Live data from Hacker News

Engineered Addictions

masonyarbrough.substack.com

381–390 of 467 posts

Re: Engineered Addictions

#381
I read and enjoyed the post, but also found it a bit directionless. Yes, I think a lot of people agree that addictive social media is a problem. What's the solution?

> The deeper issue is that we’ve outsourced our human connection to systems designed for profit. Real connection happens in the margins that can’t be monetized. The conversations that don’t generate data, the relationships that don’t scale, and the moments that can’t be optimized for engagement.

This sounds profound, but this is a problem that predates social media. People went to shows and music festivals to see art and connect with others - these are systems also designed for profit (and delivering art as their second thing.)

The problem is, as the author definitely knows, that running systems that enable connections costs money. The suggestion the author makes: "improve third spaces where people connect directly, authentically, without intermediation by systems designed to extract value from their attention", except someone has to pay for those third spaces, and people won't always want to visit them because we like dopamine, so we might go to the bar, or back on social media, or to video games or tv shows instead. A slow pace - boredom - breeds creativity and connection, but it's also boring, and it's hard to get people to stay with it (I might be projecting.)

> The solution isn't another app. It's changing the rules of the game entirely.

On a different note, this closing feels very, very ChatGPT, and whether it is or isn't, the fact that AI tone is permeating our writing makes me really sad.

Re: Engineered Addictions

#382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is the etymology of the word: common(adj.) c. 1300, "belonging to all, owned or used jointly, general, of a public nature or character," from Old French comun "common, general, free, open, public" (9c., Modern French commun), from Latin communis "in common, public, shared by all or many; general, not specific; familiar, not pretentious." This is from a reconstructed PIE compound ko-moin-i- "held in common," comp…

The idea of common good is centuries older than the appearance of French or the English translation. It has nothing to do with shared values. It's exactly as I described it above. Notice the reconstructed PIE means to move together. Common good is about the interests of groups that co-move rather than groups that share values. This makes sense even in family contexts. What is good for the family is often different fr…

So "Common Good" is directly related to "Common Law" which showed up in 509-27 BC Rome during the Republic period and it was a way to have a common understanding between the "Common People" when Rome's political state was trying to use political law against non-Romans. The common people needed a way to protect themselves from the rising emperors and their decrees.

So I understand that you think its about families, but in this context, its really not. It was a way or a method to protect commoners.

When I say value, I mean if we both value freedom then we have a "Shared Value". This is really about the rights of the people which differs what rulers, want for the people. And I mean rulers that want to wield power against the people, for self-interested purposes.

Re: Engineered Addictions

#383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea of common good is centuries older than the appearance of French or the English translation. It has nothing to do with shared values. It's exactly as I described it above. Notice the reconstructed PIE means to move together. Common good is about the interests of groups that co-move rather than groups that share values. This makes sense even in family contexts. What is good for the family is often different fr…

And avoiding orienting around needs makes all of us susceptible to desires & values we've larvely been indoctrinated into.

Yeah I am not sure what you mean by this, see my reply above.

Re: Engineered Addictions

#384
post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A lot of the current AI products and stories are cost-competitive due to that bloat itself, so some amount of rightsizing will help the industry. The problem is, any amount of rightsizing has the potential to tank the entire economy. Too big to fail, just that it isn't banks this time but a bunch of companies who went all in on "AI".

Capitalism as we know it so far only reacts after a crash happens because of the fear of crashing the economy with any corrective action. My very personal opinion is this is more psychological than scientific.

> Capitalism as we know it so far only reacts after a crash happens because of the fear of crashing the economy with any corrective action.

Inevitable when you tie the pension of people to the performance of the stonk markets.

Re: Engineered Addictions

#385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>and didn't need a violent revolution to make it happen You really need to read more history about Europe.

There was no such revolt in the country where I live, and in many others. Also if you are talking about France it was to create democracy, not to change the economic system, with democracy you can change the economic system without a revolution.

> Also if you are talking about France it was to create democracy, not to change the economic system

I'm no expert on the French Revolution but I'm pretty sure that "We're all poor while the monarchs are all rich" was a huge driving force behind the French Revolution. "Let them eat cake", etc

It also didn't create democracy, they more or less immediately wound up under Napoleon, a self crowned Emperor

Democracy came later

Re: Engineered Addictions

#386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Usually extremely violent revolt I don't think the appetite is there in most places

Many EU countries are pretty nice places to live, and didn't need a violent revolution to make it happen. All it took was democracy, a population willing to stand for its rights, and an elite which understood that building a welfare state is preferable outcome over having a violent Communist/Fascist revolution. A capitalist system with right amount of social democracy to prevent worst concentration of wealth is the b…

> a population willing to stand for its rights

"Stand for it's rights" is just weasel words for "Was willing to use violence in order to obtain their rights"

Even if they never actually had to become violent, violence or the credible threat of violence is the only thing that has ever in history convinced "The Elites" to change things

Re: Engineered Addictions

#387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was no such revolt in the country where I live, and in many others. Also if you are talking about France it was to create democracy, not to change the economic system, with democracy you can change the economic system without a revolution.

> Also if you are talking about France it was to create democracy, not to change the economic system I'm no expert on the French Revolution but I'm pretty sure that "We're all poor while the monarchs are all rich" was a huge driving force behind the French Revolution. "Let them eat cake", etc It also didn't create democracy, they more or less immediately wound up under Napoleon, a self crowned Emperor Democracy came…

> It also didn't create democracy, they more or less immediately wound up under Napoleon, a self crowned Emperor

It did create democracy, the French Republic, Napoleon did end that though but its much easier to reinstate democracy later than to create it from scratch.

> I'm no expert on the French Revolution but I'm pretty sure that "We're all poor while the monarchs are all rich" was a huge driving force behind the French Revolution. "Let them eat cake", etc

Revolutions to loot the rich happened a lot throughout history, but here the explicit goal was to end monarchy and create democracy not just looting the rich, that is a big difference.

Re: Engineered Addictions

#388
post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is the etymology of the word: common(adj.) c. 1300, "belonging to all, owned or used jointly, general, of a public nature or character," from Old French comun "common, general, free, open, public" (9c., Modern French commun), from Latin communis "in common, public, shared by all or many; general, not specific; familiar, not pretentious." This is from a reconstructed PIE compound ko-moin-i- "held in common," comp…

I don't think quoting the dictionary is helping here. The problem with common good is that it's hard to agree upon what is good, and if you find a good, there's often a group that's outside this "common".

In this context, I disagree. Its really clear what the good in "Common" means.

Its like principles of what the Constitution was written on. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Principles like these are qualities we all naturally exhibit and as such doesn't need any explanation or qualifications. I know in our modern world people have decided that everything is open to interpretation. But I believe this was indoctrinated into us, over a long period of time, not to consider the human value[0] aspect of our being that we are born with. This was done by watering down the direct meaning of words and slowly changing the perception that humanity doesn't have infinite value and has to rely on external power structures to give it meaning.

[0]: https://archive.org/details/end-of-all-evil/page/n1/mode/2up

Re: Engineered Addictions

#389

I read and enjoyed the post, but also found it a bit directionless. Yes, I think a lot of people agree that addictive social media is a problem. What's the solution? > The deeper issue is that we’ve outsourced our human connection to systems designed for profit. Real connection happens in the margins that can’t be monetized. The conversations that don’t generate data, the relationships that don’t scale, and the momen…

"The problem is, as the author definitely knows, that running systems that enable connections costs money."

It's not that much of a problem because it doesn't cost that much money.

A full rack and 1gb at he.net costs something like $350/mo. I think it's $500 if you get the entire 10gb. Very fast servers are available for, basically, shipping charges on ebay.

The cost that seems prohibitive is all of the flashing lights and fancy imagery and reactive design, etc.

Further, the frameworks and scaffolding that enable all of the tracking and ads ... are themselves expensive and this complexity becomes self-reinforcing.

A final unnecessary set of costs is the neurotic compulsion for 5-9s reliability and perfect, instantaneous responsiveness from every geography.

What does it cost to run lobste.rs ? Metafilter ? HN ?

I think any reasonably resourced individual could do it as a hobby in their spare time - especially if you strip away the CDNs and the load balancers and the expensive frameworks, etc.

Re: Engineered Addictions

#390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Over human history the best system we have come up with and implemented to ensure this has been capitalism. Nothing else has come close

This is capitalist mythology. You'll need to account for "best" here because millions of people under the thumb of large-scale genocide, such as the policy decisions to implement poverty (which capitalism requires), likely have something to say about what you think is "best".

Can you present me with an alternative that was implemented, ran for a significant period of time and resulted in a better quality of life for those under it? Also poverty is not genocide, if you are going to present an argument please make it factual. You insult victims of actual genocide and minimize what they have endured with this comparison.

I didn’t say perfect, i said best.

Post reply on HN