner cases.
Instead force companies to provide easy to find and to use option/toggle for those.
Endless scroll has lots of legitimate uses, and there are a million more dark patterns where the dark use of endless scroll came from. Bills like this are not the answer.
> endless scrolling
With how many poor implementations out there (looking at you new Reddit), I don't think a ban would fix that but I'd like to see it scaled down.
With how many poor implementations out there (looking at you new Reddit), I don't think a ban would fix that but I'd like to see it scaled down.
Don't ban things. Educate the population as to why they should ban themselves from doing things; and whenever possible, offer people better alternatives.
Would this set a legal precedent for regulating code or is there already a precedent? If this does set a new legal precedent, the future looks messy
China's anti-internet/video game addiction stuff isn't totally insane. The premise is actually noble.
Seems like a way to limit a users access to desirable content while ramping up paid placement advertising?
Here's an idea, how about spending time and effort on something that's an actual priority.
I'll be the first to say that dotcoms overall have become an industry of greedy and grossly irresponsible and sneaky backstabbing sociopaths, but... the idea of legislators trying to get into the fine details of practice, and keep up with it, doesn't immediately sound like it's likely to be effective.
And that's even before we factor in the possibility of lobbyist influence.
While you're banning infinite scrolling (which has legitimate applications, and people should be horrified that such basic neutral ideas of communication could become illegal), the dotcom bad actors are running circles around you -- with numerous other dark pattern tactics, and sometimes entire technology infrastructure architectures and platforms irrevocably designed around what could also be considered dark patterns.
I'm reminded of some other abusive industries, with regulations that create waste, and barriers to entry for upstart competitors, while not doing nearly enough to reign in abuses.
Bring on the regulations (and, hopefully, eventually, a culture of professionalism and responsibility will follow), but first figure out how to make the regulations wise and genuinely effective, not counterproductive distractions.
And that's even before we factor in the possibility of lobbyist influence.
While you're banning infinite scrolling (which has legitimate applications, and people should be horrified that such basic neutral ideas of communication could become illegal), the dotcom bad actors are running circles around you -- with numerous other dark pattern tactics, and sometimes entire technology infrastructure architectures and platforms irrevocably designed around what could also be considered dark patterns.
I'm reminded of some other abusive industries, with regulations that create waste, and barriers to entry for upstart competitors, while not doing nearly enough to reign in abuses.
Bring on the regulations (and, hopefully, eventually, a culture of professionalism and responsibility will follow), but first figure out how to make the regulations wise and genuinely effective, not counterproductive distractions.
Are there comparable regulations for casino games, where some gamification techniques originated?
Can we also replace “next”/“prev” buttons with “newer”/“older”?
I always get confused by the 2nd page.
I always get confused by the 2nd page.
[deleted]
They just want to prevent people from easily tabbing/scrolling away from ads.
I hate web 3.0 features like this, more so for CPU than psychological reasons, but this is textbook useless government overreach; it's the web equivalent of those firearm bills than ban some auxiliary features that looks scary but are functionally irrelevant
[deleted]
[deleted]
Auto-play is a tax on the poor with limited data plans.
So true. Just like high definition video or images.
This bill should also ban: large hero images, serving more than 500 KB of JavaScript, making more than 50 HTTP calls when loading a page, causing the fans to spin up when loading the page, unnecessarily using web fonts.
Banning these things would make the web so much better.
This bill should also ban: large hero images, serving more than 500 KB of JavaScript, making more than 50 HTTP calls when loading a page, causing the fans to spin up when loading the page, unnecessarily using web fonts.
Banning these things would make the web so much better.
It'd be awesome to have an extremely lightweight protocol that lets you get the size or approximate size of a resource before download. Maybe a new HTTP method like SIZEOF.
But how to make it truthful? Other than client cutting off download at the expressed limit. Would that be good enough? And how to express "fuzzy" sizes like "at least 1MB but might be a little more or less".
But how to make it truthful? Other than client cutting off download at the expressed limit. Would that be good enough? And how to express "fuzzy" sizes like "at least 1MB but might be a little more or less".
I believe you want HTTP HEAD. It's defined to return the same response as a GET but without a body. You can therefore look at the Content-Length response header to see what actually issuing a GET will cost you.
The server should not return fuzzy content lengths: your client should have soft limit ranges rather than a single hard limit.
Of course, the server is not required to support HEAD, nor is it required to include Content-Length, which touches on your real complaint:
Programmers get to write programs the way they want to, and most of them don't share your value of preserving bandwidth and using progressive enhancement.
That is a relational and human problem. There is no technological solution to it.
The server should not return fuzzy content lengths: your client should have soft limit ranges rather than a single hard limit.
Of course, the server is not required to support HEAD, nor is it required to include Content-Length, which touches on your real complaint:
Programmers get to write programs the way they want to, and most of them don't share your value of preserving bandwidth and using progressive enhancement.
That is a relational and human problem. There is no technological solution to it.
So fitting for The Verge to be reporting this.
Fantastic.
Can we also ban scroll-jacking?
Can we also ban scroll-jacking?
God this is so fucking stupid. Can we get the Government to focus on actual problems rather than this bullshit?
Porque no los dos?
That's like saying "Why not both?" to eating healthy and putting your balls in a vice grip. Eating healthy in this analogy is the government making laws regarding actual problems that require government intervention, while the balls in vice grip in this analogy is a pointless law concerning something that doesn't require government intervention just because people have a moral panic over technology allegedly ruining society.
No, it's more like saying "why not fix both 'big' and 'small' problems at the same time", because whataboutism is a constant defense of problematic status quos.
I don't know that this bill is a good or bad thing yet, I haven't dug deep into it yet. But the idea of making more designers eliminate dark patterns in software and make more features opt in instead of opt out is a good use of regulation in my mind.
I get it, "regulation ruins innovation" or some other libertarian nonsense. The bottom line is that the software industry has some problematic behaviors that they have refused to self-correct, and this is what happens.
I don't know that this bill is a good or bad thing yet, I haven't dug deep into it yet. But the idea of making more designers eliminate dark patterns in software and make more features opt in instead of opt out is a good use of regulation in my mind.
I get it, "regulation ruins innovation" or some other libertarian nonsense. The bottom line is that the software industry has some problematic behaviors that they have refused to self-correct, and this is what happens.
This is not a "whataboutism". This is a "The government doesn't need to tell me how long I'm allowed to have an erection-ism"; i.e. micromanaging bullshit is not in the purview of the federal government.
Don't know about others but i support this
Banning autoplay videos, with extremely severe penalties for offenders, would be a great thing for the world.
When I worked there the product team at Netflix had two KPIs all new features were tested against: hours watched and retention. We would come up with all sorts of ideas to try out, and release them to small user populations of about 100,000 or so. It was great because you didn't have to debate much about whether a new feature was a good idea or not, you just built it and tested it. If the feature didn't increase hours watched or retention in a statistically significant way, the feature was removed.
Autoplay massively increased hours watched. I can't remember the exact numbers, but it was by far the biggest increase in the hours watched KPI of any feature we ever tested. There was some skepticism about whether the number was inflated by Netflix continuing to play when the user left the room.
As part of the autoplay test, we tested how long the countdown should be between episodes. 5 seconds, 10 seconds or 15 seconds. 10 seconds caused the biggest increase in hours watched. We thought that it gave people time to digest what they had just watched, but wasn't too fast (5 seconds) where it became jarring. Interestingly, Netflix recently changed the countdown between episodes to 5 seconds. That means they tested it out and found that people watch more if with a shorter countdown. This didn't use to be the case. Netflix user have become conditioned to expect autoplay.
So yes, Netflix wants you to spend more hours watching Netflix and the product team is scientifically engineering the product to make it more addictive.
But...the product team at Doritos does the same thing.