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

'Our minds can be hijacked': tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 411 posts

Re: 'Our minds can be hijacked': tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia

#311

Post by walterstucco »

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #268
walterstucco wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At one point you stop watching TV, because there are no more new things to watch, you stop reading novels because they aren't novel anymore, you stop going to the bar because there's a fixed amount of alcohol you can consume, it costs money, the bar has opening hours. Smartphone follows you everywhere, all the time.

if You can get bored of novels with all their formats and styles and character arcs and high complexity why can’t you get bored of scrolling through empty one-or-two line updates of people’s lives that you know don’t r fleet reality? It’s basically a worse novel that also makes you feel bad for reading it.

That's the point: if you get bored by a book, you stop reading the book, if you get bored by infinite scrollable content, you keep scrolling looking for less boring content, that never shows up.

It's the same effect that gambling has on the brain.

You keep playing, even though you keep losing.

That's the danger and that's why books, the TV, movies, radios (music in general) and other form of entertainment are not equally dangerous, because usually you are able to stop before it gets too far.

Re: 'Our minds can be hijacked': tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia

#312

Post by folksinger »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #198
nicolimo86 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is that people like you are just a little minority respect to the whole. The vastly majority is destroing their screens by tapping here and there on Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat....

If you looked a bit closer on their screens (easy to do in public transit), you'd see that they're mostly a) reading stuff, b) talking with friends, c) sending cool stuff to their friends. All standard ways of spending time with other people, except with the constraints of time and space lifted.

Do you work for Facebook? It's OK if you do. It's OK if you don't accept what they do. It's OK if you don't love your job. We need to go out into the world and destroy parts of it just to survive.

From 'The Way I Am', sung by Merle Haggard and many more:

I wish I enjoyed how I made my living,

Did what I do with a willing hand.

Some may run but that ain't like me,

So I just dream, keep on being the way that I am.

Re: 'Our minds can be hijacked': tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia

#313

Post by cirgue »

pdkl95 wrote: post #156
Bucephalus355 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your analogy of cigarette companies and Facebook was accurate but deeply shocking, I felt a chill in my hands and almost lost my grip on my phone. I’ve always wondered if in the near future, working for Facebook and Google might be considered shameful, just like how working for Big Tobacco became. I remember one person from college who got a job with a tobacco company promoting Reynolds brands cigarettes to his regio…

The cigarette company analogy also includes the "secondhand smoke"-style problem: Even if I don't personally use their services, I'm still exposed to the problem indirectly with gmail/GA/etc.

Non-users are also exposed to the problem because not using those services weakens social networks and interpersonal relationships.

Re: 'Our minds can be hijacked': tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia

#314

Post by jessaustin »

hydrox24 wrote: post #145
pls2halp wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s a very solid argument for TV as stunting people’s development. There’s lack of reading, albeit not necessarily due to television ( https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/01/the-dec... ) There’s a direct link between television and obesity ( http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/75/5/807 ) And more general health dangers ( http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/newsplus/prolonged-tel... ) Etc…

One substantial benefit of Television was that everyone was simultaneously watching the same thing. This increased political homogeneity by providing a shared belief system, or at least some more common ground. Such homogeneity is correlated strongly with stability and prosperity on a nation-state level. This was particularly true from 1950 until 1970 or so, before cable television exploded (it remained true for long…

Lots of current problems were created by that unexamined unanimity, so one would have to try much harder to successfully argue it was a "benefit".

Re: 'Our minds can be hijacked': tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia

#315

Post by jessaustin »

apatters wrote: post #162
kyledrake wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We call this the granddaddy of first-world problems. I think you're right, Dan. It seems like a pretty existential problem at this point. What is the alternative here? Is there such a thing as an ethical "news feed", and how would I make one ethical? (PS: HN: Beeminder is awesome and you should try it).

Why not just: - A subscription requires explicit opt-in (not "oh, yeah, I met that dude once in college," or, "oh, yeah, I eat Cheerios and 'Like' them") - A subscription is easy to cancel - The filtering/sorting algorithm is "show the newest items first" That seems like an ethical news feed to me, and it's basically what you get with any RSS reader, right?

So shocking that these services make no effort to incorporate that standard....

Re: 'Our minds can be hijacked': tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia

#316

Post by freshhawk »

KirinDave wrote: post #279
archiepeach wrote: post #228

As noted multiple times in the article, the unethical design we’re seeing in popular apps and services today is largely a result of the widespread use of advertising as a revenue model. This is an appropriate time to show appreciation and support for the companies who are trying to demonstrate successful revenue models which are NOT based on advertising: Medium - the replacement of “Recommends” with “Claps” was to al…

> As noted multiple times in the article, the unethical design we’re seeing in popular apps and services today is largely a result of the widespread use of advertising as a revenue model. Advertisement as a revenue model exacerbates this problem, but I submit the problem stems from how we define success for mobile apps and websites. We directly designate "engagement" as success, rather than customer value provided or…

But the choice of "engagement" as the success metric directly stems from the advertising revenue model. That's why it is chosen as the definition of success. Because it triggers ad payments.

All the "customer value", "customer happiness" and all the rest is inward facing PR. Creative people need a better motivation to build these attention traps than "suck em in so they watch ads" so it has to be phrased differently to them.

Re: 'Our minds can be hijacked': tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia

#317

Post by marcosdumay »

KirinDave wrote: post #279
archiepeach wrote: post #228

As noted multiple times in the article, the unethical design we’re seeing in popular apps and services today is largely a result of the widespread use of advertising as a revenue model. This is an appropriate time to show appreciation and support for the companies who are trying to demonstrate successful revenue models which are NOT based on advertising: Medium - the replacement of “Recommends” with “Claps” was to al…

> As noted multiple times in the article, the unethical design we’re seeing in popular apps and services today is largely a result of the widespread use of advertising as a revenue model. Advertisement as a revenue model exacerbates this problem, but I submit the problem stems from how we define success for mobile apps and websites. We directly designate "engagement" as success, rather than customer value provided or…

Success is defined as engagement because it leads to more ad revenue. If those applications had different business models, they would have different success definitions.

Re: 'Our minds can be hijacked': tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia

#318

Post by KirinDave »

marcosdumay wrote: post #317
KirinDave wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As noted multiple times in the article, the unethical design we’re seeing in popular apps and services today is largely a result of the widespread use of advertising as a revenue model. Advertisement as a revenue model exacerbates this problem, but I submit the problem stems from how we define success for mobile apps and websites. We directly designate "engagement" as success, rather than customer value provided or…

Success is defined as engagement because it leads to more ad revenue. If those applications had different business models, they would have different success definitions.

Lots of companies use engagement metrics as stronger signals than nps even if they're not showing ads.

That was the guidance KP gave Level, for sure.

It took us a long time to realize that was wrong. Too long.

Re: 'Our minds can be hijacked': tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia

#319

Post by KirinDave »

freshhawk wrote: post #316
KirinDave wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As noted multiple times in the article, the unethical design we’re seeing in popular apps and services today is largely a result of the widespread use of advertising as a revenue model. Advertisement as a revenue model exacerbates this problem, but I submit the problem stems from how we define success for mobile apps and websites. We directly designate "engagement" as success, rather than customer value provided or…

But the choice of "engagement" as the success metric directly stems from the advertising revenue model. That's why it is chosen as the definition of success. Because it triggers ad payments. All the "customer value", "customer happiness" and all the rest is inward facing PR. Creative people need a better motivation to build these attention traps than "suck em in so they watch ads" so it has to be phrased differently…

I think you underestimate the power of intertia and groupthink in this industry. I also think there are lots of counterexamples who still do this even though they don't directly market ads.

Re: 'Our minds can be hijacked': tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia

#320

Post by keenmaster »

I blocked Facebook as an adult website on my phone. It’s kind of a hack, there’s no other way to restrict FB use in iOS aside from deleting the app. Good riddance though. Now I can’t plop down on the couch, open FB, and get lost in that chaotic algo haze of 45 second cooking videos, paywalled articles, and trite, discordant political screams.
Post reply on HN