48 pointsby Stratoscope5 hours ago22 comments
  • ticulatedspline5 hours ago
    Curious as to where the line between “addictive feature” and "good UX" is. Is deliberate pagination actual impedance to use or merely an annoyance that's been weeded out with modern UX design?

    When does a feature that simply makes your product easier to use cross into a territory that it's illegal?

    What about media previews, in a platform like reddit if you can preview or expand media directly from the main list is that an “addictive feature” or just convenient design?

    also interested in the larger economy, if you create a plugin that restores or adds infinite scroll to a website could you be liable for providing illegal UX?

    EDIT: to clarify I'm not really griping on infinite scroll in particular, more the difficulty in regulating postitive UI/UX. Dark patterns are relatively easy to identify. If the unsubscribe button is hidden behind 3 screens and is in 3 point font that's pretty clearly a dark pattern. This seeks to regulate the opposite basically "your platform is, too easy, too good at serving your content"

    This is much harder to categorize and has fuzzier boundaries. For example imagine if it applied to remembering your login for more than 24 hours. Certainly people would use your service less if they had to continuously authenticate. Are long-lived sessions good UX or encouraging "addictive" behavior?

    • Greenpants2 hours ago
      The way I see it, it's the incessant stimuli you get through these apps. There's just no point where the screen stays quiet, stimulus free. Moving elements capture our attention naturally, especially when the entire screen keeps moving. The endless scroll element just makes sure that the stimulus keeps getting renewed the moment you're done with it.

      Instead, a scroll should give you a break before heading into the next video. I'm willing to bet this would help severely with addiction. People are then forced to reconsider whether they actually want to play the next video. "Done" should not always lead to "here's the next stimulus". That's what's addictive. The brain isn't made to break out of that loop easily.

    • over_bridge15 minutes ago
      What I like about Hacker News is each day I open it up, scan the first three pages, open 2-5 links to read, then close it again. Those pages make it easy to monitor my usage and set limits. I used to do the same with Reddit before that changed

      I'd fully support removing infinite scroll or even just banning it from under 18 year olds

    • afandian4 hours ago
      Infinite scroll evolved alongside algorithms that incentivise addictive content. So it’s “good” UX in that it’s effective for consuming addictive content…

      When I’m trying to do something constructive, like search or browse, infinite scroll is IMHO disastrously bad. You can’t keep your place in the list, or jump ahead/back.

      • xigoi3 hours ago
        On the contrary, pagination makes it impossible to keep your place in the list if it changes between page loads.
        • nkrisc19 minutes ago
          How are you going to keep your place if the order changes anyway? What is your place if the order has changed?

          If the order changes, all bets are off regardless of pagination or infinite scroll.

        • afandian3 hours ago
          The challenge is to retain an ordering over the result set. How would infinite scroll behave any differently in this case? The changing results seems to be an orthogonal concern to pagination/infinite scroll.
          • xigoi3 hours ago
            Infinite scroll makes the problem much easier, even if it’s still a problem. The only action you need to support is loading more results, which you can do by loading all results and filtering out those already shown. With pagination, the user may say “give me page 3” and you have no idea what was on pages 1 and 2, if they were even loaded.
            • hdgvhicvan hour ago
              If page 1 and 2 were 10 each you load results 21-30

              Same as if you are scrolling and have reached result 20 And want to load more.

              • falcor84an hour ago
                But the underlying table changed since. I'm not very familiar with these myself, but it seams to me that the best solution is to keep a session cursor for the user, and these are a lot simpler when you only ever move it forward.
        • cwillu3 hours ago
          ‹looks at hn›
        • im3w1l3 hours ago
          Why is the list constantly changing anyway?
          • xigoi3 hours ago
            Because other people keep adding new posts (and upvoting existing posts, which changes their order).
            • im3w1l2 hours ago
              While that's true I think that once the feed has been observed in a certain way the advantages of stability outweigh the advantages of showing a tweaked version the second time it is loaded.
              • xigoi2 hours ago
                The user expectation is that if you refresh the page, you will see fresh content.
                • 8note10 minutes ago
                  mine isnt?

                  if i refresh the page it should be almost the same. maybe a couple new things at the very top, but i should still be able to find the thing i was just looking at.

                  by comparison, facebook auto-reloads while you're halfway down a page, and wont show you any of the same things. its an incredibly poor experience

                • alpinisme33 minutes ago
                  Not if you’re on page 2
      • esafak43 minutes ago
        So you'd rather something like Slack was paginated? I think that would be disastrously bad.
    • RajT884 hours ago
      Infinite scroll is not necessarily a problem in and of itself. If the content is static, no biggie. At some point diminishing returns and you will want to use search for it.

      It is the algorithm they attach to infinite scroll which is problematic. It is not a UI design problem.

    • 8note12 minutes ago
      infinite scroll breaks the back button and its really annoying
    • ls6124 hours ago
      A lot of this is states trying to figure out a way around the first amendment to regulate social media that the courts will wink and accept. That is why you see so many convoluted laws being drawn up by state legislatures about this.
      • AlexandrB30 minutes ago
        What should be changed is the exemption algorithmically curated feeds still get under section 230. This has always seemed like a huge loophole. Once social media feeds are picking and choosing what to show users based on opaque criteria they are no longer neutral carriers of information but more like newspaper editors. They should be liable for what the users see.
  • anderber12 minutes ago
    I think the most frustrating thing for me is when a website has infinite scroll, but also a footer with links that you want to access. I end up going to the dev tools to look at the code.
  • pinkmuffinere25 minutes ago
    As somebody with not-enough self control, I would love this for myself. Self-locks help, but the temptation is always there.
  • senorcrab4 hours ago
    It should just be universally required to give an option to disable addictive features. Should prevent age verification, and giving users optionality is always a good thing (for them).
    • mdp20214 hours ago
      > Should prevent age verification

      It won't, become some parties are proposing a narrative of "shielding the innocent from harmful content" (such as themselves).

      keir starmer seems to suppose nudity would be indecent, against an implicitly stated decent itself and british politics.

      • senorcrab2 hours ago
        Yeah I meant it would avoid the necessity of age verification to solve this problem.

        Age verification and how enthusiastic gov'ts are about it is concerning.

  • ulrikrasmussen4 hours ago
    Instead of trying to whack a mole on all addictive mechanisms, just ban the business model driving all of them: targeted advertising.
    • zbentleyan hour ago
      I’m not sure that suffices. If a site has a very “good” (at keeping people glued to the screen) content ranking algorithm, they can still make money, albeit less, serving non-targeted ads. Longer engagement time by viewers = more ad impressions, targeted or not.
      • annjose19 minutes ago
        "they can still make money, albeit less, serving non-targeted ads."

        - would they be able to make as much as they do now? I think it would be significantly less.

        From Meta's official Financial Report for 2025 [0]:

        Total Revenue: $200,966 Million

        -Advertising: $196,175 million (97.6%)

        -Other rev: $ 4,791 Million ( 2.4%)

        [0] https://investor.atmeta.com/investor-news/press-release-deta...

  • hexage18143 hours ago
    The problem with infinity scroll is the lack of "pagination", which essentialy make most of content to get hidden away. For instance. Let assume you have 3000 comments on a YouTube video, your browser will crash way before it "infinite scroll" to the end (I know that that are tools to bypass this, but I'm talking about the default experience).
  • Calvin022 hours ago
    I (personally) think this is the wrong kind of solution.

    I think a better solution would to mandate that platforms offer a ranked feed and a chronological feed and make the setting sticky for users.

    I think giving users the agency over how much they consume is good but mandating a “UX” pattern feels too specific.

  • pillmillipedes3 hours ago
    note that this is going after "psychologically exploitative features intended to maximize engagement" of all kinds, not just infinite feeds. it also poses an ultimatum banning people under 16 from websites that provide such addictive features to anyone.

    personally I am against internet identification, and I think teenagers should be allowed on social media, so I have to ask: why only children? if these features are so bad, ban them outright.

  • puppycodes4 hours ago
    There is no way to enforce any of these types of laws without an iron curtain that clearly violates the first amendment. If you have free speech infront of children in public I don't see how having infinite scroll on your website or app is any different. Parents should parent their children instead of the state. Its crazy how avoident California is of solving actually important problems like homelessness, mental health resources, housing crisis, yet infinite scrolling somehow is a priority.
    • elictronic37 minutes ago
      Pretty sure most parents care about their kids more than nearly any other issue you mention. Social media excess has pushed to far and become less well liked than lawyers at this point. Thats only going to end one way.
    • jmye4 hours ago
      [dead]
  • heohk11 minutes ago
    Good riddance
  • steve19775 hours ago
    Headline makes it sound like that's a bad thing.
    • IAmBroom4 hours ago
      Removing choice is generally a bad thing, IMO.
      • dijksterhuis4 hours ago
        it doesn't remove any choice for users. users don't get a choice on the offending sites currently. they only get infinite scroll. so the eventual infinite scroll replacement will be just that, the replacement.

        on removing possible UI design choices for social media companies -- i have a very small violin on hand.

        • elictronic31 minutes ago
          Any discussion on this topic within hacker news is pretty silly. To much financial incentive to keep the status quo, and to many bots pushing narratives.

          It’s like listening to the lawyers at a cigarette manufacturer, car manufacturers fight seat belts or gun manufacturers in kindergartens. The change is coming because real people are pissed.

        • mdp20214 hours ago
          > they only get infinite scroll

          (Actually, sometimes the "paged" interface in "infinite scrolling" systems is available, only hidden. There for the benefit of people like us, those who would find it and exploit it.)

          • dijksterhuis4 hours ago
            i originally wrote users from the wider public or something but then decided to edit the comment down. fair point i suppose for the ~1% of users of these sites that are super tech nerds
      • steve19773 hours ago
        Laws are pretty much always about removing choice.
      • kasperni4 hours ago
        We also removed choices to drive without a seat belt or sell lead paint. Was that a bad thing?
    • ratelimitsteve5 hours ago
      it's based on age and I think that the age verification it would require is pretty universally reviled, at least here on HN
      • narrowtux4 hours ago
        I want it to be forbidden for anybody. They have stolen our attention for years
        • nickthegreek20 minutes ago
          How about you just petition for an option to chose. That way you get yours and I get mine. You don’t need to make that decision for me.
  • sdh4 hours ago
    Whack-a-mole lawmaking solves nothing. All this law does is ask social media companies to find another way for their platform to be addictive to children.

    Here's how to solve this ...

    Social media companies measure engagement. Decide what the safe metric is, pass laws that hold social media companies to that metric for whatever age or demographic. Apply fines proportional to revenue when they are found to exceed the metric. Fines can't be reasonable to the cost of doing business.

    That stops any social media company from incentivizing employees to increase engagement for that demographic.

    • elictronic36 minutes ago
      Or just stop social media below a certain age and enact that policy for older adults.

      The tech giants have flown to close to the sun, real people are pissed.

    • 4 hours ago
      undefined
  • lucasrufkahr8 minutes ago
    I hate infinite scroll. Also how do you really prohibit a software feature? Seriously..
  • Jzush2 hours ago
    Old people who think that the "scrolling" part of Doom Scrolling is literal. Ugh, I'm sorry for California.
  • imglorp4 hours ago
    Is infinite scroll really the problem or is it really the whole malicious toolbox and intention of "maximizing engagement"?
    • Cider99864 hours ago
      I agree, I don't think an "infinite refresh" like if YouTube had a limited homepage and changed on each refresh, would be much better. But infinite scroll is likely the most addictive.
  • archonis4 hours ago
    Regulate the business model, not the interface.
  • kiaansaraiya3 hours ago
    I honestly think that this may have some benefit as the infinite scroll has made our attention spans incredibly short. Although, I'm sure people will find there way around it.
  • ChrisArchitect2 hours ago
    Related:

    EU Commission: addictive design Instagram and Facebook in breach of the DSA

    https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_26_... (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48858292)

    > The investigation focuses on features such as infinite scroll, autoplay, push notifications, and the platforms' highly personalised recommender systems.

  • butlike4 hours ago
    The law should force social media to be subscription-only.
  • dmvjs3 hours ago
    this is a ridiculous proposal
  • GenericDev3 hours ago
    [dead]
  • sys_647383 hours ago
    What does this mean for a large Word document? Will people using OpenOffice.org get arrested for loading a novel?
    • OptionOfT3 hours ago
      That's not infinite. There is an end to the novel.