81–90 of 145 posts
I am just waiting for a lawyer for someone with Internet Addiction ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3480687/ ) to sue this company over one of their supported apps. This is the kind of thing that I fear will prompt a backlash from the people and government and destroy the entire online ads regime that underpins the current Internet.
"if a technology like Dopamine can actually encourage retention on apps aimed at self-improvement, that’s an inarguably good thing." No, it absolutely is not. Some of most horrifying abuses in the history of the human race have occurred under the guise of "improving" other people for their own good.
The men and women who write your software control the boundary conditions for your experiences there. They control what and how you can think, feel, and believe in that experience. When Twitter doubles the numbers of characters you can tweet, they're making a decision about the quality and size of thoughts people can express - and in turn what depth of dialogue we have there. Analogously, when someone designs a diet…
Entirely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
100% agreed on the ethics note. Calling it 'dopamine' is also pretty remorseless. Interestingly, the creators of the like button and pull to refresh, and others, are pushing back against this 'attention economy': https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/05/smartphon...
Paul (author on that piece) is wonderful! Not so much remorseless, we were just shooting for contrarian and attention grabbing...And here we are....knee deep in front page of HN hate mail...
The same company sells an api to help make your applications as addicting as possible [1] and a service for users to help control their addiction to applications [2]. This organization is disgusting and is evidence enough that our industry has no sense of ethical responsibility. When massive regulation lands on Silicon Valley and we whine about the impact it has on innovation, remember companies like Dopamine Labs wh…
To be fair, all the case studies they list [1] utilized their service to improve users' personal habits -- diet, exercise, etc. Behavior shaping isn't necessarily morally wrong to use, though companies like Facebook and Google are almost completely incentivized to use them against users. [1] http://www.usedopamine.com/assets/pdf/Dopamine%20Labs%20Case...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You may not have noticed that their other product is the exact opposite. Maybe that gives them some legal protection? http://youjustneedspace.com/
Thats despicable. They sell both the disease and a cure for double the money.
"if a technology like Dopamine can actually encourage retention on apps aimed at self-improvement, that’s an inarguably good thing." No, it absolutely is not. Some of most horrifying abuses in the history of the human race have occurred under the guise of "improving" other people for their own good.
The men and women who write your software control the boundary conditions for your experiences there. They control what and how you can think, feel, and believe in that experience. When Twitter doubles the numbers of characters you can tweet, they're making a decision about the quality and size of thoughts people can express - and in turn what depth of dialogue we have there. Analogously, when someone designs a diet…
Even if they were today, your VCs and future investors will not allow you to turn down profits and only sell to health or self-improvement apps.
If your product is successful, you have a fiduciary duty. If you fail in that duty, you will either be removed, or potentially even sued. And then it will be too late, because you already built it, and someone else will have taken the wheel. And they will maximize it, inevitably weaponizing it against the population.
There are better things you can be working on. Just walk away. Humanity does not need this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Happy to answer any questions you have! It's all of our job to be transparent about the new tablestakes of design, because that transparency builds exact dialogues like this! It would be more audacious if we didn't publicize what we're doing and these techniques remained the dark patterns that keep people hooked to social apps that have poor alignment to what people actually want out of life!
This is how I understand what you're saying: We are building something evil and reprehensible, but we are open about what we are building, and therefore we are better than the other guys who are doing it surreptitiously. Fine, but in that case your product is basically performance art. Bravo, you did a good job raising awareness: now go actually work on fixing the problem instead of pretending like you aren't part of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thats despicable. They sell both the disease and a cure for double the money.
Bruh. Did you even look at the price on Space?
Your company is still about making shit addictive. Its customers will inevitably be those with the money & inclination to make their app addictive - social media & mobile games. Its morally pretty close to adding sugar to junk food or selling cigarettes.
You were going to clear up "mob misconceptions" about ethics but it turns out you had nothing to say, just an "invitation for discourse".. while most of the tech world has been in on this particular discourse for years, with constant media coverage, and we know its a problem.
But I'm pretty sure you know all of that. Don't expect public approval for making glorified/AI-powered slot machines, they're still just slot machines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Happy to answer any questions you have! It's all of our job to be transparent about the new tablestakes of design, because that transparency builds exact dialogues like this! It would be more audacious if we didn't publicize what we're doing and these techniques remained the dark patterns that keep people hooked to social apps that have poor alignment to what people actually want out of life!
This is how I understand what you're saying: We are building something evil and reprehensible, but we are open about what we are building, and therefore we are better than the other guys who are doing it surreptitiously. Fine, but in that case your product is basically performance art. Bravo, you did a good job raising awareness: now go actually work on fixing the problem instead of pretending like you aren't part of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is how I understand what you're saying: We are building something evil and reprehensible, but we are open about what we are building, and therefore we are better than the other guys who are doing it surreptitiously. Fine, but in that case your product is basically performance art. Bravo, you did a good job raising awareness: now go actually work on fixing the problem instead of pretending like you aren't part of…
Making games more addictive is not really all that "evil" or "reprehensible". It's not much different from making them more fun. What does need work is their messaging. Suggesting they can control users does not sit well. Instead, they could suggest they make games so much more fun, users boost in-game time. They need a lesson on marketing and messaging, the idea itself is fine.
I've played quite a few games that were addictive but not fun. The difference is hard to spot when you're in the middle of it, but stark from the outside. Typically they start off being plain fun to draw you in, and then gradually segue into addictive after a few hours to keep you there.