'NY Orders Apps To Lie About Social Media Addiction, Will Lose In Court' (techdirt.com) 38
New York Governor Kathy Hochul has signed S4505, a law that requires websites to display warnings claiming that features like algorithmic feeds, push notifications, infinite scroll, like counts, and autoplay cause addiction -- despite, as TechDirt argues, the absence of scientific consensus supporting such claims.
State Senator Andrew Gounardes sponsored the legislation. The law's constitutional footing appears precarious. Courts have already rejected nearly identical compelled-speech schemes, most notably in the Texas pornography age-verification case that reached the Supreme Court. The Fifth Circuit, in that case, refused to uphold mandatory health warnings about pornography, ruling that such public health claims were "too contentious and controversial to receive Zauderer scrutiny" -- the legal standard that sometimes permits government-mandated disclosures.
The science around social media's purported addictiveness is even more disputed than the pornography research the Fifth Circuit rejected. Hochul's signing statement asserts that studies link increased social media use to anxiety and depression, but researchers in the field note these studies demonstrate correlation rather than causation. Some experts have suggested the causal relationship may run in the opposite direction: teenagers struggling with mental health issues turn to social media for community and coping mechanisms. The law's broad definitions could sweep in far more than major platforms like Facebook and TikTok. News sites, recipe apps, fitness trackers, and email clients could theoretically face enforcement if they employ the targeted features. New York's Attorney General holds sole authority to grant exemptions.
State Senator Andrew Gounardes sponsored the legislation. The law's constitutional footing appears precarious. Courts have already rejected nearly identical compelled-speech schemes, most notably in the Texas pornography age-verification case that reached the Supreme Court. The Fifth Circuit, in that case, refused to uphold mandatory health warnings about pornography, ruling that such public health claims were "too contentious and controversial to receive Zauderer scrutiny" -- the legal standard that sometimes permits government-mandated disclosures.
The science around social media's purported addictiveness is even more disputed than the pornography research the Fifth Circuit rejected. Hochul's signing statement asserts that studies link increased social media use to anxiety and depression, but researchers in the field note these studies demonstrate correlation rather than causation. Some experts have suggested the causal relationship may run in the opposite direction: teenagers struggling with mental health issues turn to social media for community and coping mechanisms. The law's broad definitions could sweep in far more than major platforms like Facebook and TikTok. News sites, recipe apps, fitness trackers, and email clients could theoretically face enforcement if they employ the targeted features. New York's Attorney General holds sole authority to grant exemptions.
Re: (Score:1)
What does this "fix"? If there's an easy fix, perhaps explain an actual fix. Boycotting NY does what exactly?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What does this "fix"? If there's an easy fix, perhaps explain an actual fix. Boycotting NY does what exactly?
It makes the magats feel good about boycotting yet another in a long list of things while simultaneously complaining about cancel culture.
Re: (Score:2)
But they're addicted to doing business in NY.
what they should do instead (Score:5, Interesting)
Instead, they should force any website or online ad platform that does A/B testing to get positive consent for each test from their human test subjects. I thought testing on humans already required consent but what do I know.
Re: (Score:1)
they should force any website or online ad platform that does A/B testing to get positive consent for each test from their human test subjects
You can't prevent companies from market testing. That one would have little chance of holding up in court either.
I thought testing on humans already required consent but what do I know.
Medical experimentation on humans requires specific informed consent and is governed by strict safety regulations.
Facebook A/B testing is merely experimenting with other versions of t
Re: what they should do instead (Score:4, Informative)
Facebook is deliberately manipulating people's emotional states specifically for the purpose of improving that manipulation, been a bunch of articles about it already.
Re: (Score:3)
Facebook A/B testing is merely experimenting with other versions of the project to see how it will work with their customers, or if their customers will accept or reject it. Treatment is applied to their product, and not humans, so there is no testing on humans..
Last time I checked, their customers were humans. In the verification step of their test they are not verifying their site, but are verifying changes in (human) customer behavior. I realize the assumption that their customers are actual humans might be outdated in 2026.
While customers already agreed to it contractually;
We know this is not true because they A/B test interactions that happen before accepting TOS.
Puff piece? (Score:5, Interesting)
This submission is written like a puff piece for big tech. I think it's quite easily witnessed how detrimental big tech products are to society at large. Ask yourself: if we magically rolled back technology to 1985, would the world be worse mentally? Yeah right.
Re: (Score:2)
we don't need to go back nearly that far. The internet and online commerce are generally to useful to give up anyway.
Rolling things back to the mid 90s would be just fine. Mobiles to expensive for most people to deal with, to slow for most people to want and to insecure to do anything important on.
Internet that isn't always on but something you have to consciously get up walk to the PC, dial up, use and then hang up. IE nobody waking up at 3am and picking up their phone for a quick doom scroll. Asynchron
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Prohibition - a constitutional amendment - was rolled back. It's rare, but it can happen, wizards notwithstanding.
Re: (Score:2)
I think compelled warnings do require some deliberation, I won't weigh in on the formal rulings but I do want to point out how the headline's informal statement also reads:
"Social media addiction is a lie."
Looks puffy to me.
Re: (Score:3)
Ask yourself: if we magically rolled back technology to 1985, would the world be worse mentally?
Considering that leaded automotive gasoline wasn't banned until 1996, yes, rolling us back to 1895 actually would be worse for mental health. Also, the Montreal Protocol wouldn't have happened yet, either (that'd be 1987), so you'd also have people getting more skin cancers, too.
Or are you talking about some weird Amish-style alternate reality rollback where we're picking and choosing only parts of the past?
I mean... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly! All you need to do is go out in the world, take the subway, go to a park, a shopping center, etc. and watch the young generation. The phone is their life and the big media companies know this and exploit it. My grown kid and his fiance came to visit for a few days and the fiance needed to check her phone every few minutes. Incredibly addictive behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
He have that. The problem here is in the wording of the law and the argument they are making. Some of the things listed have shown to be addictive (algorithmic feeds, and likes for example). Some of the things have not (push notifications, and infinite scrolling for example). The problem is if the law lists them all in the same sentence then it will be ruled in favour of the tech companies.
It's a present to big tech in the form of legislative incompetence.
Well, yeah, it isn't like they're addictive (Score:2)
It is just that people can't stop clicking for more bullshit. 10 years ago about a third of the people in any train/bus/metro were fondling their slabs. Today it is 99.9%
And the cuckerbergs and the samaltmans try to make them click even more. Quite successfully, too.
Re: Well, yeah, it isn't like they're addictive (Score:4, Insightful)
Slopman(s) is probably the term to go with alongside cuckerberg.
Re: Well, yeah, it isn't like they're addictive (Score:2)
Hehe, thanks.
does it appear precarious though? (Score:3)
"The law's constitutional footing appears precarious."
Does it? Warning labels are a staple of modern American life, while there may be an example of a law requiring them to be overturned, there are thousands of examples of ones that exist. Also, with such a politically charged issue, using Texas to decide what might happen in New York is ridiculous.
Without knowing the actual language, there's no way anyone other than partisan hacks can conclude anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Compelling speech from a business is probably not going to fly under the current Supreme Court. Precedent be damned.
Re: (Score:2)
Does it? Warning labels are a staple of modern American life,
Warning labels are a stable, perhaps, but only on tangible goods that pose a medical risk. When we are talking about speech: Items such as books or websites. You have a constitutional 1st Amendment right to free speech which includes the right to exclude anybody else's speech. Including warnings from a government, from the content of your speech.
The solution probably is a content-neutral warning mandate that new Cell phones come with a warning
Re: (Score:2)
Warning labels about proven, legitimate risks are very strongly established as legal. No argument there. But that's not what this is.
Compelling scientific evidence exists to justify warnings about cancer, flammability, addiction, etc on certain products. This means the warning is no longer a matter of opinion; it is a statement of fact.
However, the summary notes that there is no compelling evidence for social media addiction. In that case, any warning is merely an opinion or a judgment, at best. It is not a
Isn't this article (Score:3)
Schill produced by the social media companies. Sure an addiction link probably can't be proved, but that doesn't mean social media sites are healthy. We all know that social media companies game their feeds to manipulate you. And who want's to support social media companies anyway? Down with social media (except ./)
Re:Isn't this article (Score:4, Insightful)
The article is written by Mike Masnick, the founder of TechDirt and member of the board of directors for Blue Sky. He has a definite incentive to mitigate regulation that could reduce advertiser revenue into TechDirt and/or Blue Sky.
I'm not saying the guy's evil... I'm only talking about the guy's likely motivations.
Almost everything that is free to access online is free only due to the revenue from advertisers and data brokers. If regulation could potentially reduce use of those sites, revenue from advertisers and data brokers will drop and the financial viability of MANY online operations (including his) could suffer.
Next up (Score:4)
Big Oil says leaded gasoline is perfectly safe. Predicts government will lose in court.
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite. The problem is the list of things in the law, only *some* of them have been shown to be addictive. They will absolutely lose in court if the law is written to include them all in a single clause. It's legislative incompetence.
Re: (Score:2)
Big Oil says leaded gasoline is perfectly safe. Predicts government will lose in court.
Cigarette companies say that there is no link between smoking and cancer, predicts governments will lose in court. Now go enjoy that nice smooth Benson and Hedges.
I read an editorial this week that it's past time we started considering social media companies to be publishers, the previous argument against this was that social media companies didn't generate the content however this is not the case as they're now openly deciding what content the end user is being shown... which means they've taken editori
addicted (Score:2)
If so then Molly Tuttles cover of Rolling Stones SHE'S A RAINBOW needs to have warning labels on every TV/monitor screen and every album covering that tune. I have listened to Ms Tuttles heavenly version 50 times, and I listen to it every other day. I a
Skinner box (Score:1)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Scientific Research vs. Direct Observation (Score:2)
It takes a LONG TIME for scientific communities to establish consensus on human behavior (to the extent that consensus ever exists in science). Hell, even consensus within the HARD sciences can be difficult due to the extreme financial pressures of grant-based research (See: History of research on the addictiveness of cigarettes, oxycodone, etc.)
There has been comparably little academic research on the habit-forming/addictive nature of social media "engagement" tools, tactics, and strategies, so there is no