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

251–260 of 349 posts

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

#251

Post by s1artibartfast »

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…

I think this is partially correct. People write for themselves, but they also write for an audience. The latter is a problem because they can essentially ignore whatever they are responding to as long as triggers n upvote. This disincentivizes honest and productive dialog in favor of nitpicking, gotchas, or simple ridicule.

The former is like a bunch of drunk grandpas mumbling to themselves in a room, the latter is like a self interested orator playing to a crowd. Asynchronous written debate can be the one of the best forms of communication. Think about Jefferson’s letters or other famous correspondence. The incentives are just wrong on boards with ranking and voting

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

#252

Post by watwut »

wincy wrote: post #141
mod wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ot…

Well because evolutionarily, gambling must pay off sometimes, and the people who are averse to gambling might become rarer if it pays off in a big way. Ten thousand years ago doing something risky might result in you going from being a male with no prospects to having a harem with 50 wives. It makes sense that when your ancestors could have made a risky gambled (say raiding the village next door), they’d go for it, m…

That is not how evolution works. It can just be that the trait was not much in a way. Our that trait is innefective maladaption.

Evolution is not a god. And it does not build perfect organisms.

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

#253

Post by tomjen3 »

tomc1985 wrote: post #232
Mauricebranagh wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this that much different to similar "concerns" about kids watching to much tv back in the 60's 70's etc.

Have you seen the content that inevitably ends up in kids autoplay video feeds? Weird doesn't even begin to describe it. Some of it would give HBO pause.

Almost every Disney movie have the childrens parents being killed, the Swedish childrens author Astrid Lindgren (very popular in Europe, I don’t know about the US) wrote a story called The Brothers Lionheart where the young brother is dying from an incurable respiratory disease and (spoilers) his brother dies saving him from a house fire. The he dies from the respiratory disease.

My point is that children are being told stories that we wouldn’t consider for children all the time. And that isn’t even considering fairytales.

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

#254

Post by tomjen3 »

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…

Cancel culture is not something that is very effective against rich people, because you can’t fire somebody who don’t have a job.

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

#255

Post by KillahBhyte »

andrewla wrote: post #215
csallen wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Tell me this -- do casinos fail? If you look only at examples of successful things and say "it is addictive" but don't look at the same principles as applied to failed examples of the same thing, then you're being intellectually lazy. In order to establish some facet as "addictive" it needs to work both ways, otherwise you're just using "addictive" as a synonym for "successful" -- Edison's light bulb was "addictive"…

So you call someone intellectually lazy... and immediately turn around and make an implication that if casinos have failed to be successful then that somehow speaks to the addition qualities of gambling? Something something nonsensical equivalences.

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

#256

Post by karpierz »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #245
karpierz wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do bars fail?

Yes, and so do casinos. That is the point

The original point was: "The idea that you can engineer yourself an addictive game is a silly concept."

The rebuttal was: "this is literally what casinos do"

The rebuttal to that was: "well, some casinos fail"

Which isn't really a point. Some casinos fail, that doesn't show that they don't optimize for addiction. It just indicates that optimizing for addiction is necessary but not sufficient for a casino to maintain solvency.

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

#257

Post by andomar »

mod wrote: post #129
TeMPOraL wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ot…

> 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

Wish that were true. Organizers usually take 90% of the money. Just a tiny percentage is paid out.

Like Voltaire said: "Lotteries are a tax on stupidity"

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

#258

Post by Dudeman112 »

wincy wrote: post #141
mod wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ot…

Well because evolutionarily, gambling must pay off sometimes, and the people who are averse to gambling might become rarer if it pays off in a big way. Ten thousand years ago doing something risky might result in you going from being a male with no prospects to having a harem with 50 wives. It makes sense that when your ancestors could have made a risky gambled (say raiding the village next door), they’d go for it, m…

Or maybe it's just a trait that ended up there, like countless others.

A RNG machine that's slightly directed towards optimal variation still spews out a bunch of rubbish

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

#259

Post by s1artibartfast »

karpierz wrote: post #256
s1artibartfast wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and so do casinos. That is the point

The original point was: "The idea that you can engineer yourself an addictive game is a silly concept." The rebuttal was: "this is literally what casinos do" The rebuttal to that was: "well, some casinos fail" Which isn't really a point. Some casinos fail, that doesn't show that they don't optimize for addiction. It just indicates that optimizing for addiction is necessary but not sufficient for a casino to maintain…

I think we have fundamentally different of andrewla's original point, and that is OK.

I read it as pointing out that success isn't guaranteed with an addictive game model.

I did not read it as saying that some games don't or cant optimize for addictiveness.

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

#260

Post by brnt »

stjohnswarts wrote: post #200
brnt wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I was refering to the tendency to not treat psychological issues as serious as physical ones. Obviously addiction knows no boundaries.
Post reply on HN