Live data from Hacker News

Engineered Addictions

masonyarbrough.substack.com

301–310 of 467 posts

Re: Engineered Addictions

#301

I think the problem is more fundamental than this: When your monetization model is tied to usage, then of course you will try to maximize usage, rather than user benefit. It can't be any other way if your reward function is tied to product usage. Contrast with a car: Their monetization model does not depend on how much I drive it - as long as I find it useful enough to buy. Or a gym, where it actually runs in reverse…

> I suppose you could try to make a social media platform without dark patterns and charge a monthly fee for it, but how many people would pay for it? In 2022, mastodon.social was provisioned at a cost of 0.6EUR/year/user for 191k users [1]. This price is payable even by many people in poor countries. People would pay for something like this same as they pay for other stuff, assuming it was well designed and gave use…

The server costs would be tiny compared to moderation, legal, and R&D.

Re: Engineered Addictions

#302
The article mentioned that we can reconnect offline life and redesign the platform to encourage real human interaction instead of endless scrolling. Imagine a social app that encourages you to exit the screen and meet friends instead of constantly scrolling. It should feel good.

Re: Engineered Addictions

#303

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…

>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.

I see little evidence that this is true. If anything, modern VC companies are "externality parasites". They produce positive externalities for some (ie. shareholders), by putting a lot of negative externalities on society as a whole (see for example the cost to democracy, societal cohesion, etc. that comes for Facebook and the like).

Re: Engineered Addictions

#304
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…

And how these shareholders materialize. I don't think show up at guileless founder's workplace with guns and make them offer they can't refuse?

> but there’s a pretty huge throughline of outside investment and addiction engineering..

Personally I don't doubt that. But if people are taking outside money while being aware of its effects I don't know what kind of sympathy they deserve.

Re: Engineered Addictions

#306
Perhaps this all goes even deeper - it's screen addiction, not only social media addiction, though social media in 2025 is a very powerful and addictive drug (in all senses of it)

Re: Engineered Addictions

#307
post #304
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…

And how these shareholders materialize. I don't think show up at guileless founder's workplace with guns and make them offer they can't refuse? > but there’s a pretty huge throughline of outside investment and addiction engineering.. Personally I don't doubt that. But if people are taking outside money while being aware of its effects I don't know what kind of sympathy they deserve.

It can end up being a more circuitous path than you might expect.

For instance, I took investment in my business, about five years in, from a very ethically and strategically aligned individual, as we mutually saw an opportunity to do something good together.

His life took a left turn. Two kids and wife in a horrendous car crash, all left extremely disabled, enormous medical and emotional costs. After a year or so he had little option but to sell his holding in our business, and we allowed it, knowing that his situation had become dire. He sold to a small PE consortium, who again, looked pretty well aligned with what we were doing.

The consortium all then had a falling out, as one member had brokered a deal with a large PE group to be bought out. This ground on for another year or so, us on the sidelines, until eventually the large PE group managed a hostile takeover.

And that’s how we found ourselves with blackstone as our corporate overlords.

It all went to shit over the following years as we were forced to squeeze margins, cut R&D investment, and depart from our original mission to instead gouge our customers.

I ended up leaving, as going to bat for the dark side every morning was beyond corrosive for me, and while it was a pretty terrible financial decision, it saved my life.

The company grinds on, a thing utterly different to what I founded. I don’t ask for sympathy, just… perhaps awareness that taking any investment, no matter how benign, can take you places you’d never wish to go.

It can happen even without investment. I’ve seen businesses where cofounders have had to sell out due to poor health or similar, and the outcomes have ended up pretty much the same.

Re: Engineered Addictions

#308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry to mumble, I'll add one more thing. Back in 2013, I was running a productivity startup, and we tried courting Evernote into acquiring us (unsuccessfully, though damn we were a good match). I remember those times vividly: Evernote raises a sizeable fraction of a billion in funding in several rounds, employs like 400 people, their CEO goes to places like Le Web or whatever and expatiates from stage about building…

Maybe they needed the staff to build the software back then and now they could be leaner cos the product is already built. Maintaining is much easier than building.

In all honesty, it doesn't seem like 400 people were really needed to build the software. If you just look at credits in Adobe Premiere, for example, there's not 400 people in there, and it's a way more complex product than what Evernote is/was.

Re: Engineered Addictions

#309
Late in the thread, but is this really addiction?

How do you differentiate between addiction and people really liking something? In my opinion, unless people try to stop doing the thing but they can't will themselves to do that, it isn't an addiction.

It is not OK to dilute terms used to describe serious problems. I am not saying tech addiction can't happen, I just haven't seen any evidence to that effect. Mere dependency or development of a habit isn't addiction. addiction is those things plus inability to quit the habit despite strong and persistent effort.

Perhaps a good litmus test might be a person's ability to go on a week-long vacation without their phones, internet or whatever the supposed addiction might be.

There are addictions like Porn or eating-disorders that can be exasperated by tech, but they're not "technology usage" addictions, they're "addictions that can be enabled by technology".

Re: Engineered Addictions

#310
post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People pay for software all the time. Hell I pay $30/month for a fucking email client (Superhuman). But no one has tried it for a social network. I think the problem is that people think a social network is worthless unless you hit Twitter scale, but perhaps lots of smaller, focused social networks at $2/pop could work. People are now saying that Discord is being enshittified, right on schedule. Maybe there's an oppo…

> People pay for software all the time. Well obviously some people would pay. The hurdle that a company needs to clear is getting enough people to pay to support both an engineering staff and the infrastructure costs. Do the math on how many people are necessary to run a web site with on-call rotation, minimum moderation, and someone to run the business. The number of $2/month subscription required to make that work…

> The price for ad-free YouTube is reasonable for as much as people watch it

Perhaps for you (in the US, I assume). The price is the same everywhere in the world, wages aren't. If you've the choice between paying for food and ad-blocking YouTube, or paying YouTube but having no money for food, the choice is obvious. Just like people here claiming Photoshop is an affordable piece of software...

Post reply on HN