TikTok's recommender is partly built on European Technology (Apache Flink for real-time feature computation), along with Kafka, and distributed model training infrastructure. The Monolith paper is misleading that the 'online training' is key. It is not. It is that your clicks are made available as features for predicitons in less than 1 second. You need a per-event stream processing architecture for this (like Flink - Feldera would be my modern choice as an incremental streaming engine).

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skZ1HcF7AsM

* Monolith paper - https://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07663

You can't legislate intelligence...

They haven’t concluded anything yet. It’s early in the process and they’re opening the process of having TikTok engage and respond.

The article starts with a headline the makes it sound like the conclusion was already made, then the more you read the more it becomes clear that this is the early part of an investigation, not an actual decision.

> Now European Union regulators say those same features that made TikTok so successful are likely illegal.

> No timeline was given on when authorities will make a final decision in the case.

> At this stage, the Commission considers that TikTok needs to change the basic design of its service. For instance, by disabling key addictive features such as ‘infinite scroll' over time, implementing effective ‘screen time breaks', including during the night, and adapting its recommender system.

Most of these seem concretely doable, and maybe effective. But the core of the addictiveness comes from the "recommender system", and what are they supposed to do there? Start recommending worse content? How much worse do the recommendations have to be before the EC is satisfied?

I find twitter more addictive then TikTok. Should it be forced to make me click "next" before seeing another tweet?

Banning recommendation engines is also incredible. Is it really the EU's case that they're all illegal, from the youtube recommendation engine to amazon's "people who bought this also bought" to twitter's "who to follow"? Is TikTok's just too good?

How is that any different to Facebook?

Its a good thing, but its not what the title says it is

But, when I go to Youtube - owned by Google - and use those shorts (video shorts), I kind of "swipe down". Even on my desktop computer. This is also addictive until I eventually stop.

Why isn't Google also fined? Where does the fine approach stop? I am all for punishing corporations exploiting humans, so that is all fine by me. But I don't quite understand the rationale. It is not addictive like a drug, right? The behaviour solely origins via visual feedback. That's different to e. g. taking LSD. It's a bit strange to me. When is something addictive? Where is the boundary? One could also say this is simply good design that gets people's attention. Ads are also like that. Why are ads not made illegal? I would be in favour of that. So why aren't ads made illegal? They can contain addictive elements. They manipulate the viewer. They try to sell an image. Why is that not forbidden?

> The Commission's investigation preliminarily indicates that TikTok did not adequately assess how these addictive features could harm the physical and mental wellbeing of its users, including minors and vulnerable adults.

> For example, by constantly ‘rewarding' users with new content, certain design features of TikTok fuel the urge to keep scrolling and shift the brain of users into ‘autopilot mode'. Scientific research shows that this may lead to compulsive behaviour and reduce users' self-control.

> Additionally, in its assessment, TikTok disregarded important indicators of compulsive use of the app, such as the time that minors spend on TikTok at night, the frequency with which users open the app, and other potential indicators.

This is comically unscientific language. It's entirely subjective what is adequate when framed like that. This is another law aimed at suing megacorps to extract fines, although i m not sure how they hope to get those fines from China.

LinkedIn has become such a pit of force-fed self-help vitriol it’s completely lost its purpose.

They'll spend hours with their heads down just silently looking at the thing. All desire to do anything else just vanishes. Then they freak out when you try to take it away from them.

The only obvious difference between them and someone on fent is the verticality of their posture.

I think short form content especially is basically brain rot, but I also don't know how you ban something simply because it's too good at providing content people enjoy. The result would just be a worse experience across the board, is that a win?

I guess a forced 5s video saying take a break after 20 minutes of doom scrolling wouldn't be the end of the world, but truely making it illegal doesn't make sense.

Frank Possemato: How to Live an Analog Life in a Digital World: A Workbook for Living Soulfully in an Age of Overload

How to live an analog life in a digital world | Frank Possemato | TEDxBU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEMffdUgWCk

He does not say stop everything, but instead offers realistic tips to reduce one's dependency, e.g. he suggests to take breakes and training to stay offline for certain intervals (e.g. half an hour, or an hour)

I can watch a 9 hour video on GTA games without problems (not in one sitting, but in parts), but 3 'shorts' in a row with not enough info and explanation to be interesting makes me close any of the 'shorts' apps (tiktok, youtube shorts, instagram....).

(eg, the 9 hour video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Faxpr_3EBDk )

How is this any different from Reddit? From Instagram? Why single out TikTok?

Applying laws unevenly is a form of discrimination.

I can think of tabacco and other drugs, but that's not really the same. Monopolistic behavior doesn't really fit either. Maybe Kleenex marketing doing so well their name became interchangeable with the word "tissue"?

Anything but be competitive

What makes TikTok different?

* juvinile dimentia

But this really just stinks of Regulatory Capture to me. Their main argument is that the consumers like to use the app too much?

Why? Because it's smarter and not as enshittified as the competitors?

I'm sure if youtube, facebook, reddit, etc reduced the number of ads, and started showing more relevant content that people actually cared about, they too would start being "more addictive". Do we really want to punish that?

What's the end goal here?

Now, I question that, because I know that American companies will never step in and regulate themselves, nor other "foreign run" companies like TikTok (I know it is really murky right now). I know Trump, who owns his own social media company, and Elon Musk, who has invaded the government and owns his own propaganda machine, will never be on the right side of history. My kids are forcibly addicted to their phones and these companies are racing to a bottom I don't think exists. I watch them consume in horror and helplessness.

Spare me your thoughts, childless commentators. You have no idea what kids these days are facing. You have no idea how hard I have fought. It is so horrible. And, the only parents who winning are Amish, Waldorf or home school kids. Every single friend in my kids life is even worse off than mine, so it is pushers everywhere. 13 year old brains were never designed to survive this kind of assault.