Live data from Hacker News

A call to minimize distraction and respect users’ attention (2013)

minimizedistraction.com

161–170 of 285 posts

Re: A call to minimize distraction and respect users’ attention (2013)

#161

The presentation itself is a huge distraction. I understand the good intention behind it. but does it really neccessary to use 137 pages to illustrate a very simple issue? I think 5 pages is more than enough to explain it clearly. I read this minimize distraction slides have been viewed half millions time already, if the maker use the slides carefully, wouldn't it save a millions of hours user's time. And life?

> but does it really neccessary to use 137 pages to illustrate a very simple issue?

No, but the issue wasn't that simple in 2013.

> half millions time already, if the maker use the slides carefully, wouldn't it save a millions of hours user's time. And life?

hundreds of thousands by that math, it also took me about 20 minutes to read through it.

> The presentation itself is a huge distraction.

I think Tristan Harris was aware of that and that also probably is the point.

Re: A call to minimize distraction and respect users’ attention (2013)

#163

The presentation itself is a huge distraction. I understand the good intention behind it. but does it really neccessary to use 137 pages to illustrate a very simple issue? I think 5 pages is more than enough to explain it clearly. I read this minimize distraction slides have been viewed half millions time already, if the maker use the slides carefully, wouldn't it save a millions of hours user's time. And life?

> but does it really neccessary to use 137 pages to illustrate a very simple issue? No, but the issue wasn't that simple in 2013. > half millions time already, if the maker use the slides carefully, wouldn't it save a millions of hours user's time. And life? hundreds of thousands by that math, it also took me about 20 minutes to read through it. > The presentation itself is a huge distraction. I think Tristan Harris…

>I think Tristan Harris was aware of that and that also probably is the point.

Then the guy must have a sense of humor. that is nice point. thanks for the comment.

Re: A call to minimize distraction and respect users’ attention (2013)

#164
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell that to the many SF tech workers optimizing for profit.

I am an SF tech worker. Lots of companies here selling pickaxes. Twilio, for example, doesn’t need engagement. Last I heard they were swimming in money.

Oh I agree that there are companies selling pickaxes and not doing business realm of Facebook and Google (if we are sticking to the subject of ads). However, hopefully anecdotally, just go take a look a metrics and sentiments from tech employees on Blind.

If Google is paying more than Twilio, there will be droves of people grinding to get in.

Re: A call to minimize distraction and respect users’ attention (2013)

#165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell that to the many SF tech workers optimizing for profit.

Not optimizing for profit is a very privileged position to be in. Are people with poor backgrounds supposed to think that selling some ads is worse than having your family suffer? I can make a third as much and maybe do something better for society, but what happens then if the industry collapses? I'm not coding killer drones. I'm working for an ad company.

I don't disagree with you, if anything I'm in a similar camp.

The incentives just so happen to end up supporting features like the ones this post refers to.

Re: A call to minimize distraction and respect users’ attention (2013)

#166

The presentation itself is a huge distraction. I understand the good intention behind it. but does it really neccessary to use 137 pages to illustrate a very simple issue? I think 5 pages is more than enough to explain it clearly. I read this minimize distraction slides have been viewed half millions time already, if the maker use the slides carefully, wouldn't it save a millions of hours user's time. And life?

A simple issue? This isn't a simple issue. I challenge you to cover it in 5 pages.

And spending a time on something that could potentially save everyone tons of time, and improve lives? That's exactly what people should be spending their time on. All of us.

Re: A call to minimize distraction and respect users’ attention (2013)

#167
I enabled screentime/parental controls on my iPhone and gave control of the passcode to my wife.

At first I could not wrangle it to block the things I wanted (was this an intentional move by Apple or just poor design?). What I ultimately settled for was disabling downloads of new apps, then deleting every single social media app, game, web browser, and other distraction from my phone.

Yes, that is right, my iPhone has no web browser capability (why not just buy a dumb phone? Because I often use services like maps, music, etc).

Is the problem me? Do I just not have self control? No - I decided its not. These products were carefully designed around the metric of "engagement" - whereas I had no choice over my design.

I also blocked other distractions in my desktop / work area via the hosts file. I would like to do it at the router level but use of VPN makes this impossible, unfortunately.

This is what it has come to, which...is ridiculous, in my opinion.

Re: A call to minimize distraction and respect users’ attention (2013)

#168
post #90

All I've heard for the past 12+ years is "engagement". The singular focus on that one word to the exclusion of everything else is astounding to me. As if it is some magic incantation on the part of BizDev (or whatever they're called these days) that instantly transmogrifies users into profits. At one company I worked at, we had a digital product that was part of a suite of services our company provided. It was useful…

> Finally I said, "Look. We shouldn't be trying to make our customers spend more time in this product any more than LG does trying to get us to spend more time in our refrigerators." It fell on deaf ears. This is brilliant; too bad your marketing department was apparently run by broken robots.

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

LG's business model is to earn a one off payment by selling an appliance. It doesn't earn any incremental payment each time a consumer accesses the appliance.

Facebook and Google have different models. They sell ads each time a consumer engages with their products.

To change the behaviour of people who work at Google and Facebook, first think of a way for them to get paid more if they make the changes you want. Then, get their attention with your message and hope they listen and obey you. If you don't get their attention the first time, try again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.

That's how advertising works.

Re: A call to minimize distraction and respect users’ attention (2013)

#169
I wouldn't hold out for the tech titans to stop exploiting us for our attention. I think we each need to be aware of how we're being influenced and protect ourselves.

Realizing this is difficult for many, I am building a tool to help people combat the influence of social media and online advertising. We'll soon be beta testing. If anyone is interested, there is more information here: https://becomepeerless.com/

Re: A call to minimize distraction and respect users’ attention (2013)

#170

It's funny how almost all the comments are about technical aspects of the presentation or how he said it, and not what he said. He's right, FWIW. How many times have I had to yell "Hel-LO!" at some bozo staring at his phone & not watching where he's walking? However, how would you regulate this? If you created a metric of "attention-sucking" and set a legal limit on it, the web giants would immediately game it.

There's too much to type on a phone but... Assuming it's possible to fix this through government action, it'd probably be by enforcing education that teaches values and mindful decision-making. Right now I think what we get is a collective mindset of enduring education, enduring the workday, and then distracting ourselves into oblivion. The things that suck our attention are the best pastimes because we can do them m…

Let's contrast two addictive and harmful phenomena in order to see what's controlled them and what hasn't:

1) Cigarette smoking: In the last 50 years, the % of adults who smoke has fallen dramatically. WIN.

2) Slot machines: I don't have revenue numbers, but I'd be surprised if the $$ figures have fallen by anything like smoking's. LOSS.

Internet addiction (and smartphone addiction) IS harmful. If you disagree with that, you can probably stop reading.

If you're still here, we can agree it would be very good to decrease addiction, even if it'll never disappear entirely. How?

For smartphone addiction, we can publish a few articles like OPs, or make fun of addicts, but it'll probably turn out like slot machines. The addicts don't care what we think of them.

For smoking: cigarettes were never actually outlawed -- adults can still buy them. So what worked and how could it be replicated?

1) Massive public pressure and education, so smoking became uncool. This has barely started on smartphone addiction, so bring it on.

2) Outlawing smoking in all public places. Covered below.

3) Restricting for youths. Also covered below.

4) Taxes: a pack of cigarettes is massively taxed.

5) Lawsuits, like the state attorneys general filed against the tobacco companies.

Now, for public places: it's possible that certain apps could be rated by some agency, public or private, as "addictive" or "distracting." The app makers would fight it like hell, but too bad. The literature on how they're addictive is pretty voluminous now.

Once we have a legal designation of Instagram or TikTok as "addictive" the way is open for indoor spots or schools to prohibit them, make them illegal to use while driving, or for the app makers to restrict them for children.

Would this work on its own? Pretty imperfectly, but the effect of social apps being rated "addictive" even if some are not rated yet, combined with the education program, would be large.

I haven't covered (4) and (5) yet, but this posting is already pretty long!

Post reply on HN