Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lumosity fined $2M for deceptive ads of “Brain Training” app

ftc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 259 posts

Re: Lumosity fined $2M for deceptive ads of “Brain Training” app

#91

Post by ebbv »

kazinator wrote: post #78
ebbv wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The FTC is being very heavy-handed here. Are you kidding me? A quick Google search turned up revenue of $24 million in 2013. 2014 and 2015 numbers did not come up on my quick search, but I'd imagine based on the amount of advertising they do it's at least held steady. And then there's the many millions of investment dollars they received before that. $2 million is not even a slap on the wrist. It's like blowing in…

$24 million revenue isn't net income after all the expenses and taxes. 2/24 is 8%. How would you like to be fined 8% of your yearly salary? Make $100k as a developer? $8k please! Good thing I'm not blowing gently in your other ear; that would be 16 thou.

> Make $100k as a developer? $8k please!

If my career was based on a bunch of lies I would expect a lot worse. That's kind of my whole point. If I sold a website to somebody based on claims that it would do something it doesn't do, I would expect them to sue me for 100% of their money back plus damages, not just 8%.

And keep in mind with Lumosity, $24 mil is the revenue for 2013 that I could find, who knows what they actually made in 2014 and 2015. If we assume it was just flat that's $72 mil, which makes the $2 mil fine 2.7%.

Re: Lumosity fined $2M for deceptive ads of “Brain Training” app

#92

Post by bberrry »

ryanferg wrote: post #25

All of these brain training products are suspect. Evidence for far transfer (training in one task transferring to a different domain task) is surprisingly hard to find, and empirical findings otherwise tend to disappear or diminish when replicated. Many of the pro-brain-training camp have already begun to shift the goal posts. First it was 'simple games increase IQ,' which turned out to be difficult to prove when wel…

I was under the impression that Dual-n-Back[0] had real benefits. Is that not the case?

[0] http://brainworkshop.sourceforge.net/

Re: Lumosity fined $2M for deceptive ads of “Brain Training” app

#93

Post by kolbe »

nkrisc wrote: post #69
kolbe wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To add another reason why his analogy was irrelevant and misleading, no one got thrown in jail. Lumosity got fined 0.01% of what some bank fines have been over the past few years.

That is also a good point, though I don't see how the comparison to what banks were fined is relevant or enlightening.

I like to contextualize the real magnitude of 'illions. There are many people who hear "$2M" and think it's a large fine. It's actually relatively modest, and I wanted to provide a point of reference for people to know how modest.

Re: Lumosity fined $2M for deceptive ads of “Brain Training” app

#94

Post by basseq »

lettergram wrote: post #10

I just wanted to share my thoughts, which are simply: "Thank God!" I've been working on a startup: http://synaptitude.me/ (demo is old) Essentially, we can do some of what Luminosity claims (and have independent studies to prove it). Every time someone goes: "Oh it's just like Lumosity" I have to go through and explain the difference. My wife has a degree in neuroscience and I minored in BioE, and we both just HATE L…

This is awesome. My wife is a PhD in Applied Cognition with a dissertation on working memory and attention (including improvement in games and activities). She similarly hates Lumosity. (If you ever want an independent review or consultation of your science, I'll put you in touch.)

Re: Lumosity fined $2M for deceptive ads of “Brain Training” app

#95

Post by FireBeyond »

lettergram wrote: post #10

I just wanted to share my thoughts, which are simply: "Thank God!" I've been working on a startup: http://synaptitude.me/ (demo is old) Essentially, we can do some of what Luminosity claims (and have independent studies to prove it). Every time someone goes: "Oh it's just like Lumosity" I have to go through and explain the difference. My wife has a degree in neuroscience and I minored in BioE, and we both just HATE L…

Wait... you offer a subscription as a "treatment plan" for "ADHD, anxiety and depression"??

You might seriously want to reconsider the wording thereof. Even metaphorically, that sounds dangerously close to something the FDA might object to.

Re: Lumosity fined $2M for deceptive ads of “Brain Training” app

#96

Post by ksk »

rfrank wrote: post #81
ksk wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you know all about the drug as you say, then you should also know that it has different effects for different people. Why do you automatically assume that people claiming to have benefited from LSD are stupid?

Define "benefited". Saying, "I dropped acid and learned about myself," is very different from saying, "I dropped acid and became smarter." If you're in the latter camp, yes, I'm going to assume you're stupid.

First of all, I think you're expecting way too much rigor from non-scientific, colloquial use of words. You already know what people mean when they talk about things in the general sense.

In any case, its not for me to define. If someone tells me they dropped acid and it helped them in solving a problem, or opened their eyes to new ways of solving them, I'd take them at their word. In the context of altered mental states being beneficial, its not completely absurd to suggest so. This is justified in a day-to-day practical sense, much like if someone told me a restaurant was good, I would not conduct a scientific inquiry around the topic.

Re: Lumosity fined $2M for deceptive ads of “Brain Training” app

#97

Post by w1ntermute »

bberrry wrote: post #92
ryanferg wrote: post #25

All of these brain training products are suspect. Evidence for far transfer (training in one task transferring to a different domain task) is surprisingly hard to find, and empirical findings otherwise tend to disappear or diminish when replicated. Many of the pro-brain-training camp have already begun to shift the goal posts. First it was 'simple games increase IQ,' which turned out to be difficult to prove when wel…

I was under the impression that Dual-n-Back[0] had real benefits. Is that not the case? [0] http://brainworkshop.sourceforge.net/

Gwern's done extensive research into this, and his meta-analysis has shown there's "a net gain (medium-sized) on the post-training IQ tests"[0, 1].

0: http://www.gwern.net/DNB%20meta-analysis

1: http://www.gwern.net/DNB%20FAQ

Re: Lumosity fined $2M for deceptive ads of “Brain Training” app

#98

Post by knowaveragejoe »

w1ntermute wrote: post #97
bberrry wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was under the impression that Dual-n-Back[0] had real benefits. Is that not the case? [0] http://brainworkshop.sourceforge.net/

Gwern's done extensive research into this, and his meta-analysis has shown there's "a net gain (medium-sized) on the post-training IQ tests"[0, 1]. 0: http://www.gwern.net/DNB%20meta-analysis 1: http://www.gwern.net/DNB%20FAQ

Why is this downvoted? I was under the impression that Gwern did solid resarch and was well respected in the HN community.

Re: Lumosity fined $2M for deceptive ads of “Brain Training” app

#99

Post by elbigbad »

ebbv wrote: post #91
kazinator wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$24 million revenue isn't net income after all the expenses and taxes. 2/24 is 8%. How would you like to be fined 8% of your yearly salary? Make $100k as a developer? $8k please! Good thing I'm not blowing gently in your other ear; that would be 16 thou.

> Make $100k as a developer? $8k please! If my career was based on a bunch of lies I would expect a lot worse. That's kind of my whole point. If I sold a website to somebody based on claims that it would do something it doesn't do, I would expect them to sue me for 100% of their money back plus damages, not just 8%. And keep in mind with Lumosity, $24 mil is the revenue for 2013 that I could find, who knows what they…

And one would have to assume that a company operating in this gray area would have some inclination that they would eventually be fined/sued and set up a fund of some sort to cover it.

It would be like making $100k as a developer, but using some shady quasi-legal loopholes on your taxes to save a bunch of money. Presumably you would set some aside in case it ever turned out that what you were doing was not considered proper by the IRS. My point is that the eventuality of this couldn't have come as a surprise to the company.

Re: Lumosity fined $2M for deceptive ads of “Brain Training” app

#100

Post by ryanferg »

bberrry wrote: post #92
ryanferg wrote: post #25

All of these brain training products are suspect. Evidence for far transfer (training in one task transferring to a different domain task) is surprisingly hard to find, and empirical findings otherwise tend to disappear or diminish when replicated. Many of the pro-brain-training camp have already begun to shift the goal posts. First it was 'simple games increase IQ,' which turned out to be difficult to prove when wel…

I was under the impression that Dual-n-Back[0] had real benefits. Is that not the case? [0] http://brainworkshop.sourceforge.net/

So it definitely transfers 'near'. You'll get better at the dual-n-back test. And possibly other visio-spatial working memory tests. But the question of far transfer- will it make you smarter- is probably not. Here is a link to a 2015 meta-analysis that looks at the question of working memory training (including dual-n-backs) transferring to other working memory tasks:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/084fvteji1tyz8t/2015-schwaighofer....

Melby-Lervag & Hulme, 2013, is also pretty damning.

Post reply on HN