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

“User Engagement” Is Code for “Addiction”

craigwritescode.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 349 posts

Re: “User Engagement” Is Code for “Addiction”

#71

Post by xwolfi »

red-montaigne wrote: post #52
luplex wrote: post #41

I did an internship with a very profitable Swedish mobile game before the pandemic, and it was really interesting to see the doublethink: everyone knew we were making a drug, but people avoided speaking of it in that way. It was always "our most engaged players readily spend on in-game items", and never "the most addicted users spend money so they can continue playing" It was a great workplace, but I don't think it w…

Great example of how language is a tool for thinking, but it's also a tool for not thinking. If you want to ignore or obfuscate something, you can seal it off with euphemisms and misrepresentations, kind of like putting an interface in front of an implementation. And as you pointed out, you can use this tactic to deceive not only others but also yourself.

Let's say language is a tool to convey information regardless of truth or precision.

You can disguise negative information giving it the appearance of a usual positive one (the fake discount).

It's more a property of information than of language, or rather a property of our information processor, so lazy it doesn't check every single piece 3 times but instead rely on habit and context

Re: “User Engagement” Is Code for “Addiction”

#72

Post by Fricken »

halfmatthalfcat wrote: post #54
Fricken wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Marshall McLuhan, the media theorist, pointed out the hazards of "Peer to peer electronic media" in the 1960s with uncanny accuracy. Calling someone a luddite when your own views are as anachronistic as they are is ridiculous. And stop flattering yourself by calling social media 'tech'. Every industry uses technology, calling it 'tech' doesn't distinguish it in any way. Social media is a medium for a exchange like a…

This comment is as equally polarizing as GP, just in the opposite direction. You can have social media be tech, have some net effect on society (whether that's good or bad is literally being debated right now) and be addictive. As with anything in life, there is nuance. Social media isn't a great satan and it isn't god's gift, it's somewhere in between.

Well yes, case in point, social media has a tribalizing effect on people. I don't disagree that comments on the internet tend to be polarizing. I wouldn't have commented at all if it wasn't to disagree with somebody, that's normal in these parts.

I wonder what happens when most of the population is relying on such a medium for their understanding of the world beyond what they can see and touch? I don't think me setting a good example here on HN is going to have much effect against the basic human impulses that social media selects for.

Re: “User Engagement” Is Code for “Addiction”

#74

Post by minikites »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #65
luplex wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is how AI takes over humanity. Humans are so short-sighted, we don't even need a superintelligence to outsmart us. We happily stand by and collect profits while letting the AI do whatever it wants. Really, we need regulation that makes companies care about side-effects of their AI technology.

Wait until people figure out how much power the AIs already have over election outcomes.

What?

Re: “User Engagement” Is Code for “Addiction”

#76

Post by PhillyG »

Kaze404 wrote: post #59
ethbr0 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

F2P-with-purchases games should (a) require disclaimers, (b) be illegal and stiffly penalized for allowing minors to play, & (c) have their algorithms open to a gaming regulator (in the same way Las Vegas does).

I play a lot of Apex Legends and recently I found out that when you go purchase a loot box it explicitly tells you the chance of each item's rarity. My initial thought was that it's a step in the right direction (of banning loot boxes entirely), but it also made me wonder how anyone can be sure those numbers are actually true in their backend.

In some countries, games are legally required to do state rarity of items in lootboxes, so it may just be so that they are compliant with all countries. I forget which countries, but I think they're in central europe

Re: “User Engagement” Is Code for “Addiction”

#77

Post by bdefore »

koonsolo wrote: post #73

Could we introduce this kind of addiction in healthy things, like excising or healthy diet or anything like that? I've never seen it work in practice, so why are we not able to do that?

I'm not an expert in cognitive behavioral therapy, but I believe much of what it advocates is along what you're describing. Reframing behavior you would otherwise avoid or be anxious about as something enjoyable, you might even say addictive. Developing habits that you derive more holistic/health pleasure from.

Re: “User Engagement” Is Code for “Addiction”

#78

Post by Minor49er »

slothtrop wrote: post #68
Mauricebranagh wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's more a problem for the grandparents and parents

Sure, but you still can't police the content your kids watch there passively, while conversely with Netflix or cable you can set it and forget it.

If parents are relying on "setting it and forgetting it", that's not policing at all. Youtube Kids was supposed to be a solution like this where the site would offer filtered videos for children, but it quickly resulted in the so-called Elsagate scandal where children were targeted with videos depicting things like violence, drug use, and sexual activity

Re: “User Engagement” Is Code for “Addiction”

#79

Post by red-montaigne »

xwolfi wrote: post #71
red-montaigne wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great example of how language is a tool for thinking, but it's also a tool for not thinking. If you want to ignore or obfuscate something, you can seal it off with euphemisms and misrepresentations, kind of like putting an interface in front of an implementation. And as you pointed out, you can use this tactic to deceive not only others but also yourself.

Let's say language is a tool to convey information regardless of truth or precision. You can disguise negative information giving it the appearance of a usual positive one (the fake discount). It's more a property of information than of language, or rather a property of our information processor, so lazy it doesn't check every single piece 3 times but instead rely on habit and context

I'm thinking more of a writer sitting down and struggling to choose the correct word to identify a thought. I wouldn't say they're "conveying information." At that point they don't have information. I would say rather that they're attempting to refine the raw material of the flow of their thought-consciousness by using language. You can use words to assist that refinement. (I'm doing it now, for example.) But you can also use words to divert your thought stream away from potentially uncomfortable ideas, or someone else can do that to you.

Re: “User Engagement” Is Code for “Addiction”

#80

Post by PhillyG »

rib3ye wrote: post #75

Future of humanity stuff aside, isn’t the doublespeak for addition actually “retention”? “Engagement” is a classification for a set of actions that drives addition, not measures it.

Retention can be that users/players actually like it and want to come back without the need for tricks
Post reply on HN