61–70 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…
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…
If your app is just addictive adtech, it has no moral, political, or even economic right to exist.
Once upon a time apps provided useful services. Many still do.
But the gamification/addiction plague is an absolute horror and needs to be shut down. It's the psychological equivalent of tobacco, alcohol, opioid, sugar, oil, and money addiction.
All of these things are incredibly toxic and cause astounding levels of social and individual harm.
"But money..." is the least credible argument for any of them.
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…
Big tech bypassed those rules claiming the internet has so much choice unlike in the past were Broadcasters were few. But it never mattered that the internet has more choice cause Total Available Attention of the consumer is still the same. And if a significant amount of that Attention bandwidth is dominated by Advertising/Influence Ops its very easy to manipulate people. Not just kids.
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…
Considering the fact that obesity rates continue to climb despite approximately everyone knowing that eating too much sugar is bad for them at some point you need to acknowledge that a systemic problem requires a systemic solution. Education is great, but seems insufficient when pitted against companies actively trying to ensnare and addict the populace. We decided that the harms done by cigarettes and drug addiction…
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…
And... It's not working, right? More and more kids and people are obese, sugar is added to many products that shouldn't have it in the USA because it's not regulated, so competitors adding sugar have an advantage over others who want to keep it out of their products.
> I do not work for any big social media platform nor benefit from them, but stop blaming successful social media platforms that have mastered UX optimization, for stupid parents' actions that cause their children to get addicted.
> Educate the parents instead to spend more right time with their children.
You are falling into the trap of thinking individual action will solve systemic issues.
The parents might be educated and want to curtail their children's usage of social media but for a kid in 2024 to be denied access to these platforms by their parents is to be ostracised from their peers who will continue using it. You need a majority of parents from the same social circle to curtail all of their kids usage, how do you approach that? If the most popular kids are using it and shun away the non-users as "weird" or "lame", there's an immense peer pressure to participate in it.
I will keep blaming "successful" social media companies for creating ways to manipulate people into using their products, even when those products are causing harm.
Wouldn't you blame the tobacco companies for creating products (and advertisement campaigns) that are harmful to people? Or would you also ask for people to be educated instead of actions taken by governments to forbid advertisement of tobacco products, heavy taxation to create deterrents for usage, etc.?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Considering the fact that obesity rates continue to climb despite approximately everyone knowing that eating too much sugar is bad for them at some point you need to acknowledge that a systemic problem requires a systemic solution. Education is great, but seems insufficient when pitted against companies actively trying to ensnare and addict the populace. We decided that the harms done by cigarettes and drug addiction…
As an American who travels to Europe from time to time, I find the prevalence of smoking in Europe to be what I used to experience as a kid in the states in the 90s. I always wonder why that is when I visit.
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,…
You can’t just call people addicts to justify paternalistic policy over them, you can similarly justify total tobacco bans, alcohol prohibition, etc etc etc