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

191–200 of 349 posts

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

#191

Post by kjakm »

mschuster91 wrote: post #101
montenegrohugo wrote: post #8

I'd add that algorithmic feeds are another part of the triad (quartet?), and probably the worst offender. Personalized addictive content is on the rise (tiktok, YouTube, even Facebook and Twitter curate your newsfeed "for you" ), and these ml-determined feeds drive engagement to the highest possible levels, leading to an incredible waste of time, a distorted world view (mostly the posts with the highest engagement wi…

> even Facebook and Twitter curate your newsfeed "for you" At least for Twitter, it allows you to turn that algorithm crap off and it respects that choice - iirc even across devices. Facebook, meanwhile, has entirely turned off that ability.

I’m pretty sure Twitter switches you back to the algo feed after a certain amount of time (or at least they used to).

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

#192

Post by Shared404 »

Tyr42 wrote: post #92
zigzag312 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should also disclose a spending ceiling. How much do you need to / can you spend to gain access to all the content. Do I need to spend $60, $600, $6000, $60,000 or is there no limit?

Interestingly enough, the Pokemon Picross game on the 3DS had a fixed spend limit of $50, after which you could just top up your in game currency for free. So either you did f2p, or you paid $50 and got a full game, or some linear combination of both. I liked that game and paid $50 for it.

Hello fellow person who liked that game! I didn't know there were more of us.

I never did spend any money on it though.

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

#193

Post by csallen »

andrewla wrote: post #187
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…

This all seems a bit silly. Go work for an *unprofitable* mobile game company (or start your own!) to see how quickly your model breaks down. The idea that you can engineer yourself an addictive game is a silly concept. That games en masse are evolving for maximal "addictiveness" is unquestionable, but has entirely different implications.

The fact that some people fail to accomplish a thing doesn't mean others can't. Of course you can engineer addictive games. We know quite a lot about addiction. What do you think casinos are, exactly?

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

#194

Post by soledades »

djoldman wrote: post #184
FFRefresh wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do think this is a worthy callout, that is often missing in discussions about social media and/or any sort of complex system. The general narrative implies (but would never say) that humans lack agency and the ability to act in their own self-interest. And if only we could remove the social media site/system, would we see an enlightened, more perfect human. Don't get me wrong, I'm strongly in favor of designing sys…

>I think a lot of what we see on social media is a reflection of who we are as humans, and what we desire and want to see. Agreed. I'm curious why there aren't deep discussions about WHY people want to __insert convenient social media action__. Isn't the flaw that we have a fear of missing out, want to appear to have high status, want to belong to a group whose identity is tied into being against another group, etc.?…

Telling people to be different is simply not a viable mechanism for making the world a better place.

You can inquire after however many chickens and eggs you like about why the world is the way it is, but I think most people are more interested in what can be done to improve things.

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

#195

Post by dleslie »

jsmith45 wrote: post #190
dleslie wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thankfully, PC Gaming strangely hasn't been dominated by this phenomenon, despite EA's, Activision's, and Epic's best efforts. Fortnite is addiction-tuned F2P casinowear, and it's done gangbusters, but the industry hasn't managed to copy that formula with great success.

At least fornite cosmetics have limited gameplay impact (although not zero impact). It is quite possible to be a relatively competitive player without spending a single cent (and without needing excessive grinding to do so, or at least, no more grinding than a paying player). This is a lot better than most mobile games (pay more or wait # hours to continue), or games with lootboxes whose results give serious competit…

Ah, but it's a social experience. The primary capital isn't one's competitive standing, it's the uniqueness of your gear.

Fortnite's store UI is designed around limited time access panic sales.

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

#196

Post by MayeulC »

api wrote: post #177

There are two kinds of capitalism: value creation capitalism (also known as industrial capitalism) and value extraction capitalism. The latter includes quite a lot of financial capitalism, profit-driven warfare, and casinos and other addiction-driven products. The former creates value while the latter extracts and concentrates it while overall creating net negative value. Addicting people to Skinner boxes is destroyi…

Well, I think capitalism can be summed up as "optimize for one metric: capital".

In a capitalist world, if you want to change what companies are doing, make it more expensive to do so (alternatively, less lucrative). So I guess tax and fine companies, like GDPR does.

I wish there was a simple way to add more metrics like pollution, social impact, health impact, etc. But those are rather hard to measure, usually not immediately available, and can be hidden in some way or another. It might be doable, though, as we were more or less able to do so with capital (track monetary exchanges, etc); which is a completely artificial metric.

Disclaimer: I know nothing about actual economy theories.

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

#197

Post by wccrawford »

xwolfi wrote: post #95
joshspankit wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other component is that algorithmic feeds encourage echo chambers. People engage with outrage most when they are on the “same side” of it.

But what of trolling then, a sort of counter reaction to the echo chamber where large outliers enter the room and disturb the equilibrium? For my part I think it's asynchronous written debates that are the source of these problems, so even earlier than facebook. On a large massive forums, people write for themselves, not the others, and barely read the discussion. Oral debates or written rendering of them, had the ad…

Trolling pushes people further into their echo chambers. It isn't intended to encourage a wider world view, it's intended to hurt. It just convinces people that they're already on the right side.

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

#198

Post by ketzo »

djoldman wrote: post #180
ketzo wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If people thought that engaging in social media was bad for them, they would stop. This is the absolute cornerstone of your argument, and I gotta say, I think it is 100% incorrect. This is, in fact, how we often define addiction: A behavior that a person repeatedly and compulsively engages in despite zero or negative side effects . People will absolutely do things, and continue to do things, that they know for cert…

I should have made "If people thought that engaging in social media was bad for them, they would stop" into question rather than a statement. That said, my follow up questions stand: If people can't stop doing an activity that is definitely hurting them, don't they need professional help? Do all these social media users need professional help?

Interesting, I got too focused on that point. I think you're absolutely right, or at least have the potential to be; I have certainly known people in my life who have had deeply problematic relationships with social media, to the point where professional help was either used or (IMO) would have been a good idea. I mean, I've personally had days where I wished that someone would just yell "get off fucking reddit!" at me.

I don't think it's "all users," and even for lots of users who are harmed, it's not necessarily "all the time." But it's definitely something that could be helped by a professional.

I guess the alternative is regulation of some kind: we recognize that these sites have the potential for meaningful harm to a large number of people, and someone (the government?) steps in to do something about it.

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

#199

Post by xyst »

this shit makes me angry af

it's no wonder we have seen a decline in cognitive ability, as seen by various world events (election of the 45th president of the USA, "Brexit", climate denial, rise of neo-nazis, vaccination denial, Rohingya genocide in Myanmar, ...). we are just endlessly scrolling and spamming each other with our running commentary bullshit that masquerades as a modicum of insight.

what happened to making the world a better place? the tech industry is no better than the tobacco or fast food industry.

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

#200

Post by stjohnswarts »

brnt wrote: post #120
drchopchop wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

It may be an artifact of the division between body and mind, common in Western cultures. Any problem related to the psyche is treated differently (ie taken less seriously) from problems related to the body. I wonder how many millenia this ostensibly subtle difference in conception will keep on giving us pain and mental anguish. Its so deeprooted, I wonder what it will take to pull it out.

There are plenty of people hooked on this stuff in the east. Addiction doesn't care about your philosophy. Some people are just more mentally available to addiction in all it's myriad forms.
Post reply on HN