Which just means that someone else will step in. People will move towards where they needs are met. People dont want the addiction but they want what they are addicted to and you can't just put the genie back in the bottle again.
I view this is a political / strategic positioning to guard against legislation I don't see it having any real effect or being of any significance just as I don't consider addiction the fault of clever algorithms but rather human nature. Instagram is probably the best example of that. It's the one considered to pushing most people into depression yet it's mostly based around people sharing images not clever algorithms (yes I know they use algorithms on instagram)
> Which just means that someone else will step in. People will move towards where they needs are met. People dont want the addiction but they want what they are addicted to and you can't just put the genie back in the bottle again.
You're not wrong, but this is more nuanced, because it's the moral scapegoat many use when addressing this issue.
Someone at Youtube trying to optimize for watch time might be aware that making people watch more videos might not the best thing to do. Yet, if it's not Youtube "someone else will step in"-- people will always watch more videos no? Might as well be us who make money out of it.
I view this is a political / strategic positioning to guard against legislation I don't see it having any real effect or being of any significance just as I don't consider addiction the fault of clever algorithms but rather human nature. Instagram is probably the best example of that. It's the one considered to pushing most people into depression yet it's mostly based around people sharing images not clever algorithms (yes I know they use algorithms on instagram)