• yardratianSoma@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    7 hours ago

    excellent take, I never thought of regulation on something digital like an algorithm (concerning social media) to be, I guess, possible when some government officials barely understand what an IP address is.

    But that’s the thing, where’s the motivation for this board of experts to exist coming from? There is already plenty of empirical evidence to support the claims of the harms of social media, but in spite of this, change is glacial.

    That is why I just generalize and say that social media is the problem, because most people won’t care to hear anything deeper. They are already addicted, and don’t care for a cure.

    • Dave@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 hours ago

      There is already plenty of empirical evidence to support the claims of the harms of social media, but in spite of this, change is glacial.

      I think at one point you could make the same argument about medicines. The problem is that politicians are appointed with a popularity contest.

      I don’t remember all the arguments of the article, but when you think about it, the harms of social media are medical. It’s possible that we could expand the scope of the current medicine approval boards to include algorithms, with their job not being to understand the algorithm but to understand the research on mental health.

      I don’t have all the answers, but I do think it’s an idea worth exploring.

      • yardratianSoma@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 hours ago

        I agree, and neither do I have all the answers. It is worth exploring, I’m just pessimistic most of the time.