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

“User Engagement” Is Code for “Addiction”

craigwritescode.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 349 posts

Re: “User Engagement” Is Code for “Addiction”

#121

Post by dleslie »

drchopchop wrote: post #50
luplex wrote: post #41

I did an internship with a very profitable Swedish mobile game before the pandemic, and it was really interesting to see the doublethink: everyone knew we were making a drug, but people avoided speaking of it in that way. It was always "our most engaged players readily spend on in-game items", and never "the most addicted users spend money so they can continue playing" It was a great workplace, but I don't think it w…

Yep, I spent many years at a large, public US mobile game company and it was the same. We had a considerable number of players who had total spend in the 5-figure range, and a few into the 6's. And that's on one single game. The constant rationalization around the office was basically something like: "They're paying for fun, it would otherwise be drinks/movies/real gambling/etc, we're just a different medium". This,…

I left casual games because of this; every partner and publisher we worked with was heavily pressuring us to optimize for whales. They wanted the long tale for marketing, and the whales for revenue; and once hooked, the core interaction loop was to be as addictive as possible.

When I left it was Candy Crush that was the top of the field; and we were in awe. They were _always_ rewarding players, and were pushing microtransactions everywhere. It was flashy like a slot machine, and provided a constant stream of "rewards" for continued engagement.

It was a disgusting industry then; it probably still is now. I went into game dev to tell stories and explore worlds, not to sell dope.

Re: “User Engagement” Is Code for “Addiction”

#122

Post by rkangel »

Where is the line between engineering for addiction and engineering for a quality user experience?

Everything we are told about building modern services is about optimisation. You have metrics, you experiment, you tweak things, you see what helps and what doesn't. This is as true for business models as it is for interface design.

Some of this is good - it is positive to improve your UI to reduce friction and make it more usable by your customers. Some of it is fine - choosing a landing page design that gets more people to sign up. Some of it is bad - things you do that mean people don't close the app as readily.

All these changes are the result of the same process, that is built into how modern businesses operate. How do you draw the line between optimising for good UI and optimising for addiction? If you're writing legislation, do you outlaw specific practices? If you're trying to operate companies ethically, do you just avoid certain metrics?

Re: “User Engagement” Is Code for “Addiction”

#123

Post by dleslie »

red-montaigne wrote: post #52
luplex wrote: post #41

I did an internship with a very profitable Swedish mobile game before the pandemic, and it was really interesting to see the doublethink: everyone knew we were making a drug, but people avoided speaking of it in that way. It was always "our most engaged players readily spend on in-game items", and never "the most addicted users spend money so they can continue playing" It was a great workplace, but I don't think it w…

Great example of how language is a tool for thinking, but it's also a tool for not thinking. If you want to ignore or obfuscate something, you can seal it off with euphemisms and misrepresentations, kind of like putting an interface in front of an implementation. And as you pointed out, you can use this tactic to deceive not only others but also yourself.

Casual game design uses many of the same nouns as casino operators.

Re: “User Engagement” Is Code for “Addiction”

#124

Post by piva00 »

luplex wrote: post #41

I did an internship with a very profitable Swedish mobile game before the pandemic, and it was really interesting to see the doublethink: everyone knew we were making a drug, but people avoided speaking of it in that way. It was always "our most engaged players readily spend on in-game items", and never "the most addicted users spend money so they can continue playing" It was a great workplace, but I don't think it w…

From my experience, knowing people who works at King this is definitely a thing. The doublethink due to having a pretty great workplace is stark.

Re: “User Engagement” Is Code for “Addiction”

#125

Post by dspillett »

2pEXgD0fZ5cF wrote: post #43
Aardwolf wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reddit's redesign. 'Less addictive' for me. I'm sure there must be some target audience for whom this is more addictive, but I'm not the one, I just want to read the comments of the thread I choose myself in peace.

Same here, also with Reddit refusing to show posts to me and trying to force me to install its App instead when browsing on mobile. I simply don't use it on mobile anymore.

As well as not going there on mobile any more (or hitting back PDQ if I do end up following a link that goes there), I use it a lot less on desktop. If you are not logged in some things (just browsing comments) become a lot less convenient, for instance. So unless there is a link that sounds really compelling (I sometimes get sent links by friends - though usually I just bounce through reddit and on to the actual information which is probably one link away) I simply don't go. I certainly don't go to subreddits unprompted to look for content any more (which I used to).

Yeah, old reddit still exists as some are fond of saying in these discussions. But other perfectly good information sources exist for what I want too (often better than reddit ever was - HN for instance).

Youtube is heading the same way: I'm visiting it less and less. The more adverts they pile in, the less of their adverts I actually witness because I'm not there to see them at all.

I should thank reddit, youtube, and their ilk, really, for saving me the time that I used to waste on their sites and can now enjoy wasting on other things instead!

Re: “User Engagement” Is Code for “Addiction”

#126

Post by goalieca »

asidiali wrote: post #106
goalieca wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reddit also has purchased up/downvotes (through click-farms/bots), opaque moderation, and the real-time public display of these promote mobs and groupthink even if it were actually organic. I don't think for a second their algorithms do a good enough job of mitigating these clickfarms.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1912.04206.pdf

> Even though the environment of r/unpopularopinion encourages users to freely express their opinion, the dominant population of this community is young white males, and only the opinions representing them are supported by general users and brought up to the front page. Consequently, the minority opinions are neglected and it results in another spiral of silence phenomenon in the community

I don’t know if young white males needs to be said or if that’s just speculation. What matters more is the outcome which is actually just more groupthink.

Re: “User Engagement” Is Code for “Addiction”

#127

Post by Consultant32452 »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #119
Consultant32452 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The AI determines which political articles and posts you see. The AI determines if you get reminded to register/vote. At the extremes the AI has a very strong impact on whether you believe Obama is a secret Muslim or Trump is a Russian asset.

Which means people best able to play people to increase the "this post is good" score of the AI will sway the election results. It's not enough to control them, but I'd imagine you can tip a close election by 10% or so.

Dr. Robert Epstein has done some research on this and has testified before Congress about it. Here's one article. https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-google-search-bia...

Re: “User Engagement” Is Code for “Addiction”

#128

Post by kingaillas »

hawktheslayer wrote: post #27

For me the pandemic has actually allowed me to spend more time outdoors and with my children and as a result less time online. We have been taking walks daily and started gardening. I've cut down social media time to almost nothing on all major platforms (HN is my last "addiction"). The author claims the pandemic forced us inside and on social media--do people find this true for them?

>The author claims the pandemic forced us inside and on social media--do people find this true for them?

I used to play in a few city-wide social sports leagues, before covid, which were all canceled most of last year and aren't back yet due to the winter weather. I filled my time by hiking and trying out some new hobbies.

So while not quite the same as being force inside and/or forced on social media, I can see where the pandemic upended various gatherings/hobbies and social media is an easy alternative for many people. Social media is free, easy to access, convenient, can be a giant time-sink, etc. along with all sorts of negative consequences.

Re: “User Engagement” Is Code for “Addiction”

#129

Post by mod »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #91
Kaze404 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I play a lot of Apex Legends and recently I found out that when you go purchase a loot box it explicitly tells you the chance of each item's rarity. My initial thought was that it's a step in the right direction (of banning loot boxes entirely), but it also made me wonder how anyone can be sure those numbers are actually true in their backend.

It is also pretty useless. Normal people can't parse probabilities - otherwise nobody would play in the lottery. If you have a list of 20 items with non-uniform chances, can you tell how long you need to play before it's likely you'll get an item you want? You and me can, by doing little math in head; most people can't (and it's another question whether one has the willpower to do such math and follow it through whil…

> Normal people can't parse probabilities - otherwise nobody would play in the lottery.

Yes, they would. The lottery is about giving up something of little value ($1 or $2) for some entertainment and the chance at a truly life-changing situation. I doubt anyone is unaware there's almost no chance they win, and that they're losing on every dollar they spend. Interestingly, the lottery is occasionally +EV to play.

I otherwise agree, people are bad at gambling, probabilities, and understanding the long term. I play poker, and poker players are constantly furious that their 80% favorite hand doesn't win 100% of the time. 80% feels like a lock.

Some people don't care. They want to gamble, and they have no regard for what they lose in the process. I think many humans are just wired this way, or perhaps it's cultural.

Post reply on HN