'Our minds can be hijacked': tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia • Hacker News Board

Re: 'Our minds can be hijacked': tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia

#371

Post by folksinger » Mon, Oct 09, 2017, 3:28 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #352

folksinger wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is an ad-subsidized and for-profit business deeply and fundamentally required to talk to your friends and family? If interacting with friends and family is what is important, is Facebook the best way to do so?

It's not, but it's what we have. Phones are controlled by private for-profit companies too (with different business, though). And the post is funded by taxes. Point being, the business models are not inherent to communication mediums, but due to history, those mediums are provided through the particular business models we have.

It is not what we have. We have many other options beyond even the other technologies you've listed. Businesses and products are not prerequisite for interacting with friends and family.

What about simply having a conversation in person, mediated only by spoken language? What if you never moved away from your family and could stop by for dinner a few times a week?

There are many possibilities beyond just accepting the dictations of a few product managers in Silicon Valley!

Re: 'Our minds can be hijacked': tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia

#372

Post by folksinger » Mon, Oct 09, 2017, 3:33 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #351

folksinger wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you work for Facebook? It's OK if you do. It's OK if you don't accept what they do. It's OK if you don't love your job. We need to go out into the world and destroy parts of it just to survive. From 'The Way I Am', sung by Merle Haggard and many more: I wish I enjoyed how I made my living, Did what I do with a willing hand. Some may run but that ain't like me, So I just dream, keep on being the way that I am.

Wait what? No, I don't work for Facebook, nor am I affiliated with them in any way.

The reason I asked is because it seems like you might have a lot of your identity and self-worth dependent on a moral acceptance of social media. It seems like you might be subconsciously denying the negative impact that these technologies have on both individuals and society at large.

Or not! Maybe you are fully accepting and fully aware and it is I who is missing the extra pieces to the puzzle!

Re: 'Our minds can be hijacked': tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia

#373

Post by GuB-42 » Mon, Oct 09, 2017, 4:35 PM UTC

archiepeach wrote: post #228

As noted multiple times in the article, the unethical design we’re seeing in popular apps and services today is largely a result of the widespread use of advertising as a revenue model. This is an appropriate time to show appreciation and support for the companies who are trying to demonstrate successful revenue models which are NOT based on advertising: Medium - the replacement of “Recommends” with “Claps” was to al…

Wikipedia is not really ad-free, they advertise for themselves. I know that many people don't consider self-advertising and appeal to donation "true" ads, but I do. Here are my arguments.

- Appeal to donation banners are not content, they are a purposely made distraction with a money-making goal. Just like real ads.

- Most people agree that when Windows 10 gives you a popup to buy another Microsoft product, it's an ad. So the "self-advertising" rule is not absolute.

- Charities sometimes purchase advertising space on Google, Facebook, etc... They obviously count as ads, and are blocked by ad-blockers. So nonprofits can post ads too.

- When I looked at Wikipedia fundraising reports ( https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising_reports ), I found it striking how similar it feels to regular ad campaigns. They use A/B testing, talk about conversion rate and all the usual tricks to incite you to pay more.

So I think that while it is safe to call Wikipedia independent, I wouldn't call it ad-free. Whether these aggressive campaigns are justified is another debate.

Re: 'Our minds can be hijacked': tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia

#374

Post by Crespyl » Mon, Oct 09, 2017, 5:01 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #335

MrQuincle wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion you are conflating two roles for technology. I quote from the article itself: "Finally, Eyal confided the lengths he goes to protect his own family. He has installed in his house an outlet timer connected to a router that cuts off access to the internet at a set time every day. “The idea is to remember that we are not powerless,” he said. “We are in control.”" In an admittedly handwaving manner, there i…

I've pretty much only ever used e-readers as a direct substitute for books that I would have read anyway. Quite a few times I've read an electronic book where it would have been inconvenient to have paper books available. I'm not convinced they are any different than books when it comes to time.

E-readers save you the time it would have taken to manage the inconvenience of handling physical books.

The time spent acquiring, storing, and carrying physical books adds up a lot faster than managing digital materials.

Re: 'Our minds can be hijacked': tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia

#375

Post by chiefalchemist » Mon, Oct 09, 2017, 5:03 PM UTC

wmeredith wrote: post #369

dualogy wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That said, metaphorically we're already in The Matrix. Humans were just fuel for the system. When I see so many over-weight/obese "consumers" Well, if we go with The Matrix, then these battery specimens so far have only been storing energy, not releasing it.. =)

Nah, they're releasing money, not energy.

Money is energy in said current Matrix :)

Re: 'Our minds can be hijacked': tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia

#376

Post by peoplewindow » Mon, Oct 09, 2017, 5:20 PM UTC

ZenoArrow wrote: post #363

peoplewindow wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What evidence? The article you link to just says they make money through advertising. Yes, and? Your argument is 'their business relies on their users being happy and using their service a lot' which is an empty statement: it's true of all businesses. It's not a sign of addictiveness or anything like that.

You're missing the key part of my argument. There are businesses built around offering products and services that have no need to maintain your attention, for example I'll go to the supermarket when I'm hungry, and I'll go to the barbers when I need a haircut. The difference with the players in the attention economy (including social media sites, news sites, basically almost any site where the main form of income is…

You could argue that theatre, cinema and opera also rely on getting and keeping your attention. Nobody says they're addictive or "gamified".

The reason I have trouble seeing the "gamification" aspects of Instagram is that there are none. This idea that a photo sharing site is designed to be like a drug exists in your head - every argument you make easily applies to many other kinds of business that nobody considers addictive.

Re: 'Our minds can be hijacked': tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia

#377

Post by TimesOldRoman » Mon, Oct 09, 2017, 5:23 PM UTC

So many ways to share this on social media.

Re: 'Our minds can be hijacked': tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia

#378

Post by bwat49 » Mon, Oct 09, 2017, 7:49 PM UTC

jashmenn wrote: post #325

archiepeach wrote: post #228

As noted multiple times in the article, the unethical design we’re seeing in popular apps and services today is largely a result of the widespread use of advertising as a revenue model. This is an appropriate time to show appreciation and support for the companies who are trying to demonstrate successful revenue models which are NOT based on advertising: Medium - the replacement of “Recommends” with “Claps” was to al…

Cryptocurrency-mining in the browser (e.g. coin-hive.com) is one of the most interesting new models. Before you have an allergic reaction to this idea, let's first have a discussion of the best-case scenario. Assuming that the publisher openly states they're mining instead of showing ads, and the user understands what's happening, browser-based mining is an attractive alternative to ads. The first benefit is in priva…

the big problem with this is so many people these days are using phones, tablets, laptops etc... no one wants to waste battery life mining (I certainly don't)

Re: 'Our minds can be hijacked': tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia

#379

Post by ZenoArrow » Mon, Oct 09, 2017, 7:49 PM UTC

peoplewindow wrote: post #376

ZenoArrow wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing the key part of my argument. There are businesses built around offering products and services that have no need to maintain your attention, for example I'll go to the supermarket when I'm hungry, and I'll go to the barbers when I need a haircut. The difference with the players in the attention economy (including social media sites, news sites, basically almost any site where the main form of income is…

You could argue that theatre, cinema and opera also rely on getting and keeping your attention. Nobody says they're addictive or "gamified". The reason I have trouble seeing the "gamification" aspects of Instagram is that there are none. This idea that a photo sharing site is designed to be like a drug exists in your head - every argument you make easily applies to many other kinds of business that nobody considers a…

> "You could argue that theatre, cinema and opera also rely on getting and keeping your attention. Nobody says they're addictive or "gamified"."

Theatre, cinema and opera are experiences that are best appreciated in small doses. Television, on the other hand, is something I'd class as addictive. Wouldn't you?

> "The reason I have trouble seeing the "gamification" aspects of Instagram is that there are none. This idea that a photo sharing site is designed to be like a drug exists in your head - every argument you make easily applies to many other kinds of business that nobody considers addictive."

You have to separate the intention from the result. Did the creators of Instagram intend to create, as you put it, "a drug"? No. However, they did intend to make it a popular platform for advertisers, and advertisers are clearly interested in getting as many eyeballs on their products as they can, and the more the creators of Instagram can do to make their site sticky and drive engagement, the more their company will grow. Whilst their users are of strategic importance, their most important customers are advertisers. Increasing the userbase only makes sense if there's a corresponding increase in advertising revenue, they can't run on good will.

To give an example of a feature that increases the stickiness of Instagram (note that I didn't use "drug", that was your term), I'd suggest Instagram Stories (a feature inspired by Snapchat).

http://blog.instagram.com/post/148348940287/160802-stories

The idea being, you have to use the app every day otherwise you might miss something. Previously, you could dip in and out of Instagram and not miss anything. With Stories, that's no longer the case. Also, as well as viewing the stories of others, creating your own 24 hour story also encourages much more use of the service. What's opera's equivalent of Instagram Stories?

Let's move away from Instagram for a second to consider other players in the attention economy. News organisations are most definitely in this space as well. The rise of sensationalist, clickbait news articles, even by news institutions that were previously above such behaviour, is a clear indication that we're in an era where attention is something that's harder to earn. Have you noticed this trend or would you like some examples?

Re: 'Our minds can be hijacked': tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia

#380

Post by cr0sh » Mon, Oct 09, 2017, 11:32 PM UTC

ben_w wrote: post #295

sumeno wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet more books are being written now than at any other time in human history. Perhaps you are just making excuses. It is far easier to blame externalities than taking responsibility.

I’m actively seeking ways to block those sites, precisely in order to take responsibility. Also, the population is higher now than ever before, as is the literacy rate. Both of these independently increase production of books.

> I’m actively seeking ways to block those sites, precisely in order to take responsibility.

Umm - don't go to them?

Or - if you need to get rid of the app (and you can't because provider-ware) - root the phone, and then delete it. If your phone is close-to-near impossible to root, get a different phone. Get a phone for phone use only, and drop everything else.

Seriously - the only thing holding you back is you. I don't say this to be flippant; I think we all struggle with it in some manner or another. I know I do now, and have in the past. For instance, I used to be very addicted to /. and Fark - eventually, I stopped going to them, and haven't been back. TBH, Hacker News will probably end up in the same bin sooner or later, as I see things going this route; I try to head it off beforehand. I don't blame anyone but myself.

So just do whatever you have to do to drop it - cold turkey, as it could be called...