The infinite scroll may become endangered if controversial Calif. law passes
227 points
• 4 days ago
• Article
Link
California 的立法者正在审议一项可能迫使社交媒体公司为年轻用户重塑平台设计的法案。 Assembly Bill 1709 由 Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal 提出，最初拟禁止 16 岁以下青少年使用社交媒体。但在关于数据隐私、潜在言论自由问题以及可能孤立弱势青少年的担忧提出后，法案被修订为不全面封禁，而是针对特定以提高参与度为目的的功能进行监管。
修订后的提案要求像 Meta 和 Reddit 这样的平台为 16 岁以下用户提供一种替代的、成瘾性更低的信息流。若公司未能调整其软件，将被禁止允许该年龄组保留账户。法案将"成瘾性功能"定义为那些旨在最大化参与度并导致强迫性使用的设计，例子包括无限滚动、自动播放和某些算法推荐。
Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal 将这些功能视为产品设计选择而非受保护的言论，强调立法目标是遏制掠夺性设计，而非限制交流。根据修订方案，公司须在 2028 年前完成相关改造。此外，法案建议成立由专家组成的监督小组，向 California Attorney General's Office 就如何有效管理这些数字安全标准提供咨询。
尽管以 TechNet 为代表的科技行业此前反对全面禁令，但对于修订后的要求，业界已开始展开谨慎对话。法案的倡导者认为，United States 在为数字时代未成年人建立必要保护方面落后于 Australia 等国，立法是既能让青少年保持数字联系又能营造更安全网络环境的一步。
该法案目前已送交 Senate Appropriations Committee 进一步审查。支持者希望，通过将责任交由科技公司去设计更健康的数字体验，可以在不切断青少年所依赖在线社区的前提下，减轻那些以最大化参与度为目标的算法带来的负面影响。
California lawmakers are currently considering legislation that could force social media companies to overhaul the design of their platforms for younger users. Assembly Bill 1709, introduced by Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal, originally sought to prohibit teenagers under 16 from accessing social media. However, after concerns were raised regarding data privacy, potential free speech violations, and the risk of isolating vulnerable youth, the bill was amended to focus on regulating specific engagement-driven features rather than banning access entirely.
The updated proposal mandates that platforms like Meta and Reddit must provide an alternative, less addictive feed for users under 16. If companies fail to adapt their software, they will be prohibited from allowing individuals in that age group to maintain accounts. The bill specifically defines addictive features as those designed to maximize engagement, which result in compulsive use. Key examples mentioned include the infinite scroll, autoplay functions, and certain algorithmic recommendations.
Assemblymember Lowenthal has framed these features as product choices rather than protected speech, emphasizing that the goal is to stop predatory design rather than to restrict communication. Under the revised plan, companies would have until 2028 to implement these changes. Furthermore, the legislation proposes creating an oversight group of experts tasked with advising the California Attorney General's Office on how to manage these digital safety standards effectively.
While the tech industry, represented by groups like TechNet, previously pushed back against a total prohibition, there is now cautious dialogue regarding the amended requirements. Advocates of the bill argue that the United States is currently lagging behind other nations, such as Australia, in establishing necessary protections for minors in the digital age. They contend that the legislation is a vital step toward creating a safer online environment while still allowing teens to maintain their digital connections.
The bill is now moving forward to the Senate Appropriations Committee for further review. Proponents hope the shift in focus, which puts the responsibility on technology firms to design healthier digital experiences, will ultimately mitigate the negative impacts of engagement-maximizing algorithms without cutting teenagers off from the online communities they rely on.
437 comments • Comments Link
• 无限滚动被广泛视为导致成瘾行为的主要驱动因素——它通过持续、无需付出的刺激助长无止境刷屏，并缩短注意力持续时间。
• "良好用户体验"与"上瘾式设计"之间的界限难以划定。像无限加载这样的功能在为部分用户带来便利的同时，也可能让其他人难以找回阅读位置、引用特定内容或通过页脚链接轻松导航。
• 对政府强制性 UI 设计规定是否合宪存在严重担忧。批评者认为，监管应用布局等同于监管言论，这已超出政府权力的合理范围。
• 拟议的监管可能会给小型开发者和独立项目带来不成比例的负担，形成有利于具备应对复杂法律要求资源的大型科技公司的"合规网"。
• 稳定性和可发现性是重要问题：无限信息流通常缺乏永久 URL 或稳定的状态管理，与传统分页界面相比，用户很难重新访问此前看到的内容。
• 许多人认为，无限滚动只是更大、更具侵害性的商业模式——定向广告和最大化参与度的算法——的表征，而不是一个独立的设计缺陷。
• 该立法的怀疑者认为，通过法律强制推行"良好"界面是一种国家越权，类似于 cookie 条例等无效或繁琐的规定，往往导致表面合规而非真正维护用户利益。
• 支持禁令的论点强调，国家有正当利益保护未成年人免受剥削性心理设计的影响，这与烟草和药物监管类似，即通过限制可及性来维护公众健康。
• 一些人提出替代方案，例如要求平台为用户提供关闭最大化参与度功能的选项，或把注意力放在内容交付的"无限性"上，而不是滚动条的具体实现机制。
• 该立法的支持者认为，"First Amendment"的辩护常被大型企业用作盾牌，以继续推行对公众（尤其是青少年心理健康）具有明显危害的商业行为。
关于监管无限滚动的辩论，凸显了个人自主权、未成年人保护与国家对数字界面权力限度之间的深刻张力。许多人认为成瘾性的界面模式构成系统性伤害，实质性劫持了人类的注意力与决策；另一些人则担忧国家干预会导致审查与技术停滞。尽管普遍共识是当前的社交媒体体验常常有毒、并刻意利用认知漏洞，但是否应对无限滚动等具体 UI 元素采取"打地鼠式"立法以作为补救措施，还是这一做法会构成对企业与个人表达的违宪侵犯，仍存在严重分歧。最终，这场讨论反映的是一场更广泛、持续的斗争：如何在互联网早期倡导的自由主义理想与当下被对参与度着迷的大型企业集团主导的数字现实之间寻求平衡。 • Infinite scroll is widely viewed as a primary driver of addictive behavior, fostering "doom scrolling" and reducing attention spans by providing constant, unearned stimuli.
• The line between "good UX" and "addictive design" is difficult to define, as features like infinite loading can improve convenience for some while making it impossible for others to find their place, reference specific content, or easily navigate via footer links.
• Serious concerns exist regarding the constitutionality of government-mandated UI design, with critics arguing that regulating the layout of an application is equivalent to regulating speech and exceeds the proper scope of government authority.
• The proposed regulation may disproportionately burden smaller developers and indie projects, potentially creating a "compliance dragnet" that favors incumbent tech giants with the resources to navigate complex legal requirements.
• Stability and discoverability are significant issues, as infinite feeds often lack permanent URLs or stable state management, making it difficult for users to revisit previously seen content compared to traditional paginated interfaces.
• Many argue that infinite scroll is a symptom of a larger, malicious business model—targeted advertising and engagement-maximizing algorithms—rather than a standalone design flaw.
• Skeptics of the legislation suggest that mandating "good" UI through law is a form of state overreach that mirrors ineffective or burdensome regulations like cookie banners, which often lead to malicious compliance rather than genuine user benefit.
• Arguments in favor of the ban emphasize that the state has a legitimate interest in protecting minors from exploitative psychological design, drawing parallels to tobacco and substance regulation where the government restricts access to protect public health.
• Some propose alternative solutions, such as requiring platforms to provide users with settings to disable engagement-maximizing features, or focusing on the "infinite" aspect of content delivery rather than the specific mechanics of the scrollbar.
• Proponents of the legislation argue that the "First Amendment" defense is often used as a shield by massive corporations to continue business practices that are demonstrably harmful to the public, particularly youth mental health.
The debate over regulating infinite scroll highlights a deep tension between individual autonomy, the protection of minors, and the limits of state authority over digital interfaces. Many participants view addictive UI patterns as a profound, systemic harm that effectively hijacks human psychology, while others argue that state-dictated design is a slippery slope toward censorship and technical stagnation. While there is a strong consensus that current social media experiences are often toxic and designed to exploit cognitive vulnerabilities, there is significant disagreement over whether "whack-a-mole" legislation against specific UI elements like infinite scroll is an effective remedy or an unconstitutional infringement on corporate and individual expression. Ultimately, the discussion reflects a broader, ongoing struggle to reconcile the libertarian ideals of the internet's past with the reality of a modern digital environment dominated by engagement-obsessed conglomerates.