Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 411 posts

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

#391

Post by Grustaf »

confounded wrote: post #387
GuB-42 wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

I imagine that they are deciding to run ads for donations, because they need donations to keep running. Are you suggesting it’s because they like running ads?

This is the case for most other companies running ads, they do it for the revenue, not the love of ads.

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

#392

Post by wutbrodo »

gnaritas wrote: post #349
wutbrodo wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure these are quite the same things. Take a North Indian curry for example: even it's detractors wouldn't call it particularly bland, but the flavors are obviously way more subtle than, say, pixie stix. This isn't particularly surprising given that you put half a teaspoon of a dozen different spices into a curry while the pixie stix are literally just sugar and maybe a single flavor, wired directly to a part…

> I'm not sure these are quite the same things. People who enjoy bland things always say this. :) Those words mean the same thing "to me", does mean it does to you, wasn't an insult, subtle just isn't a word I use for food. I like what I like and I've tasted things people use that word for, I call them bland.

Eh, language is defined by usage and the usage of "bland" is pretty inseparable from its negative connotation. Hell, even all the dictionary definitions you'll find include negative connotations.

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

#393

Post by Grustaf »

hodgesrm wrote: post #144

I don't buy the idea that smartphones are extinguishing the life of the mind. Sure, smartphones provide access to almost unlimited trash. But they also provide access to Wikipedia, perhaps the most successful encyclopedia ever developed by humans. They can show you newspapers from across the planet. They let you read Latin histories of the Norman conquest of Southern Italy in the middle ages. [0] C'mon folks, this is…

"I don't buy the idea that smartphones are extinguishing the life of the mind.

Sure, smartphones provide access to almost unlimited trash. But they also provide access to Wikipedia, perhaps the most successful encyclopedia ever developed by humans."

This is not really a valid argument. The mere _potential_ to read medieval Latin, or even classical Greek, on your smartphone says very little about the actual overall effect of people having smartphones.

I suspect a lot more smartphone time is spent on Snapchat filters than Homer.

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

#394

Post by peoplewindow »

ZenoArrow wrote: post #379
peoplewindow wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Television, on the other hand, is something I'd class as addictive. Wouldn't you?

This is clearly where we differ. No, I wouldn't. The word addiction has specific meaning. The fact that lots of people enjoy something a lot does not make that thing addictive. I am surrounded by people who have TV sets and who do not spend much time watching TV at all. I myself have a TV set and feel no particular cravings to watch it, ever. When I choose to, an hour or so is sufficient and then I may well not watch any for weeks. I consider this normal behaviour.

I think you're far too liberal with the use of the word addiction.

What's opera's equivalent of Instagram Stories?

Heh, how about the fact that it's very expensive and only occurs at specific times of day, meaning you have to structure your entire day around getting to it by the start? You've never seen someone literally running down the street because they're late for the opera or theatre? Running to the dealers for their fix!

No no, that's a very forced analogy. Opera isn't addictive even though some people can spend hours on what seems to me a very pointless activity. Instagram Stories is a great example of why Instagram is not designed to be addictive - it's simply a reaction to the success of Snapchat, i.e. a very strong message from users that they value transiency and don't actually always want their photos to go into a never ending history accessible to all, for ogling and possible exploitation years later.

Given the highly transient nature of photos usually posted to Instagram feeds, the desire for them to disappear after a while makes perfect sense from the perspective of the uploader. The fact that this gives downloaders limited time is - once more - not a deliberate attempt to addict people to anything but rather a natural consequence of the users own requirements.

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

#395

Post by hydrox24 »

pls2halp wrote: post #187
hydrox24 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One substantial benefit of Television was that everyone was simultaneously watching the same thing. This increased political homogeneity by providing a shared belief system, or at least some more common ground. Such homogeneity is correlated strongly with stability and prosperity on a nation-state level. This was particularly true from 1950 until 1970 or so, before cable television exploded (it remained true for long…

But you can also argue that that polarisation is just a step away from homogeneity.

I'm arguing precisely this. Perhaps you misread my comment?

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

#396

Post by hydrox24 »

jessaustin wrote: post #314
hydrox24 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One substantial benefit of Television was that everyone was simultaneously watching the same thing. This increased political homogeneity by providing a shared belief system, or at least some more common ground. Such homogeneity is correlated strongly with stability and prosperity on a nation-state level. This was particularly true from 1950 until 1970 or so, before cable television exploded (it remained true for long…

Lots of current problems were created by that unexamined unanimity, so one would have to try much harder to successfully argue it was a "benefit".

What problems were created by the unexamined unanimity?

I am not trying to argue there were no downsides, only that we should account for the benefits. The comments I responded to seemed to be ommitting the existence of some benefits. Whether the benefits outweigh the damage is a more complex question.

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

#397

Post by kwhitefoot »

Freak_NL wrote: post #180
kwhitefoot wrote: post #178

> Rosenstein, Pearlman and most of the tech insiders questioning today’s attention economy are in their 30s, members of the last generation that can remember a world in which telephones were plugged into walls. Umm. Yoohoo! We're still here, you remember us, those who created the hardware and the computing concepts you all use now? Well maybe not me personally but I was there using and developing computing hardware a…

The author probably means that people in their 30s will be the last generation to have witnessed telephones plugged into walls — i.e., the generations after them, people in their 20s and younger, won't have. That anyone in their 40s, 50s, 60s, etc. has witnessed and used telephones plugged into walls is implied.

I know, but I was taking issue with the implication that his generation were the only ones to notice the problem.

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

#398

Post by neilwilson »

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…

The problem comes with the piece work approach to payment - payment for labour services output via unreliable charity.

That is not a system that aggregates or works with the nature of creativity.

What you need is payment for labour hours provided - consistent payment for effort not results.

The challenge is how do you determine effort without looking at results. How do you influence the transformation of labour hours into the right sort of labour services without payment.

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

#399

Post by vectorEQ »

smartphones are modern version of zombie apocalypse if people keep using them in such unaware way. From start the aim has been to implement game theory learnt from gambling industry into the phones to make people hooked. All of these kind of techniques only work however, on an unaware subject. Solution is not to expect people to become good and ethical salesmen, but to educate unaware people of the dangers of such media. Like with television , internet technology, smartphones can have a very bad effect on people if handled without any care or further thought.

If you are 'against' this kind of effects, the best solution, in my mind, is to educate your fellow man, and try to help them become aware if they seem not to notice these kind of things. change starts with yourself, not with expecting things of otheres.

Not talking about conspiracy mind control things, just basic psychology of the human mind which is exploited by marketeers en designers to make a profit. As this practice is not illegal, and even encouraged for these people through education and results, it's unrealistic to expect them to change. If the effect on people changes however due to a raise in awareness of the general population, then they will need to seek other means of getting their products out there. More awareness of these tactics will lead to them becomming uneffective, and will force the market to switch to a more 'ethical' or human way of doing buisiness.

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

#400

Post by walterstucco »

Terr_ wrote: post #345
walterstucco wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the point: if you get bored by a book, you stop reading the book, if you get bored by infinite scrollable content, you keep scrolling looking for less boring content, that never shows up. It's the same effect that gambling has on the brain. You keep playing, even though you keep losing. That's the danger and that's why books, the TV, movies, radios (music in general) and other form of entertainment are not equ…

I disagree about categorizing TV as "the safer half" of the comparison, in the same section as books or movies. If anything, TV is an earlier iteration of the same stuff. Flipping through the circular loop of cable TV channels predates scrolling and refreshing webpages, but people exhibited the same addictive novelty-seeking. It was so common it became a cliche to say things like "N channels and nothing [good] on." I…

> Flipping through the circular loop of cable TV channels predates scrolling

And looping through radio channels was popular as well

There were just not enough channels back then

The addiction mechanism is known, it's the way it is exploited that is new

You didn't bring your TV on the way to work or at school, when driving, on holiday or waiting for your baby's birth.

> In addition, they share same emphasis on advertisements as a funding stream,

Radio used the same funding stream and still does

Newspapers and magazine do that as well

None of them tried to trick you into checking again and again, other than putting a pair of boobs on the cover

Having said that: that's why advertising on TV has been regulated many times to protect kids

We're not doing the same for social networks

Either we force social networks to act good, or we block kids from using them

Post reply on HN