21–30 of 103 posts
I don't get how exactly this is measured though. For many app projects, keeping the user in the app is obviously one of the most important metrics, especially for free apps (hence more ads to show and more money to make). Many UX patterns are fine tuned to keep people in more, which is perfectly understandable as the primary goal is to keep the user in. Now, who defines "addictive" using which aspect? And even if it…
I don't get how exactly this is measured though. For many app projects, keeping the user in the app is obviously one of the most important metrics, especially for free apps (hence more ads to show and more money to make). Many UX patterns are fine tuned to keep people in more, which is perfectly understandable as the primary goal is to keep the user in. Now, who defines "addictive" using which aspect? And even if it…
This is kind of assuming that the parents have full control over the lives of their children. Which:
a. Isn't true b. Shouldn't be true (because some parents are bad)
As a parent you go to work for 8+ hours per day. During that time your child is in the care of "society" (school / daycare / whatever). And during that time the only thing that protects them is laws and regulations.
I don't get how exactly this is measured though. For many app projects, keeping the user in the app is obviously one of the most important metrics, especially for free apps (hence more ads to show and more money to make). Many UX patterns are fine tuned to keep people in more, which is perfectly understandable as the primary goal is to keep the user in. Now, who defines "addictive" using which aspect? And even if it…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
- "clear strong net positive for society," This has been debated to death for centuries already: of course it's a clear net positive, in the same sense that prohibiting alcohol, cannabis, regulating video games, legislating sex, putting ankle monitors on fat people to monitor their activity levels—all these things are "obvious" social improvements: in practice, not at all. These isn't a novel debate. It's a revisited…
Of course there are tons of open questions, yet you made a huge false dichotomy. I would bet that most people agree with banning sales of alcohol, cigarettes and opioid to kids.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
- "clear strong net positive for society," This has been debated to death for centuries already: of course it's a clear net positive, in the same sense that prohibiting alcohol, cannabis, regulating video games, legislating sex, putting ankle monitors on fat people to monitor their activity levels—all these things are "obvious" social improvements: in practice, not at all. These isn't a novel debate. It's a revisited…
I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I'd say this thing with attention grabbing/addictive feedback loops seems to be qualitatively different. Are you truly a "free" citizen if corporations have hacked your brain? This wouldn't be a ban on consumption either. It's not penalizing the person who drinks alcohol or uses cannabis or pays for sex. It's going after the providers, who are not small-time like hookers,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jonathan Haidt has a book out (The Anxious Generation) arguing for a causal link between children having smartphones with social media, and the massive increases in depression, suicidality, anxiety and other negative effects in teenagers and young adults over the last decade or so (I believe 2012 is roughly when Haidt claims it all started). It may well be that Tiktok and the like turn out to have worse second-order…
Note that Haidt's work is... disputed, to say the least. https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-coddling-of-the-american-p...
I don't get how exactly this is measured though. For many app projects, keeping the user in the app is obviously one of the most important metrics, especially for free apps (hence more ads to show and more money to make). Many UX patterns are fine tuned to keep people in more, which is perfectly understandable as the primary goal is to keep the user in. Now, who defines "addictive" using which aspect? And even if it…
Their metrics are driven by advertising goals. Maybe limit the number of ads that can be shown to a user in every 24h period? If Facebook were only allowed to show ads for the first 30 minutes of any user’s session per day, a lot of the incentives for addictive design are reduced.
I don't get how exactly this is measured though. For many app projects, keeping the user in the app is obviously one of the most important metrics, especially for free apps (hence more ads to show and more money to make). Many UX patterns are fine tuned to keep people in more, which is perfectly understandable as the primary goal is to keep the user in. Now, who defines "addictive" using which aspect? And even if it…
> Sugar is addictive. Do we ban sugar, or regulate its consumption? No! Instead we educate parents to limit their childrens' sugar intake.
This is also incorrect, there are plenty of places where sugar is regulated/limited/outright banned.