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

Engineered Addictions

masonyarbrough.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 467 posts

Re: Engineered Addictions

#221

Post by wat10000 »

sorcerer-mar wrote: post #40
throwawayoldie wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a better idea: let's combat the notion that putting shareholder value ahead of the common good is moral.

Great! You've convinced nobody of anything. Businesses are powerful tools for the common good and the fact they produce returns for investors is absolutely critical to their continued existence and long-term viability. But the point for businesses to exist at all is to produce positive externalities and they need to produce those externalities for more than just their owners. It cannot be "either/or" and it's not imm…

It’s pretty rare for businesses to produce positive externalities. Businesses create value and some of that value goes to others, but that normally happens through explicit transactions.

Re: Engineered Addictions

#222

Post by moomoo11 »

scoofy wrote: post #110

This reminds me of my borderline exhausting quest to build a wiki for golf that isn’t extractive like most golf sites. Trying to bootstrap it without any funding is a lot, but necessary, and I have to run it on a shoestring. The frustrating part is that with all networks the flywheel is everything. Once you get the product on people’s phones, the value is easy to see, but to get the app in their phones, you need a bu…

That's cool. Good luck

Re: Engineered Addictions

#223

Post by Avicebron »

fragmede wrote: post #216
Avicebron wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well maybe we can agree that addiction is a form of escapism, and the question then becomes why do people want to escape their current situations?

which you'll bring back to "in general, it's about wealth inequality", except that plenty of poor people aren't addicts. > For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -H.L. Mencken

H. L. Mencken? You sure about that one?

Re: Engineered Addictions

#224

Post by wat10000 »

carlosjobim wrote: post #159
throwawayoldie wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a better idea: let's combat the notion that putting shareholder value ahead of the common good is moral.

Then don't make a company with shares. This is like complaining in a tennis court that it's better to play football. Anybody who makes his business a company with shares will be beholden to shareholders, even if he's the only shareholder. There are plenty of venues for any activity, which isn't structured in this way. 1. Nobody forces you to use a smart phone. 2. Nobody forces you to have social media or use it. 3. N…

#1 is rapidly approaching the practicality of “nobody forces you to have money.” Technically true but deeply impractical.

#2 is heading that way. Lots of official info is only available on social media. Travel to certain countries can be difficult if you don’t have any social media presence as they’ll decide you’re trying to hide something.

Re: Engineered Addictions

#225

Post by fragmede »

Avicebron wrote: post #223
fragmede wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

which you'll bring back to "in general, it's about wealth inequality", except that plenty of poor people aren't addicts. > For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -H.L. Mencken

H. L. Mencken? You sure about that one?

though the wording is different, https://quoteinvestigator.com/2016/07/17/solution/ says yes

Re: Engineered Addictions

#226

Post by scoofy »

moomoo11 wrote: post #222
scoofy wrote: post #110

This reminds me of my borderline exhausting quest to build a wiki for golf that isn’t extractive like most golf sites. Trying to bootstrap it without any funding is a lot, but necessary, and I have to run it on a shoestring. The frustrating part is that with all networks the flywheel is everything. Once you get the product on people’s phones, the value is easy to see, but to get the app in their phones, you need a bu…

That's cool. Good luck

Thanks!

Aside from the occasional 503 error (again, I'm trying to get as much as possible out of the cheapest plan), it works pretty well.

Re: Engineered Addictions

#227

Post by DavidPiper »

closetkantian wrote: post #35

I'll tell you what's been working for me: an e-ink phone. It's a Bigme Hibreak Pro. The interface is a bit clunky but it gets the job done. Social media is just not fun on this phone. It's still very usable if I need it, however. I'm also knocking out books at a rate that I haven't in years.

Changing the Accessibility settings on my iPhone to make the whole screen grayscale also does the same thing for me.

Re: Engineered Addictions

#228

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

tadzikpk wrote: post #208
fullshark wrote: post #52

The proposed solution is hinted at in this piece but dare not spoken: government regulation.

Right, maybe social networks are a utility, like electricity or ISPs

You effectively need or greatly benefit from gas, water, electricity and an ISP.

What do you really get out of social media? I mean other than most of you getting crippling anxieties about things that aren’t even real, of course.

Sure sure, I know, everyone wants it because they need to share photos of the kiddos with grandma out of country. No one needs it because they enjoy the shallow bullshit and dopamine and snarky retorts that enforce their ideology.

Re: Engineered Addictions

#229

Post by jaredklewis »

klik99 wrote: post #20

> Then it raised venture capital, hit scale, and needed to hit growth numbers and meet quarterly metric goals. The focus shifted from “authenticity” to “daily active users.” Having spent a few years in the VC world I have been increasingly convinced outside investment is the biggest reason why companies lose their morals. The legal obligation to represent shareholders erodes morality. When the people running these co…

> The legal obligation to represent shareholders erodes morality

This "legal obligation" is an internet rumor that does not exist in the real world. Yes, if your company has competing buyout offers of $1m and $2m and the board takes the $1m offer because they received a bribe, it will come up. Otherwise, it never does.

The proof is in the pudding (please go find me even one case where shareholders have successfully imposed their will on a board or executives because of this obligation), but it doesn't even logically make sense. Other than the buyout example, it's hard to think of almost any action a company could take that doesn't have some justification that it is for the benefit of shareholders. i.e. if we make our app too addictive, we risk social backlash and regulatory intervention by governments which will hurt out shareholders. And that's all that is needed, because there is no associated time frame with this obligation.

To be clear, boards and executives might strive to please investors, but it is not based on a legal obligation. An executive that ignores the interests of shareholders might be concerned about their reputation as a capable entrepreneur, risk losing their job, or devalue their own shares, but they are no in legal jeopardy.

Re: Engineered Addictions

#230

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

egypturnash wrote: post #48

yep, good luck figuring out how to make a social media site that is engaging enough for people to keep coming back, able to pay its hosting bills, and just generally sustainable, without falling into the dark patterns.

If it can’t exist, should it? Or are we arguing about which color of unicorn would be the best?

In TFA… I guess he wants a government Unicorn, because surely there could be no issues with that and with strong regulation it will remain cool and competitive… everyone raves about how fucking awesome their water company is.

Post reply on HN