21–30 of 198 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The point isn't us. You should know that. The point is the 99.8% that doesn't have our skills, and is forced into these dark patterns, by deception or psychological manipulation.
Before they existed websites would just put stuff on your computer without asking. They’re literally a consumer protection.
Direct your outrage elsewhere.
Sure, making instagram as addictive as possible seems bad but I disagree with the framing a bit. Dark patterns get users to do things they don't want, that's why they get super annoyed at the design or the process or the outcome. Addictive apps are a different thing to me. I don't think it's that compelling to say "obviously no one wants to be on Instagram and they're getting manipulated into it." ...yeah they do! Th…
I’ve been using the internet for longer than I care to admit, and I’ve never seen anything like it.
It was like 300 million junkies all lost their drug supplier at the same time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
100 years from now the descendants of the engineers who work at Big Tech will be looked upon by their descendants with the same shame that people nowadays look at ancestors who were involved in tobacco.
This is an outrageously dumb thing to say. BIg Tobacco knowingly sold a product that physically addicted (the only real form of addiction) its users and killed them . Facebook is not that.
Plus, smoking doesn't kill people; its pathological outcomes do. Similarly, looking at a phone screen might hurt a user's eyes, but it won't kill them; however, the decisions that user makes over time due to the effects of the subject matter they interact with might definitely put them at risk. And if aspects of that subject matter are deliberately amplified for their addictive properties, should platforms be regulated to control this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point isn't us. You should know that. The point is the 99.8% that doesn't have our skills, and is forced into these dark patterns, by deception or psychological manipulation.
Cookie dialogs are the opposite, they are asking for consent up front. Before they existed websites would just put stuff on your computer without asking. They’re literally a consumer protection. Direct your outrage elsewhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
100 years from now the descendants of the engineers who work at Big Tech will be looked upon by their descendants with the same shame that people nowadays look at ancestors who were involved in tobacco.
This is an outrageously dumb thing to say. BIg Tobacco knowingly sold a product that physically addicted (the only real form of addiction) its users and killed them . Facebook is not that.
Addiction isn't just [chemical in blood stream] -> [addiction]. Addiction involves many steps, many of them in the brain, and many of those reactive to non-physical events.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point isn't us. You should know that. The point is the 99.8% that doesn't have our skills, and is forced into these dark patterns, by deception or psychological manipulation.
Cookie dialogs are the opposite, they are asking for consent up front. Before they existed websites would just put stuff on your computer without asking. They’re literally a consumer protection. Direct your outrage elsewhere.
I think you're being condescending though, and missing the point.
Social media is not making you behave in ways you don't want. On the contrary, it's giving you EXACTLY what you want. People want to doomscroll social media instead of engage reality, because the real world requires action, effort and social risk...doomscrolling is pure passive consumption.
If we're going to give people autonomy and freedom to choose how they spend their time, at some point we have to draw the line and hold people accountable for their own actions. Or we have to acknowledge we'd rather stay in a permanent state of adolescence and give full control of our lives to big brother.
This constant push by the urban monoculture to turn everything into an "addiction" and turn everyone into a "victim" is a terrible set of ideas to put in peoples heads and is equally as toxic as anything they claim smartphone apps are trivially doing with UI design.
Apps are not physically addictive like cigarettes or alcohol and never have been.
And if you're going to argue social media preys on reward systems in the brain, this is also true about everything that humans do. Reward systems in the brain govern every single action we take, so everything we do can turned into a victimization by some addictive outside force.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point isn't us. You should know that. The point is the 99.8% that doesn't have our skills, and is forced into these dark patterns, by deception or psychological manipulation.
Cookie dialogs are the opposite, they are asking for consent up front. Before they existed websites would just put stuff on your computer without asking. They’re literally a consumer protection. Direct your outrage elsewhere.
While I agree with the premise, I do wonder how you can write a law that would stop the behavior we want to stop without hurting beneficial features or allowing the law to be too easily bypassed. How do you describe in a legal way the difference between a useful feature people want and an addictive feature they don’t want?
I assume this is about dark patterns but can’t confirm as I’m faced with a cookie wall where I can select from “Manage” and “Accept All”.