I don't like sites with autoplay. I only expect autoplay when the page I am about to visit is in a video site like YouTube. I hate it when I am reading a news article and a video autoplays.
Autoscrolling also can be irritating. If I click a TechCrunch article on HN, I don't want TC to load more articles at the end of the article I was reading without my consent. It is better to suggest related articles and give me an option to click on them if I am interested.
Not sure what is the benefit of that video that follows you. If I wanted to watch the video, I was going stop scrolling and watch it. In most cases, those videos don't even allow you to pause them. They disable the pause button.
A blanket banning of autoplay will be the only solution then. While at it, they must ban autoplaying of suggested videos. Autoplaying of suggested videos is the video site equivalent of autoscrolling.
Yeah, I toggle that switch off every few weeks when it 'mysteriously' toggles itself back on.
I really hate google's YT, they even throw up (the equivalent of) 'buffering' more than it ever did when they didn't have a huge worldwide CDN behind it.
Let's ban interfering with ad blockers then. Let's enshrine the spirit of the HTTP protocol by legally reinforcing the core idea - the server only provides content and suggests how to show it; the User Agent renders it however it likes.
Banning autoplay altogether will be the only solution to the problem. Then an opt-in setting can be baked into browsers to allow certain sites to use audio/video features. That way all sites will be treated the same. News sites can always claim to be video playing sites like YouTube, just to be included in the exceptin list.
Regulating infinite scrolling seems like a major overregulation. Even if it kinda makes sense in terms of FB, Twitter, and other social media newsfeeds, it's still a great (and beneficial) UX in many other cases.
Overusing social media could be solved via e.g. Screen Time or a similar time-limiting solution (perhaps w/o an option to "snooze" the daily limit if a parent set it on a child's device).
Infinite scrolling exists in social media apps because it triggers a dopamine response in users. It's there to keep people addicted to the app, and it's foolish for us to think that smartphone addiction isn't a real problem. Because of that, I fully support this legislation in regards to social media. There are legitimate use cases outside of social media where it's beneficial to have infinite scrolling, but if it was implemented to keep a user hooked, it needs to go.
At the very least, it shouldn’t be allowed to put the links to regulatory information (like the terms of service or privacy policy) in a footer below an infinite scroller.
While, I do agree with you that it does seem a bit on the overregulation, I absolutely hate, with all the fiber of my being, infinite scrolling. Especially if I accidentally click something or don't middle click. Then I hit back just to start at the beginning of the fucking page. Normally just get angry and go "fuck it" to do something else. It's also just so janky too. I've never been on a site that does it and feel it's any better than pages. At that, I never felt when on a page site that infinite scrolling is needed. It's a solution with no real problem.
I hate it and will gladly dance on its grave for those reasons alone.
You fail to appreciate how angry I get over fancy UI failures :P I'd say execution should be on the table when someone decides to implement infinite scroll. But that's just me.
But theres another comment of mine, I say it's the same rationale of banning cigarette ads instead of cigarettes. Which has worked very well for dropping smoking rates from like 50% of the population to now around 14% and still dropping.
Infinite scroll definitely can be misused UX wise, but definitely not the only UI component that cause me twitches. And just because you think infinite scroll is as bad as smoking cigarettes, which I'm skeptical that it is, I would NEVER support any government regulators (who are not technical) to ban things categorically.
When I do want to see a lot of data in a list format. After scrolling through couldn't find the item, filter search bar let's me to search it again in the already displayed list.
Pagination can do this as well, but in this case, I would make fewer clicks.
However, I'm not saying infinite scroll is the best in this use case, but would be a contender - I 'might' prefer it than pagination.
Think of the Google search results page. Currently, you have to scroll the content, then do another action to go to the next page of results, then scroll again, etc. Very tedious to quickly scan through the items. So infinite scroll would be better here (I used a plugin at one time that provided this), however it would also be better if the number of results per page didn't scroll of the screen.
Now the best infinite scroll implementation I've seen is one that has at the top of the window a number of page selectors. When you scroll past a certain point, the next page selector gets highlighted, and the previous content disappears from the DOM content.
The internet giants are trying to addict us to their products. I despise this and welcome solutions including regulation. However, the proposed law is stupendously overbroad.
It bans "the use of a process that, without the user expressly requesting additional content, loads and displays more content into a content feed than the typical user scrolls through in 3 minutes." So long, Google Maps? (Unless scrolling the map counts as an 'express request', but if it does then scrolling to the bottom of an infinite-scrolling page would count.)
The bill also bans "providing a user with an award for engaging with the social media platform (such as a badge or other recognition of a user’s level of engagement with the platform) if such award does not substantially increase access to new or additional services, content, or functionality." The point of this clause is to ban "Snapstreaks" as the Guardian article says. But if "substantially increase" is a low bar, then Snapchat can meet it. And if it's a high bar, then many nonaddictive karma systems would be banned. So long, StackOverflow and Hacker News.
The proposed law requires social media platforms to "allow a user to set a time limit that blocks the user’s own access to those platforms" — that sounds more helpful. But it goes on to require them to "automatically limit the amount of time that a user may spend on those platforms across all devices to 30 minutes a day unless the user elects to adjust or remove the time limit and, if the user elects to increase or remove the time limit, resets the time limit to 30 minutes a day on the first day of every month." This just sounds bananas. Today, the techlash; tomorrow, the regulation-lash.
The law says, "When an operator requests a user to make a selection from among options, no option may be preselected." MY BRAIN IS MELTING. So, in an address form, I can't pre-guess the user's country/state/province (even if those guesses are based on previous input)? My forms can't have DEFAULTS?
The law is overbroad — but in another way, it's too easy to elude. It says you're not a social media platform unless you "enable users to create accounts or profiles specific to [your platform]." But then, as long as accounts on YouTube are really Google-wide accounts, the law doesn't apply to YouTube — even though it mentions YouTube as one of its targets.
More importantly, between commercials and scheduled programs. But I was just thinking of banning broadcast TV outright, because it seems absurdly antidemocratic to ban the equivalent of broadcast TV online, but not broadcast TV itself
Reassign the TV band to license-free data transmission, like Wi-Fi but with potentially higher bandwidth and longer range. Outlaw cable TV.
Or you could transmit a special signal that turns the TV off at the end of every program and before every commercial. Require new TVs to interpret the signal and turn off when received. If you want to watch another program, you have to turn the TV back on.
Search "social media mental health study". Theres a flood of universities that have pretty good evidence of social media causing a lot of mental health issues. Namely towards teens and young adults who grew up with it.
Yes, it does seem silly, but the rise of anxiety and depression in society is linked to social media. Theres a good reason why people do the social media fasts and cleanses. A lot don't go back.
Well, ban cigarettes instead of the mechanism for gaining and retaining customers (ads). But the gov banned the widespread advertising of cigarettes instead of banning the product. The usa now has around a 14% smoking population, compared to like a 50% back in the 50s.
Infinite scrolling triggers a dopamine response in users, not unlike a slot machine. It's sole purpose is to keep users hooked on the app. It's designed to be addictive.
Tell that to a person in bed, scrolling through Facebook for hours on end. If the content stopped at some point they would do something else hopefully. Compared to TV the pacing is such that people get hooked like on slot machines.
I highly doubt that showing something like "There are X new great posts from blah blah blah, check them out" instead of using infinite scroll will resolve the problem. At the end of the day one could simply load a million posts (probably needs some code/data optimizations but we are talking here about billion dollar companies) and now it is a finite scroll (EDIT: seems that the bill addresses this case).
Sure it will. Infinite scrolling triggers a dopamine response just like a slot machine[1]. Its sole purpose is to keep users hooked. Telling the user "you're done now, unless you want to keep going" removes that addictive reaction in the brain.
"Dopamine is a chemical released in the brain, often when we experience reward or pleasure. The "dopamine feedback loop" is sometimes held up as evidence that social media can affect our brains in the same way drugs do. The idea is that we become chemically dependent upon bursts of dopamine triggered by people 'liking' our posts on Facebook, or retweeting us on Twitter.
But while it's true that interacting with social media can give your brain a dopamine shot, that does not mean you're getting high. Your brain releases dopamine on an everyday basis.
"Dopamine research itself shows that things like video games and technologies, they're in the same realm as food and sex and learning and all of these everyday behaviours."
This was a year ago - Neither Professor Przybylski nor Amy Orben rule out the possibility that social media can negatively affect human behaviour, but both emphasise the need for further research.
And this will solve it how? All it does is create the awful user experience of having to manually tap continue. If, instead, the law prevented scrolling past a certain limit (which would be very stupid indeed, but this is just a hypothetical), users would simply switch to the next social media app.
The source of the mental health issues caused by social media is toxicity, competition for status, and false perceptions of how good other people's lives are. I don't believe stopping people from seeing more by clicking a continue button is going to help with the core issue.
Infinite scrolling is designed to keep you in the app, looking at more of the content that is going to cause "toxicity, competition for status, and false perceptions of how good other people's lives are". I recognize that these are all major issues that need to be addressed and that this bill doesn't do that as well as we'd like, but one of many other ways we CAN address that is by preventing users from addictively subjecting themselves to more of that content.
The Republican Party in the US is famously anti-regulation of large corporations, and "pro-business," yet this is coming from the Republican side. Is there any sort of rationale provided for this seemingly massive ideological shift? Regulation of industry is usually off the table when this party is in control, at least when it comes to pollution or other consumer harms by business.
American politicians are famously unable to articulate consistent principles, and their voters are little better. I don't find it surprising that Republicans are unable to see this sort of invasive regulation in the same light they see regulation of other business practices. Maybe nobody's making it worth their time to see it that way. Maybe they see this as a bone they can throw to the public to get a few votes before they go back to guarding their power hoard. At any rate, there are only about seven or eight people with real, consistent principles in the U.S. Congress, and I'm not aware that Josh Hawley is among them.
This is from the same man who blames human trafficking on the sexual revolution. [0] Conservatives hate Big Tech because of liberal bias (real or perceived). It's simply another unnecessary authoritarian measure.
Does it apply only to web browsers? What about apps? As far as I understand, huge part of Facebook, Twitter users use the apps and not the web, so if the bill does not ban it also there, then it will be kind of toothless (and motivate those companies to even more aggressively nudge people to use apps).
I don't know if the proposed solution is the best way of handling it, but I'm glad something is being done about the way some large companies are manipulating users and causing widescale mental harm. It'd be interesting to see social media sites with warnings similar to cigarrette labels. Require the sites to regularly display a warning along the lines of "Warning: Long term exposure to social media is shown to cause anxiety, low self-esteem, and depression. If you experience these symptoms, call <HOTLINE>"
The scope of this bill is within social media networks, and is not blanket autoplay and infinite scroll - it seems to be aiming specifically at automated UI that the user has not indicated they want, and has no option to stop. It has a number of other provisions.
It requires the defaults to be "off".
It requires legal agreements' Yes/No buttons be standardized on the site and neutral (no split fonts, colors, sizes, etc).
"To prohibit social media companies from using practices that exploit human psychology or brain physiology to substantially impede freedom of choice, to require social media companies to take measures to mitigate the risks of internet addiction and psychological exploitation, and for other purposes."
"...unlawful for a social media company to operate a social media platform that uses..."
* Infinite scroll/auto refill beyond what a user has specified
* No natural stopping points
* Autoplay without user intent
* Badges/awards linked to engagement but not linked to services/content/function
* Opt-in options have to be standardized
It then requires companies to allow users to set limits on their own daily use, automatically set defaults, and regularly notify users of their continued use.
But "...shall not apply to any portion of a social media platform that consists only of a predominantly text-based, direct message service such as email or a service that is substantially similar to email."
I mean, sure, I agree on the motives. But there are the usual questions about tech regulation:
1. How hard will it be enforced? Turns out GDPR, for example, has been significantly harder to enforce than the EU expected.
2. How punitive is the punishment? Does this become just one more "cost of doing business" that further raises the barrier to entry to competition to the tech giants?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20565141