News: 0180526529

  ARM Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life (Terry Pratchett, Jingo)

'NY Orders Apps To Lie About Social Media Addiction, Will Lose In Court' (techdirt.com)

(Tuesday January 06, 2026 @11:41AM (msmash) from the tussle-continues dept.)


New York Governor Kathy Hochul has signed S4505, a law that requires websites to display warnings claiming that features like algorithmic feeds, push notifications, infinite scroll, like counts, and autoplay cause addiction -- despite, as TechDirt argues, [1]the absence of scientific consensus supporting such claims .

State Senator Andrew Gounardes sponsored the legislation. The law's constitutional footing appears precarious. Courts have already rejected nearly identical compelled-speech schemes, most notably in the Texas pornography age-verification case that reached the Supreme Court. The Fifth Circuit, in that case, refused to uphold mandatory health warnings about pornography, ruling that such public health claims were "too contentious and controversial to receive Zauderer scrutiny" -- the legal standard that sometimes permits government-mandated disclosures.

The science around social media's purported addictiveness is even more disputed than the pornography research the Fifth Circuit rejected. Hochul's signing statement asserts that studies link increased social media use to anxiety and depression, but researchers in the field note these studies demonstrate correlation rather than causation. Some experts have suggested the causal relationship may run in the opposite direction: teenagers struggling with mental health issues turn to social media for community and coping mechanisms. The law's broad definitions could sweep in far more than major platforms like Facebook and TikTok. News sites, recipe apps, fitness trackers, and email clients could theoretically face enforcement if they employ the targeted features. New York's Attorney General holds sole authority to grant exemptions.



[1] https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/05/ny-orders-apps-to-lie-about-social-media-addiction-will-lose-in-court/


Re: (Score:2)

by dfghjk ( 711126 )

What does this "fix"? If there's an easy fix, perhaps explain an actual fix. Boycotting NY does what exactly?

what they should do instead (Score:3)

by snowshovelboy ( 242280 )

Instead, they should force any website or online ad platform that does A/B testing to get positive consent for each test from their human test subjects. I thought testing on humans already required consent but what do I know.

Puff piece? (Score:2)

by null etc. ( 524767 )

This submission is written like a puff piece for big tech. I think it's quite easily witnessed how detrimental big tech products are to society at large. Ask yourself: if we magically rolled back technology to 1985, would the world be worse mentally? Yeah right.

Re: (Score:2)

by DarkOx ( 621550 )

we don't need to go back nearly that far. The internet and online commerce are generally to useful to give up anyway.

Rolling things back to the mid 90s would be just fine. Mobiles to expensive for most people to deal with, to slow for most people to want and to insecure to do anything important on.

Internet that isn't always on but something you have to consciously get up walk to the PC, dial up, use and then hang up. IE nobody waking up at 3am and picking up their phone for a quick doom scroll. Asynchron

I mean... (Score:2)

by korgitser ( 1809018 )

If we need scientists to figure out social media is addictive, all the while we know very well that copious amounts of time, brains, and money is invested into making it addictive, all the while billions of people roam around the world unable to function 15min without their smartphone... there really is no hope for us.

Well, yeah, it isn't like they're addictive (Score:2)

by Mr. Dollar Ton ( 5495648 )

It is just that people can't stop clicking for more bullshit. 10 years ago about a third of the people in any train/bus/metro were fondling their slabs. Today it is 99.9%

And the cuckerbergs and the samaltmans try to make them click even more. Quite successfully, too.

Re: Well, yeah, it isn't like they're addictive (Score:2)

by Jeslijar ( 1412729 )

Slopman(s) is probably the term to go with alongside cuckerberg.

does it appear precarious though? (Score:2)

by dfghjk ( 711126 )

"The law's constitutional footing appears precarious."

Does it? Warning labels are a staple of modern American life, while there may be an example of a law requiring them to be overturned, there are thousands of examples of ones that exist. Also, with such a politically charged issue, using Texas to decide what might happen in New York is ridiculous.

Without knowing the actual language, there's no way anyone other than partisan hacks can conclude anything.

Re: (Score:2)

by OrangeTide ( 124937 )

Compelling speech from a business is probably not going to fly under the current Supreme Court. Precedent be damned.

Isn't this article (Score:2)

by wakeboarder ( 2695839 )

Schill produced by the social media companies. Sure an addiction link probably can't be proved, but that doesn't mean social media sites are healthy. We all know that social media companies game their feeds to manipulate you. And who want's to support social media companies anyway? Down with social media (except ./)

It's documented in The Book, somewhere...
-- Larry Wall in <10502@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>