That's an extremely heavy burden that we've never forced on consumer products before.
Requiring every company to prove why something us suitable for their market also means the government has absolute control over what is and isn't acceptable for any citizen to have access to. That's some seriously distopian shit in my opinion.
I feel like we’re approaching a level where absolutely any government regulation is seen as “dystopian”.
We absolutely have regulations like this already. I’d almost argue there are more consumer products subject to regulation than not.
For a more specific example, teens are not allowed to use gambling apps. I don’t see many people arguing that is tyrannical government overreach. Here, TikTok is creating an addictive app that offers you monetary rewards for watching videos and completing menial tasks. It sounds more like employment than leisure activity, why shouldn’t we interrogate the suitability of something like that? Why give these social media companies, which have proven themselves untrustworthy time and time again, the benefit of the doubt?
Gambling was already regulated though, extending that to digital gambling isn't a stretch. There aren't regulations that I'm aware of that fit for specifically what the EU is doing here.
We can always add more regulations, though there's an official process to it. There is a line though, and while I absolutely see value in some regulations given how complex we've made society, a government with full authority to deem what is and is not appropriate for any specific group of people is extremely heavy handed.
I don't actually want to give social media companies the benefit of the doubt. People shouldn't use that trash and parents should be helping their kids decide if those apps are actually something they want to use. If people really see the value in that kind if app, though, we only avoid the problem rather than fix it by banning apps or limiting access from the top down.
Yeah that's an old debate for sure. Its effectively an offshoot of the question of whether governments have power by default unless limited by the people, or if power is granted at the lowest level unless specifically given to the higher authorities.
In this case, it seems like having regulations is a horse and pony show if the government can enforce regulations that don't yet exist. In the most kind view, writing regulations is helpful so we at least know what they already plan to enforce. In a pessimistic view, writing regulations is only done to help the public think that everything is above board and that power isn't, and won't, be abused.
> That's an extremely heavy burden that we've never forced on consumer products before.
That's a heavy burden that we enforce on many other consumer products. That's why we have certification processes in place, quality testing and compliance testing. From airplanes, to cars, to bikes, to helmets, to food, to medication, to toys, to appliances, to paints and chemicals, etc.
We don't have similar requirements for software unless its related to regulated industries like healthcare. Its all well and good if the idea here is that people would like more regulation, but that regulation doesn't exist today and the EU move here seems like overreach.
If I'm not mistaken the DSA is focused on content moderation and how content algorithms work. This article describes EU concerns having to do with whether or not the app is addictive, I'm not really sure if that falls under how the algorithm works so much as how users respond to it.
That said, this app and so many other social media apps are trash. People should be choosing not to use them regardless of regulations.
A tweet really doesn't say if the DSA applies here though, politicians attempt to misuse laws and regulations all the time.
My reading of the DSA is that is is primarily about disclosure of how content algorithms work, not the impact on users. I could very well be wrong there, but a tweet claiming they want to use the DSA as enforcement there doesn't really clarify anything unfortunately.
> That's an extremely heavy burden that we've never forced on consumer products before.
Isn't it what the CE marking means on physical products though? It means the manufacturer claims the product is conform to regulation, which presumably includes "not harmful to the intended users".
While CE marking can be a self-declaration depending on the type of product (some products require third-party control) at any moment each EU state can check it, and in any case a control process has to be documented.
The parent comment just wishes to apply the same to non-physical products, which doesn't strike me as extremely heavy or unreasonable.
Sure, CE regulations could always be expanded but that doesn't exist today so it really isn't relevant for why the EU would be forcing one specific company to justify their new app.
Is that limitation specifically defined in the law? I.e. does the law granting power to require this spell out how segments are defined and that only the largest by a specified metric can be regulated this way?
Short of that its just a current norm for how the law is enforced. Nothing stops the next regulator from expanding that power.
My understanding of the DSA is that its focused on content moderation and disclosure of how content algorithms work. Whether the content is addictive really isn't directly related, that's a measure of how users respond to the content rather than how its fed to them.
That said, this app, like so many other social media apps, is trash. People should be choosing not to use it regardless of regulations.
1. Providers of online platforms accessible to minors shall put in place appropriate and proportionate measures to ensure a high level of privacy, safety, and security of minors, on their service.
Is it? That's entirely unprecedented. Teens are one of the biggest demographics for games. Are game developers now requires to be adolescent behavioralists?
"EXPLAIN THIS FUN GAME!"
"Well we wanted to make a fun game, so we made it fun."
"explain this non-fun, stress-inducing addiction generator"
"well, we wanted to make a lot of money with incredibly low effort, so we just found out how to best psychologically manipulate users into being unable to leave and stress them into giving us money while they're there in various ways."
"wait why was this not already illegal"
The difference to a game is that a game is first and foremost designed to be entertaining and the user starts playing and stick around with it because they like the entertainment. An addiction to a non-malicious game could be considered like an addiction to good food. Not great, but you're addicted to what you like. Some games (and foods) are more addictive than others, and some games are particularly malicious and are occasionally struck down against or hung out for their methods, but it's overall seen as okay.
These apps are not meant to be entertaining. They use stress, FOMO or outright manipulation to make you return. This addiction is more like being addicted to cigarettes. One can argue whether even self-harm should be up to the individual, but no sane individual would argue that cigarettes are good or that tobacco companies are anything other than evil. If the cigarette was invented now, would we have allowed them to proliferate?
Drawing the line is hard, and I don't like others making decisions for me, but I also don't like society forcing you to join an abusive platform as you'd otherwise miss out on whatever basic societal functions people put there, so enforcing that platforms play nice seems fair.
In what way is assessing the age suitability of a game unprecedented? Games have had movie-like age guidelines for decades now.
And besides:
> The app is called TikTok Lite and offers the chance to "to complete challenging tasks and earn great rewards!"
> Tasks include watching vids, liking content, or following other users. Rewards include Amazon vouchers, PayPal gift cards, or TikTok's in-app currency that can be used to tip other members.
Well that makes sense, the problem is less visible when you generalize everything down to “an app” or “a game” or “a paper stick you put in your mouth”.
If the game is deliberately made to be addictive, leads to emotional distress and is overall harmful then curbs should be put in place. Game developers should not be adolescent behavioralists; the regulators should be.
