3 ms·

I wrote my thesis on this stuff: http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~ejw/dissertations/Christopher-Lewis-dissertation.pdf http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~ejw/dissertations/Christ

I wrote my thesis on this stuff: http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~ejw/dissertations/Christopher-Lewis-dissertation.pdf http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~ejw/dissertations/Christopher-Lewis... which I turned into a book: http://a.co/3uR0koj http://a.co/3uR0koj I find these sort of articles annoying. I've not read the book referenced in the article, but I've seen some of Tristan Harris and I think he's a smart guy but stuff like the 60 Minutes interview plays into him looking like a hack who is far more interested in self-promotion than in the actual topic. It just doesn't compute that "knowing what drives users" == "addiction manipulation". Yeah, there are slot machine-style techniques that you can use in those areas, but they don't work well or for long and users grow to resent them. But the stuff that keeps getting brought up, like "people on Facebook are desperate for validation and connection" makes it sound like users are forced to be there. They aren't. They're going there because Facebook can provide those things, and those things are meaningful. It's meaningful to me that as I grow older and my time is more and more committed to family and work, that I can connect with my best friends from my home town. That means something to me. I'm at work so I can't write a lot more, but I am super happy to answer questions. I just hate these articles that assume that people are dumb, that social media is inherently vacuous, and that UX designers have some evil necronomicon of addiction recipes. It's cheap journalism. Disclaimer: Everything here is my own opinion and not that of my employer in any way shape or form.

ouid 9y ago
who is your employer?
- cflewis 9y ago
  It's in my profile. I work for Google.
  - 659087 9y ago
    No offense intended, but given Google's "privacy for me but not for thee" secrecy and anti-leak stance, this kind of makes it hard to take some of your claims at face value. I imagine honesty could put you at risk of job loss or worse. If documentation for implementing dark patterns existed at Google, I don't expect you'd be disclosing that information. Full disclosure: I find Google pretty repulsive as a whole, so that could be clouding my thought process here.
throwanem 9y ago
Of the eight dark patterns you identify as such in your thesis, Facebook implements at least two, possibly three - I could swear I've seen reports of what you describe as "hellbroadcast", but I don't have a cite to hand. Your "impersonation" I've seen very recently reported here on HN at least, and what even is Facebook if not the ultimate example thus far of what you (correctly) term a "social pyramid scheme"? In general, while I'm willing to assume good faith on your part, I do find myself moved to inquire further into how you compose, on the one hand, having produced detailed documentation and an inventory of examples on how to develop user experiences which are designed specifically to the purpose of maintaining user engagement in ways largely orthogonal to the inherently engaging quality (or lack thereof) of the underlying content - and, on the other hand, your argument here that platforms like Facebook, which are so broadly known to implement such patterns that to advance the claim merits no controversy whatsoever, do not achieve any benefit, or their users suffer any detriment, from such implementations. One further point: I don't see the article here under discussion assuming that "people are dumb", or that "social media is inherently vacuous". Instead, what I see is a very reasonable question being raised around, on the one hand, the ethics of social media platforms like Facebook using these techniques to drive engagement, and, on the other hand, how people might protect themselves from being so manipulated - a subject which, while I haven't yet read it in detail, seems to be covered in your thesis as well, under the name of "manipulation literacy". I look forward to reading your exegesis of the topic!
- cflewis 9y ago
  Of the eight dark patterns you identify as such in your thesis, Facebook implements at least two, possibly three - I could swear I've seen reports of what you describe as "hellbroadcast", but I don't have a cite to hand. Your "impersonation" I've seen very recently reported here on HN at least, and what even is Facebook if not the ultimate example thus far of what you (correctly) term a "social pyramid scheme"? Fair point. I didn't mean to imply Facebook as a paragon of goodness, but rather that social media as a whole does not inherently imply dark patterns. I think there are certainly things I'd like to see removed from products and I think those products would actually benefit from that in the long-run. The problem is measurement: it's much easier to employ a dark pattern, show some short-term metric that indicates "engagement" and get promoted or leave before it all drops off again. Playing the long game is much harder, career-wise. I do find myself moved to inquire further into how you compose, on the one hand, having produced detailed documentation and an inventory of examples on how to develop user experiences which are designed specifically to the purpose of maintaining user engagement in ways largely orthogonal to the inherently engaging quality (or lack thereof) of the underlying content - and, on the other hand, your argument here that platforms like Facebook, which are so broadly known to implement such patterns that to advance the claim merits no controversy whatsoever, do not achieve any benefit, or their users suffer any detriment, from such implementations. This is a good question. I'll address it backwards: as to "merits no controversy", again I just meant that social media doesn't inherently imply dark patterns. I often feel like media presents the argument as such: "X does A, Y does B, all social media is bad by default." It's a sexy headline, but I don't think it really holds a lot of water with the majority of the 1B+ daily users of FB. I do think a whollleee lot of research is needed into how people's social relationships are changing and whether their real happiness is going up or down, but I think of social media as part of the solution, not the cause. I would have grown a lot more distant from my social connections due to work/family as I grew older whether or not MySpace existed. I am not sure if at the time of writing the thesis that I actively avoided discussing users as "happy" or "unhappy" but I am glad I did. Motivation and happiness are not necessarily the same thing (Frodo is super motivated to get to Mount Doom, but he's not happy about it) but I think UX designers really do intend their users to be happier. As to how I square the circle on writing a book with all these patterns, but then turn around and say companies don't have reference material like this... First off, I didn't contribute to it no-one read the book :) It probably sold 50 copies or so. When I wrote the thesis, gamification was beginning to cool off from it's peak bullshit, but there was still plenty of bullshit to go around. I chose the topic to sort of make the statement "if you are going to do this stuff, at least try and do it so it's actually trying to meet a users needs rather than just chucking dark patterns at them." I hoped that if the book became popular, we'd see less of the bad stuff and more thoughtful application of the good stuff so that apps would be more useful/meaningful to users. When I was doing my research, I went barking up a great number of trees trying to find evidence of some sort of secret documentation of motivational patterns (it was helpful studying in Silicon Valley). I never found it. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but I never found it and I really don't think it does exist. I think designers go with their gut and what worked elsewhere, and they don't have secret teams of behavioral economists figuring out a UX pattern to bump engagement by 3%. Does this help? I enjoy the conversation and am happy to clarify anything.
petra 9y ago
>> desperate for validation and connection.. They're going there because Facebook can provide those things, and those things are meaningful. Yes. Connection. Is that's we've seen a huge decline(40%!) in empathy among college student in 2000-2010 [1] ? [1]https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/born-love/201005/shocker-empathy-dropped-40-in-college-students-2000 https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/born-love/201005/shocke...
Florin_Andrei 9y ago
> makes it sound like users are forced to be there. They aren't. They're going there because Facebook can provide those things, and those things are meaningful. Same arguments could be made by a drug dealer.
- cflewis 9y ago
  No, not really. Drugs aren't inherently meaningful, they mask needs that aren't being met, hiding pain or sadness temporarily. They don't meet the underlying need.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - quadrangle 9y ago
    That sounds like anti-drug propaganda. People with unmet needs can fall into drug abuse but drugs plain and simple have effects on the mind that can be profound. To assert that, in contrast to meaningless drugs, the majority of stuff on Facebook is meaningful is, well simplistic at best.

ouid 9y ago

who is your employer?

cflewis 9y ago
It's in my profile. I work for Google.
- 659087 9y ago
  No offense intended, but given Google's "privacy for me but not for thee" secrecy and anti-leak stance, this kind of makes it hard to take some of your claims at face value. I imagine honesty could put you at risk of job loss or worse. If documentation for implementing dark patterns existed at Google, I don't expect you'd be disclosing that information. Full disclosure: I find Google pretty repulsive as a whole, so that could be clouding my thought process here.

throwanem 9y ago

Of the eight dark patterns you identify as such in your thesis, Facebook implements at least two, possibly three - I could swear I've seen reports of what you describe as "hellbroadcast", but I don't have a cite to hand. Your "impersonation" I've seen very recently reported here on HN at least, and what even is Facebook if not the ultimate example thus far of what you (correctly) term a "social pyramid scheme"? In general, while I'm willing to assume good faith on your part, I do find myself moved to inquire further into how you compose, on the one hand, having produced detailed documentation and an inventory of examples on how to develop user experiences which are designed specifically to the purpose of maintaining user engagement in ways largely orthogonal to the inherently engaging quality (or lack thereof) of the underlying content - and, on the other hand, your argument here that platforms like Facebook, which are so broadly known to implement such patterns that to advance the claim merits no controversy whatsoever, do not achieve any benefit, or their users suffer any detriment, from such implementations. One further point: I don't see the article here under discussion assuming that "people are dumb", or that "social media is inherently vacuous". Instead, what I see is a very reasonable question being raised around, on the one hand, the ethics of social media platforms like Facebook using these techniques to drive engagement, and, on the other hand, how people might protect themselves from being so manipulated - a subject which, while I haven't yet read it in detail, seems to be covered in your thesis as well, under the name of "manipulation literacy". I look forward to reading your exegesis of the topic!

cflewis 9y ago
Of the eight dark patterns you identify as such in your thesis, Facebook implements at least two, possibly three - I could swear I've seen reports of what you describe as "hellbroadcast", but I don't have a cite to hand. Your "impersonation" I've seen very recently reported here on HN at least, and what even is Facebook if not the ultimate example thus far of what you (correctly) term a "social pyramid scheme"? Fair point. I didn't mean to imply Facebook as a paragon of goodness, but rather that social media as a whole does not inherently imply dark patterns. I think there are certainly things I'd like to see removed from products and I think those products would actually benefit from that in the long-run. The problem is measurement: it's much easier to employ a dark pattern, show some short-term metric that indicates "engagement" and get promoted or leave before it all drops off again. Playing the long game is much harder, career-wise. I do find myself moved to inquire further into how you compose, on the one hand, having produced detailed documentation and an inventory of examples on how to develop user experiences which are designed specifically to the purpose of maintaining user engagement in ways largely orthogonal to the inherently engaging quality (or lack thereof) of the underlying content - and, on the other hand, your argument here that platforms like Facebook, which are so broadly known to implement such patterns that to advance the claim merits no controversy whatsoever, do not achieve any benefit, or their users suffer any detriment, from such implementations. This is a good question. I'll address it backwards: as to "merits no controversy", again I just meant that social media doesn't inherently imply dark patterns. I often feel like media presents the argument as such: "X does A, Y does B, all social media is bad by default." It's a sexy headline, but I don't think it really holds a lot of water with the majority of the 1B+ daily users of FB. I do think a whollleee lot of research is needed into how people's social relationships are changing and whether their real happiness is going up or down, but I think of social media as part of the solution, not the cause. I would have grown a lot more distant from my social connections due to work/family as I grew older whether or not MySpace existed. I am not sure if at the time of writing the thesis that I actively avoided discussing users as "happy" or "unhappy" but I am glad I did. Motivation and happiness are not necessarily the same thing (Frodo is super motivated to get to Mount Doom, but he's not happy about it) but I think UX designers really do intend their users to be happier. As to how I square the circle on writing a book with all these patterns, but then turn around and say companies don't have reference material like this... First off, I didn't contribute to it no-one read the book :) It probably sold 50 copies or so. When I wrote the thesis, gamification was beginning to cool off from it's peak bullshit, but there was still plenty of bullshit to go around. I chose the topic to sort of make the statement "if you are going to do this stuff, at least try and do it so it's actually trying to meet a users needs rather than just chucking dark patterns at them." I hoped that if the book became popular, we'd see less of the bad stuff and more thoughtful application of the good stuff so that apps would be more useful/meaningful to users. When I was doing my research, I went barking up a great number of trees trying to find evidence of some sort of secret documentation of motivational patterns (it was helpful studying in Silicon Valley). I never found it. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but I never found it and I really don't think it does exist. I think designers go with their gut and what worked elsewhere, and they don't have secret teams of behavioral economists figuring out a UX pattern to bump engagement by 3%. Does this help? I enjoy the conversation and am happy to clarify anything.

petra 9y ago

>> desperate for validation and connection.. They're going there because Facebook can provide those things, and those things are meaningful. Yes. Connection. Is that's we've seen a huge decline(40%!) in empathy among college student in 2000-2010 [1] ? [1]https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/born-love/201005/shocker-empathy-dropped-40-in-college-students-2000 https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/born-love/201005/shocke...

Florin_Andrei 9y ago

> makes it sound like users are forced to be there. They aren't. They're going there because Facebook can provide those things, and those things are meaningful. Same arguments could be made by a drug dealer.

cflewis 9y ago
No, not really. Drugs aren't inherently meaningful, they mask needs that aren't being met, hiding pain or sadness temporarily. They don't meet the underlying need.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- quadrangle 9y ago
  That sounds like anti-drug propaganda. People with unmet needs can fall into drug abuse but drugs plain and simple have effects on the mind that can be profound. To assert that, in contrast to meaningless drugs, the majority of stuff on Facebook is meaningful is, well simplistic at best.