“User engagement” is code for “addiction” • Hacker News Board

Re: “User engagement” is code for “addiction”

#251

Post by jillianschuller » Fri, Mar 05, 2021, 3:45 PM UTC

xg15 wrote: post #212

jillianschuller wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We need to start talking about how to configure Screen Time on iOS, or how to use Facebook's built-in tools to hide content you don't want to see. We also need to encourage people to take control of their feeds, muting users and topics who draw them into unproductive discussions. This is going to make a world of difference the first time people try it. I started monitoring screen time/configuring notifications abou…

Sorry, but this reminds me a bit of the "now they are 15 standards" quote. While well-intentioned, I think it's likely people will simply be checking Sunday and Facebook.

Yeah look, they probably will be, at the start. It's tough to move away from FB, especially when it's designed to keep you there.

When I deleted FB from my phone, I looked around, and there really wasn't any alternative social media platform that didn't have the same setup - ads, feeds, notifications.

I really just wanted to put an alternative out there, so people could find something else if they're in my situation.

Sundayy isn't just challenging FB, but it's challenging the unconscious association between "social media" and "endless feeds", "ad revenue model", and "hijacking notifications".

I long for a day when social media isn't rooted in any of those things.

Re: “User engagement” is code for “addiction”

#252

Post by Loughla » Fri, Mar 05, 2021, 4:44 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #247

Loughla wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Engagement can be a good thing if you're using it to improve someone's life Can we agree that entertainment and being entertained can improve someone's life? If we can agree to that, then we can also agree that games designed to entertain an individual are good for said individual. It's not a leap from there to say that a game that is engaging and keeps someone playing is good for them, because it's entertaining the…

The issue is these games stop being entertaining. Pulling the lever on a slot machine might be fun the first few pulls, but after that it’s simply waiting for a dopamine rush. MMO’s basic gameplay without leveling, item drops, or any form of progression have some fun aspects. But, they need to tell players to collect 50 rat tails because otherwise players wouldn’t. Mobile games have distilled this down even further,…

But again, splitting hairs into dopamine rush versus actual fun is simply semantics. Fun = dopamine rush. Does it matter if you are cognizant of the fun, or do the chemicals matter?

To be clear, I am 100% in agreement with you. Most mobile games (and honestly, most pc games at this point with their item and resource gathering mechanics; and I am absolutely talking about MMO's - there's a reason many many many franchises are working toward a multi-player experience instead of focusing on the single player game) aren't supposed to be 'fun'. They're supposed to be addictive, and I believe it is a real problem, especially for kids growing up learning that a dopamine hit is just one iphone game away.

Anyway, though, I guess my point is - it's all semantics. When you say, it's not 'fun', it's just a dopamine rush, developers and sales people can say that's just the same thing. They can argue that people wouldn't play unless they received some kind of value out of it.

To be honest, I've forgotten where I started with all this, other than to say - when you have to split hairs on the definition, it leaves room for people to interpret their own meaning and ignore nuance. Therefore, this is an argument that people don't want to hear, engage with, or consider, I believe.

Re: “User engagement” is code for “addiction”

#253

Post by ceh123 » Fri, Mar 05, 2021, 4:56 PM UTC

PontifexMinimus wrote: post #178

ceh123 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paid services to align interests with the user (best user experience wins) are the way to go and I really hope they win out in the long run. I also think individual driven filters and algorithms are the way to go. In my experience, heavily AI/ML driven algorithms for user experience (think spotify suggestions) lead to overfitting super quickly. ML assistance can be amazing (obviously), but I know I want some degree o…

> Paid services to align interests with the user (best user experience wins) are the way to go I agree; aligning interests is important. > I really hope they win out in the long run It's hard for me to see how they can. Advertising supported services are free to the user, which improves take-up which means that network effects are in their favour.

Hope they can and believe they will are definitely not the same in this case. I do hope we get some great competition for paid alternatives in all sorts of categories, but I agree that it's a long shot for these types of services to win in most markets.

Ad supported free services will (unfortunately) always dominate network effect driven spaces.

Re: “User engagement” is code for “addiction”

#254

Post by Retric » Fri, Mar 05, 2021, 5:15 PM UTC

Loughla wrote: post #252

Retric wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is these games stop being entertaining. Pulling the lever on a slot machine might be fun the first few pulls, but after that it’s simply waiting for a dopamine rush. MMO’s basic gameplay without leveling, item drops, or any form of progression have some fun aspects. But, they need to tell players to collect 50 rat tails because otherwise players wouldn’t. Mobile games have distilled this down even further,…

But again, splitting hairs into dopamine rush versus actual fun is simply semantics. Fun = dopamine rush. Does it matter if you are cognizant of the fun, or do the chemicals matter? To be clear, I am 100% in agreement with you. Most mobile games (and honestly, most pc games at this point with their item and resource gathering mechanics; and I am absolutely talking about MMO's - there's a reason many many many franchi…

I don’t think you can say fun = dopamine rush. A dopamine rush works when the periods between them aren’t fun. However, when drunkenly singing drinking songs with your friends it’s overall a pleasant experience rather than having moments of happiness and long segments of boredom.

So what I am saying is gamers have mostly forgotten what it is to have fun in games. Playing around with cheese wheels in Skyrim is different from grinding a character to game breaking power and killing everything in one hit. Challenges based in getting better at the mechanics are different than challenges based on pure time investment.

IMO the three pillars of a great game are entertainment, fun/joy aka playing, and dopamine rushes. Portal 1 was a standout for having all three, but it’s hard to pull off.

Re: “User engagement” is code for “addiction”

#255

Post by edmundsauto » Fri, Mar 05, 2021, 5:42 PM UTC

CivBase wrote: post #249

edmundsauto wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are also users whose use of a service is driven by direct value received (connecting with families, for free). Both can be asserted as true, both carry very little informative value as statements. The strongest statement that this leads to is something like "some users are manipulated, some receive value."

> "some users are manipulated, some receive value." Sure. That brings us back to my original question. Why invest in "providing value to users" when psychological manipulation is so much cheaper? So long as psychological manipulation has a greater ROI, there's no incentive to invest in providing value. Why pay $200 for a fishing net when a $20 one is easier to use and catches just as many fish?

Because the people in charge of those companies understand the value in users returning to use their service. And that short term trickery isn’t really a good route to building value over decades, which is what these companies are eying.

Can you give a concrete example of short term thinking that has surfaced in product? I see a lot of hand waving (in general, not from you) about BJ Fogg’s work, but I’d like to know what you specifically think was a decision made to favor “short term trickery” instead of investing in a long term quality product.

Re: “User engagement” is code for “addiction”

#256

Post by the_du_ » Fri, Mar 05, 2021, 5:43 PM UTC

dencodev wrote: post #248

wahnfrieden wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes... I build iOS apps for learning Japanese ( https://reader.manabi.io https://manabi.io ) and recognized how the same kind of SRS system I was building is both optimal for learning and habit-forming in the same way as game dark patterns. It felt economically and morally fortunate but I recognize it’s not an easy or light responsibility to customers to get it right.

Bummer this isn't available for android

Try Memrise!

Re: “User engagement” is code for “addiction”

#257

Post by loveistheanswer » Fri, Mar 05, 2021, 5:50 PM UTC

Barrin92 wrote: post #99

loveistheanswer wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I know the common refrain is "Delete Facebook!" but that's the equivalent of abstinence-only education Not at all; its more like breaking up with a toxic, manipulative, dishonest partner. There's many more fish in the sea and there's many more ways to heathily socialize than just Facebook. Though I suppose people in abusive relationships often have a sort of Stockholm syndrome where they see no alternatives.

not only do people in abusive relationships often have stockholm syndrome, many people are actually materially dependent on their partner, for example women who have stayed home a long time historically but also still today, and thus they literally cannot leave. Or they have children, or leaving might put others at risk. Point of working through the analogy being, even on an individual basis framing leaving a relatio…

>they literally cannot leave. Or they have children, or leaving might put others at risk.

>Point of working through the analogy being, even on an individual basis framing leaving a relationship as some sort of arbitrary choice is kind of nonsensical

Could you give some common examples where an individual "literally cannot leave" FB, or where leaving FB would put others at risk?

The best example I could think of is a small business owner losing potential money from taking their business page off FB.

Re: “User engagement” is code for “addiction”

#258

Post by pixelbro » Fri, Mar 05, 2021, 5:51 PM UTC

Loughla wrote: post #246

pixelbro wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course! I'm not ascribing any moral weight to it, just pointing out the similarity in tactics. Engagement can be a good thing if you're using it to improve someone's life rather than simply trying to extract as much time and money from them as possible.

>Engagement can be a good thing if you're using it to improve someone's life Can we agree that entertainment and being entertained can improve someone's life? If we can agree to that, then we can also agree that games designed to entertain an individual are good for said individual. It's not a leap from there to say that a game that is engaging and keeps someone playing is good for them, because it's entertaining the…

I wouldn't say you're overthinking it at all! You make an excellent point, and as a game developer it's something I have to consider. Our mission is to craft joy for our players, but I certainly cannot afford to rule out any potential in terms of designing our games to be more engaging.

On the other hand, I've witnessed many instances of gamers who have fallen victim to habit-forming mechanics that continue sinking hours and dollars into a game daily but also say that they no longer truly enjoy the time they spend in that game. There's many aspects that play into that sort of behavior which games can be designed to exploit, not least of which being the sunk cost fallacy and fear of missing out: a player who has reached the endgame might have run out of interesting content to play through but feel obliged to continuously "defend their title". They're encouraged to keep coming back long after it stops being fun by being constantly presented with what appears to be an existential threat to the supremacy they have labored towards.

At that point I think we can safely say that such a game is no longer a positive impact on that person's life.

My way of attempting to ameliorate these sorts of conflicting interests is to structure our organization as a multi-stakeholder cooperative, in a way that gives players meaningful influence over business, design and development decisions.

Re: “User engagement” is code for “addiction”

#259

Post by edmundsauto » Fri, Mar 05, 2021, 6:57 PM UTC

hutzlibu wrote: post #219

edmundsauto wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ads pay for a service that allows you to video chat on a reliable and private connection with anyone in the world, for free. They also pay for google search, which has immense value to you.

The ads are still not beneficial to me. I simply trade something bad for value.

It’s possible other people have a very different perception and experience than you do.

Re: “User engagement” is code for “addiction”

#260

Post by CivBase » Fri, Mar 05, 2021, 7:51 PM UTC

edmundsauto wrote: post #255

CivBase wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "some users are manipulated, some receive value." Sure. That brings us back to my original question. Why invest in "providing value to users" when psychological manipulation is so much cheaper? So long as psychological manipulation has a greater ROI, there's no incentive to invest in providing value. Why pay $200 for a fishing net when a $20 one is easier to use and catches just as many fish?

Because the people in charge of those companies understand the value in users returning to use their service. And that short term trickery isn’t really a good route to building value over decades, which is what these companies are eying. Can you give a concrete example of short term thinking that has surfaced in product? I see a lot of hand waving (in general, not from you) about BJ Fogg’s work, but I’d like to know…

The mobile games market is an excellent, concrete example of service providers which not only favor "short term trickery" over "long term quality", but actively reduce the long term quality of their services to engage in that trickery and are wildly successful for doing so.

Modern mobile games are chuck full of time gates, grinds, fake currencies, and many other dark patterns designed to physiologically manipulate their users. They usually give users just enough value for them to become invested. After that, the sunk cost fallacy keeps them "engaged" despite the terrible value proposition. Some users tough it out and consume a torrent of ads to keep playing for "free", while others fork over money for microtransactions to keep up with the game's demands without wasting so much time. Either way, it's a terrible experience for users that makes mobile game developers tons of money.