17 ms·

Roger McNamee: I invested early in Google and Facebook and regret it

133 points by skmurphy 9y ago

skmurphy 9y ago
Key points: I invested in Google and Facebook years before their first revenue and profited enormously. I was an early adviser to Facebook’s team, but I am terrified by the damage being done by these Internet monopolies. Facebook and Google get their revenue from advertising, the effectiveness of which depends on gaining and maintaining consumer attention. Borrowing techniques from the gambling industry, Facebook, Google and others exploit human nature, creating addictive behaviors that compel consumers to check for new messages, respond to notifications, and seek validation from technologies whose only goal is to generate profits for their owners. The people at Facebook and Google believe that giving consumers more of what they want and like is worthy of praise, not criticism. What they fail to recognize is that their products are not making consumers happier or more successful. Like gambling, nicotine, alcohol or heroin, Facebook and Google — most importantly through its YouTube subsidiary — produce short-term happiness with serious negative consequences in the long term. Users fail to recognize the warning signs of addiction until it is too late.
- whatnotests 9y ago
  Absolve your guilt by transferring your wealth to someone else. I know just the person...
- voidz 9y ago
  It's not all bad. A lot of great self study videos on YouTube, like learning languages.
  - antisocial 9y ago
    This is where tools like RescueTime shine. It is getting better and I hope all the loop holes are closed. Something like RescueTime baked into iOS would be Apple's greatest productivity feature.
    - ivm 9y ago
      Check Settings -> Battery: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2GUOkXXAAARSg8.png:large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2GUOkXXAAARSg8.png:large
      - jasonkostempski 9y ago
        Even the icon is surprised.
- wutbrodo 9y ago
  This line of thinking is very odd to me. As mentioned downthread, there are plenty of wonderful things you get out of YouTube, Google, Facebook, etc: music, personal connections, education, exploration, art, etc etc etc. The dopamine-kick stuff isn't inherent to the product: the efficiency of delivery just means that that stuff is easier to get. My usage of all these services is extremely healthy, and none of the complaints people have about addictiveness resonate with me at all; but I've also never been into idle TV watching, or junk food, or celebrity gossip. Unhealthy usage is not inherent to the product. Advances in food production means that the proportion of people starving and undernourished is lower than ever. It also means that, for the first time, excess food is a problem for more than just kings. It would be kind of crazy to complain that these advances in food production are per se a bad thing because they enabled obesity. They're just a tool that accelerate both good and bad uses. It was already possible to feed the idle, addiction-prone part of your mind with channel-surfing and People magazine. The Internet has accelerated this possibility by making everything about access to content more efficient, but describing efficiency solely as "making access to bad stuff" more efficient makes no sense. To me it seems similar to blaming an advance in fuel efficiency for making it cheaper for bank robbers to get to their targets. It's true, but also missing the point.
  - skmurphy 9y ago
    Like alcohol or gambling, it's probably inherent in the product for some people with genetic predispositions to certain types of addictive behavior. My hypothesis is that the level of "dopamine-kick" is at least partially a function of genes and probably partially a function of nurture. For example there are some people who cannot drink socially, encouraging them to have one drink "to relax with the rest of us" may cause them harm. To the extent that you are designing your application to consume more and more of the user's attention (note that the customer is the advertiser, the addicted user is the product), to make it more and more addictive, you may be ruining some people's lives.
    - wutbrodo 9y ago
      > To the extent that you are designing your application to consume more and more of the user's attention (note that the customer is the advertiser, the addicted user is the product), to make it more and more addictive, you may be ruining some people's lives. Our economy is intertwined enough that "your actions somewhere down the line may be making it easier for someone to make choices that ruin their lives" is probably true of literally every single person. If you work on a product making low-skill hiring more efficient, you're also lowering McDonald's costs and making it even harder for people with unhealthy relationships with food to resist, and thus "you may be ruining some people's lives". It's so broad a claim that it's utterly meaningless.
- skmurphy 9y ago
  Some other references: https://www.1843magazine.com/features/the-scientists-who-make-apps-addictive https://www.1843magazine.com/features/the-scientists-who-mak... http://www.tristanharris.com/2016/05/how-technology-hijacks-peoples-minds%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Afrom-a-magician-and-googles-design-ethicist/ http://www.tristanharris.com/2016/05/how-technology-hijacks-... https://www.ted.com/talks/tristan_harris_the_manipulative_tricks_tech_companies_use_to_capture_your_attention https://www.ted.com/talks/tristan_harris_the_manipulative_tr...
- emmab 9y ago
  > Like gambling, nicotine, alcohol or heroin, Facebook and Google — most importantly through its YouTube subsidiary — produce short-term happiness with serious negative consequences in the long term How could the system incentivize companies like Facebook and Google to use prosocial utility functions in their recommendation engines? e.g. a video recommendation engine that on default settings suggests videos it thinks will cause the viewer to feel satisfied and change activities if it thinks it will improve their overall wellbeing to stop watching videos now.
- needlessly2 9y ago
  this is very dumb. Facebook allows you to reconnect with old friends more easily or meet new people in person. YouTube has some of the best resources to learn software development, math, history, and really anything for free. There are pro's and con's for every company.
nayuki 9y ago
Personally speaking, Google and Facebook provides me with useful and timely information. Life was more inconvenient before these companies were around. Yes, they introduce some of their own new problems, but I would rather not return to the pre-G/FB days. It would be best if future companies and products learn lessons from the current situation and build even better information platforms.
- anindha 9y ago
  Initially with cigarettes, society only focused on the positive aspects and even after 50 years people still smoke. Once a company gets going, even if it is discovered there are long term issues with their products, they will be hard to compete against.
  - wutbrodo 9y ago
    > Initially with cigarettes, society only focused on the positive aspects and even after 50 years people still smoke. What were these? Just the stimulant effect of nicotine?
    - skmurphy 9y ago
      Yes for people with ADD cigarettes enable focus and productive work. Much stronger and more effective than coffee.
    - anindha 9y ago
      Yes and the social aspects, stress relief, and the warmt. Some of my friends started smoking during final high school exams to combat stress and fatigue.
nicpottier 9y ago
I find the grouping of Facebook and Google interesting because I don't view them as similar at all. His Google complaints seem to be aimed at YouTube, and while certainly it could be argued YouTube is addictive, it doesn't seem anywhere near as insidious or manipulative as say Facebook. It is also an amazing platform for creators of all kinds, and also unlike Facebook is creating this incredible resource of freely available, forever archived videos. I see great public good from that. On the Facebook front, there I agree 100%.
- soperj 9y ago
  Yeah, I don't really partake in the weird side of youtube, the number of things i've learned how to do(fix things, build things, cook things etc) from youtube is enormous. Most things I should be able to do myself, and it's because of the people who post things on youtube.
- Kenji 9y ago
  Yes. Facebook is evil, Google is misguided. Besides, Google's services give me much more value than anything Facebook has to offer. Facebook's """"hidden"""" ads in my feed trigger me. Do they think I'm stupid?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - rahilb 9y ago
    >Do they think I'm stupid? I suppose that's a reasonable assumption to make about the average user of anything (myself included).
- kodt 9y ago
  You should see the way young children use YouTube if you doubt that it is addictive.
  - nicpottier 9y ago
    As with TV? Maybe a bit worse because you can wander down your YouTube black hole instead of being subject to the scheduled broadcasts. Yes, it is addictive, but not in the same manipulative way that Facebook is.
cestith 9y ago
Oh, to be sorry about the billions I've made...
keebEz 9y ago
I haven't used Facebook in a long time, deactivated my account. I had 2 factor auth on with my phone and they just pinged me twice, back to back, yesterday from their 2 factor auth number asking me to reactivate. Spamming me from a 2 factor auth number to use your product is a new low I've never encountered elsewhere.
- throwaway91111 9y ago
  Text STOP and report them if they continue.
simmons 9y ago
Borrowing techniques from the gambling industry, Facebook, Google and others exploit human nature, creating addictive behaviors that compel consumers to check for new messages, respond to notifications, and seek validation from technologies whose only goal is to generate profits for their owners. I've been thinking a lot lately about much our industry seems to be trying to leverage addiction. It's certainly not just Facebook and Google -- it seems to be happening throughout consumer technology. For example, video games seem carefully optimized to turn us into Skinner mice, and most television apps have adopted the annoying "play the next episode unless the user opts out in X seconds" feature. (Even Plex, although I'm not sure what they're getting out of it.) Ultimately, I suppose it's up to the consumer to resist the addiction while availing themselves of the value provided by these products, in much the same way that most of us can enjoy and appreciate beer, wine, and spirits without becoming alcoholics. But thinking about these things is making me reconsider what sort of projects I'd like to work on. EDIT: Obligatory Paul Graham article on the subject: http://www.paulgraham.com/addiction.html http://www.paulgraham.com/addiction.html
- bbctol 9y ago
  I'm reminded of Clay Shirky's talk/essay (wish I could find a link, but it doesn't seem to be on his website any more) about the tremendous consumption of gin (and other drugs) during the Industrial Revolution as a way to deal with the changing world and cognitive surplus of extra time. My hope is that we're in a transitional period when it comes to the internet; we'll become more and more aware of how to use the internet responsibly and regulate ourselves individually or communally to use it for its greatest benefit. But we're in the midst of the Great Binge right now, playing with technologies that have massive psychological effects without considering their long term impacts, giving people what they want in the short term while really reshaping culture, society, and what it means to be a person in the long term. In my more pessimistic/imaginative moments, I feel like after the coming apocalypse the internet will be banned, Butlerian Jihad-style; long-range communication technologies only for the elite in strictly regulated contexts, because too much access for the individual causes addiction and madness. To be clear, I don't think this is a good outcome (as with the Industrial Revolution, technology has huge long-term benefits if the terrible costs can be overcome) but I think there needs to be a really serious change in how we think about communication technology, and part of that means acknowledging its harms.
em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
I don't like the lumping of Facebook with computer games in general. A "one more turn" experience in a good game is something I genuinely want.
anindha 9y ago
I wouldn't lump either Google or Youtube with Facebook. I signed up for Youtube Red, their commercial free subscription. I fill my subscriptions with topics I want to learn more about. It is easier to curate content on Youtube than Facebook. I would pay Facebook $2-5/month not to show me advertisements.
- newscracker 9y ago
  > I would pay Facebook $2-5/month not to show me advertisements. I'd expand that beyond ads alone, to have the payment prevent tracking, profiling, "filter bubbling", and sometimes emotional manipulation experiments. [1] But that model won't scale, and it wouldn't offer Facebook growing value over time either. [1]: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-28051930 http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-28051930
  - anindha 9y ago
    Why wouldn't it scale? It is the same strategy that Apple uses: build a compelling base product, and then sell additional services. You could still have a free service that displays ads.
    - ubernostrum 9y ago
      Apple's successes have generally not involved a default position of "free but ad-supported". For example, the iTunes store is a massive success for Apple, but didn't begin with free downloads supported by embedded ads in the music (which is what other music services have done). Instead they said "here it is, $0.99 per track". Apple's track record of not needing to track me or sell my personal information to prop up its business models, because they launch products that have real "get the end users to pay money for it" business models, is one reason why I stick with their products.
  - jpalomaki 9y ago
    Most expensive keywords on Google can cost something like $50 per click. If you put a monthly fee for ad free service, probably your mostly valuable customers (those error m with money to spend) are first to switch. Facebook can probably generate vast amounts of profits from the users if it manages to be part of the actual transaction, not just an ad platform. The same kind offer thing Google was planning with Google Checkout. IIRC the idea was they would not charge for clicks, but would get payment of customer actually makes the purchase. Think about Facebook first creating for you the urge to buy something (by manipulating you feed) and then selling the thing or taking their cut off the transaction.
eduren 9y ago
So then liquidate your shares in both and donate the money to charity maybe? I sincerely doubt he regrets making millions.
aw3c2 9y ago
Invest in indieweb and similar good developments then?
placebo 9y ago
Show me one groundbreaking technology that wasn't also used to the detriment of humanity. As long as there are shitty human traits, there will be shitty use of new technology. The only question is whether good will outweigh the bad. Just as with nuclear technology, it is still too early to tell whether humanity will be wise enough to handle its own intelligence.
alexashka 9y ago
Roger should read a couple of books or travel outside his rich 1% oasis where people spending their free time on facebook/youtube is an issue. Without realizing it - his short sightedness is exactly the root of the problem he's complaining about.
- adventured 9y ago
  Absolutely correct. For the other ~99% of humanity, acquiring access to these digital tools has been a massive leap forward in all regards. Whether you were stuck in a small town in Oklahoma, born into a family in Bangalore earning $20 per month, or millions of scenarios around the globe that are in-between. McNamee seems to have no idea how the rest of humanity actually lives and what access to Internet-based information, messaging or media has made possible in terms of dramatic life improvement.
  - wutbrodo 9y ago
    Even for 1%ers, there are people mature enough to enjoy the benefits of these services without falling prey to abusing them. You can abuse anything that feels good: TV, junk food, tabloids, etc etc.
    - jhayward 9y ago
      To equate a susceptibility to addiction with immaturity is a severe error which will prevent you from ever dealing with addiction, in yourself or others, in a rational and realistic fashion. It is not about moral character, or immaturity, or lack of Godliness. It is a disease process with roots in biology and genetics. Also, everyone is susceptible to manipulation of their dopamine reward system, no matter how robust. The impact of effect varies from person to person.
diego_moita 9y ago
> Like gambling, nicotine, alcohol or heroin [...] produce short-term happiness with serious negative consequences in the long term Same applies to Big Macs, pizza, slushies, Cheetos, TV, seating, laziness, political pundits, marijuana, ... In the end it is all about caveat emptor: is up to the customer to decide.
- defined 9y ago
  > Same applies to Big Macs, pizza, slushies, Cheetos, TV, seating, laziness, political pundits, marijuana, ... > In the end it is all about caveat emptor: is up to the customer to decide. In a balanced world, where choices are relatively evenly spread, this may be true. In a world where the number of harmful choices far exceed the number of healthful ones, and the harmful ones are much more profitable (and so promoted more heavily), free choice becomes a different proposition. However much willpower, intelligence, and savviness we think we have, we get tripped up by our firmware defects, even when we know they are there and try to be wary[1]. Deliberately exposing ourselves to proven brain hacks and thinking we are immune and have real choices is ... inadvisable. Anyone who is diabetic (or simply overweight) and tries to buy or eat food that is not harmful to the pancreas will appreciate how eternally vigilant one must be to avoid the cleverly hidden food label traps, and how choice is manipulated, cynically and incessantly, by the US food industry. Extrapolate this to most US industries, and re-evaluating "choice" may be a depressing task. [1]: Thinking: Fast and Slow, by Daniel Kahneman EDIT: typo
adventured 9y ago
> Facebook and Google — most importantly through its YouTube subsidiary — produce short-term happiness with serious negative consequences in the long term. He says that and then proceeds to provide absolutely nothing to back up such an extraordinary claim (emphasis on the serious negative + long-term part). This article reeks of some terrible combination of nanny state authoritarianism and trite moral lecturing about proper use of one's time (something that was more common a century or more ago when the US was overflowing with lecturing about how to live a 'proper' life). Want to know why people are spending 50 minutes per day on Facebook? Because for those people it's better than the alternative, their lives are devoid of anything better to do with that time (specifically the person doesn't want to do anything else with that time, after all it's their free will choice). That's the same reason those same people were previously watching four or more hours of TV each night (which they frequently pay/paid a lot of money to do). They want to watch hours of tv, they want to spend 50 minutes on Facebook - who are you to tell them how to live? Twitter, Snapchat, WhatsApp, Kik, Viber, Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, email, text messages, etc. People want to hyper socialize, you can think it's unhealthy if you like, you still don't get to determine how people live and you never will.
DonnyV 9y ago
Of all companies to worry about Google and Facebook are at the bottom of my list. How about we worry about Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, etc. You know the companies that actually can affect our lives and mold politics.
- ImSkeptical 9y ago
  Google is what people use to get information. Facebook gives people news. Both of these companies could have a large impact on our lives and politics.
ne0free 9y ago
Author is more like wannabe pus ... Give me that money if you dont want
johnvonneumann 9y ago
Agree wholeheartedly with the entire article. Gotta cringe when you get to the end though, and you get blasted with "Top 3 Dog Pics You Have To SEE To Believe!!!", ironic.
RichardHeart 9y ago
Give people what the should want, and make them want it, not what they shouldn't want, but do.

133 points by skmurphy 9y ago

Key points: I invested in Google and Facebook years before their first revenue and profited enormously. I was an early adviser to Facebook’s team, but I am terrified by the damage being done by these Internet monopolies. Facebook and Google get their revenue from advertising, the effectiveness of which depends on gaining and maintaining consumer attention. Borrowing techniques from the gambling industry, Facebook, Google and others exploit human nature, creating addictive behaviors that compel consumers to check for new messages, respond to notifications, and seek validation from technologies whose only goal is to generate profits for their owners. The people at Facebook and Google believe that giving consumers more of what they want and like is worthy of praise, not criticism. What they fail to recognize is that their products are not making consumers happier or more successful. Like gambling, nicotine, alcohol or heroin, Facebook and Google — most importantly through its YouTube subsidiary — produce short-term happiness with serious negative consequences in the long term. Users fail to recognize the warning signs of addiction until it is too late.

whatnotests 9y ago
Absolve your guilt by transferring your wealth to someone else. I know just the person...
voidz 9y ago
It's not all bad. A lot of great self study videos on YouTube, like learning languages.
- antisocial 9y ago
  This is where tools like RescueTime shine. It is getting better and I hope all the loop holes are closed. Something like RescueTime baked into iOS would be Apple's greatest productivity feature.
  - ivm 9y ago
    Check Settings -> Battery: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2GUOkXXAAARSg8.png:large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2GUOkXXAAARSg8.png:large
    - jasonkostempski 9y ago
      Even the icon is surprised.
wutbrodo 9y ago
This line of thinking is very odd to me. As mentioned downthread, there are plenty of wonderful things you get out of YouTube, Google, Facebook, etc: music, personal connections, education, exploration, art, etc etc etc. The dopamine-kick stuff isn't inherent to the product: the efficiency of delivery just means that that stuff is easier to get. My usage of all these services is extremely healthy, and none of the complaints people have about addictiveness resonate with me at all; but I've also never been into idle TV watching, or junk food, or celebrity gossip. Unhealthy usage is not inherent to the product. Advances in food production means that the proportion of people starving and undernourished is lower than ever. It also means that, for the first time, excess food is a problem for more than just kings. It would be kind of crazy to complain that these advances in food production are per se a bad thing because they enabled obesity. They're just a tool that accelerate both good and bad uses. It was already possible to feed the idle, addiction-prone part of your mind with channel-surfing and People magazine. The Internet has accelerated this possibility by making everything about access to content more efficient, but describing efficiency solely as "making access to bad stuff" more efficient makes no sense. To me it seems similar to blaming an advance in fuel efficiency for making it cheaper for bank robbers to get to their targets. It's true, but also missing the point.
- skmurphy 9y ago
  Like alcohol or gambling, it's probably inherent in the product for some people with genetic predispositions to certain types of addictive behavior. My hypothesis is that the level of "dopamine-kick" is at least partially a function of genes and probably partially a function of nurture. For example there are some people who cannot drink socially, encouraging them to have one drink "to relax with the rest of us" may cause them harm. To the extent that you are designing your application to consume more and more of the user's attention (note that the customer is the advertiser, the addicted user is the product), to make it more and more addictive, you may be ruining some people's lives.
  - wutbrodo 9y ago
    > To the extent that you are designing your application to consume more and more of the user's attention (note that the customer is the advertiser, the addicted user is the product), to make it more and more addictive, you may be ruining some people's lives. Our economy is intertwined enough that "your actions somewhere down the line may be making it easier for someone to make choices that ruin their lives" is probably true of literally every single person. If you work on a product making low-skill hiring more efficient, you're also lowering McDonald's costs and making it even harder for people with unhealthy relationships with food to resist, and thus "you may be ruining some people's lives". It's so broad a claim that it's utterly meaningless.
skmurphy 9y ago
Some other references: https://www.1843magazine.com/features/the-scientists-who-make-apps-addictive https://www.1843magazine.com/features/the-scientists-who-mak... http://www.tristanharris.com/2016/05/how-technology-hijacks-peoples-minds%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Afrom-a-magician-and-googles-design-ethicist/ http://www.tristanharris.com/2016/05/how-technology-hijacks-... https://www.ted.com/talks/tristan_harris_the_manipulative_tricks_tech_companies_use_to_capture_your_attention https://www.ted.com/talks/tristan_harris_the_manipulative_tr...
emmab 9y ago
> Like gambling, nicotine, alcohol or heroin, Facebook and Google — most importantly through its YouTube subsidiary — produce short-term happiness with serious negative consequences in the long term How could the system incentivize companies like Facebook and Google to use prosocial utility functions in their recommendation engines? e.g. a video recommendation engine that on default settings suggests videos it thinks will cause the viewer to feel satisfied and change activities if it thinks it will improve their overall wellbeing to stop watching videos now.
needlessly2 9y ago
this is very dumb. Facebook allows you to reconnect with old friends more easily or meet new people in person. YouTube has some of the best resources to learn software development, math, history, and really anything for free. There are pro's and con's for every company.

nayuki 9y ago

Personally speaking, Google and Facebook provides me with useful and timely information. Life was more inconvenient before these companies were around. Yes, they introduce some of their own new problems, but I would rather not return to the pre-G/FB days. It would be best if future companies and products learn lessons from the current situation and build even better information platforms.

anindha 9y ago
Initially with cigarettes, society only focused on the positive aspects and even after 50 years people still smoke. Once a company gets going, even if it is discovered there are long term issues with their products, they will be hard to compete against.
- wutbrodo 9y ago
  > Initially with cigarettes, society only focused on the positive aspects and even after 50 years people still smoke. What were these? Just the stimulant effect of nicotine?
  - skmurphy 9y ago
    Yes for people with ADD cigarettes enable focus and productive work. Much stronger and more effective than coffee.
  - anindha 9y ago
    Yes and the social aspects, stress relief, and the warmt. Some of my friends started smoking during final high school exams to combat stress and fatigue.

nicpottier 9y ago

I find the grouping of Facebook and Google interesting because I don't view them as similar at all. His Google complaints seem to be aimed at YouTube, and while certainly it could be argued YouTube is addictive, it doesn't seem anywhere near as insidious or manipulative as say Facebook. It is also an amazing platform for creators of all kinds, and also unlike Facebook is creating this incredible resource of freely available, forever archived videos. I see great public good from that. On the Facebook front, there I agree 100%.

soperj 9y ago
Yeah, I don't really partake in the weird side of youtube, the number of things i've learned how to do(fix things, build things, cook things etc) from youtube is enormous. Most things I should be able to do myself, and it's because of the people who post things on youtube.
Kenji 9y ago
Yes. Facebook is evil, Google is misguided. Besides, Google's services give me much more value than anything Facebook has to offer. Facebook's """"hidden"""" ads in my feed trigger me. Do they think I'm stupid?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- rahilb 9y ago
  >Do they think I'm stupid? I suppose that's a reasonable assumption to make about the average user of anything (myself included).
kodt 9y ago
You should see the way young children use YouTube if you doubt that it is addictive.
- nicpottier 9y ago
  As with TV? Maybe a bit worse because you can wander down your YouTube black hole instead of being subject to the scheduled broadcasts. Yes, it is addictive, but not in the same manipulative way that Facebook is.

cestith 9y ago

Oh, to be sorry about the billions I've made...

keebEz 9y ago

I haven't used Facebook in a long time, deactivated my account. I had 2 factor auth on with my phone and they just pinged me twice, back to back, yesterday from their 2 factor auth number asking me to reactivate. Spamming me from a 2 factor auth number to use your product is a new low I've never encountered elsewhere.

throwaway91111 9y ago
Text STOP and report them if they continue.

simmons 9y ago

Borrowing techniques from the gambling industry, Facebook, Google and others exploit human nature, creating addictive behaviors that compel consumers to check for new messages, respond to notifications, and seek validation from technologies whose only goal is to generate profits for their owners. I've been thinking a lot lately about much our industry seems to be trying to leverage addiction. It's certainly not just Facebook and Google -- it seems to be happening throughout consumer technology. For example, video games seem carefully optimized to turn us into Skinner mice, and most television apps have adopted the annoying "play the next episode unless the user opts out in X seconds" feature. (Even Plex, although I'm not sure what they're getting out of it.) Ultimately, I suppose it's up to the consumer to resist the addiction while availing themselves of the value provided by these products, in much the same way that most of us can enjoy and appreciate beer, wine, and spirits without becoming alcoholics. But thinking about these things is making me reconsider what sort of projects I'd like to work on. EDIT: Obligatory Paul Graham article on the subject: http://www.paulgraham.com/addiction.html http://www.paulgraham.com/addiction.html

bbctol 9y ago
I'm reminded of Clay Shirky's talk/essay (wish I could find a link, but it doesn't seem to be on his website any more) about the tremendous consumption of gin (and other drugs) during the Industrial Revolution as a way to deal with the changing world and cognitive surplus of extra time. My hope is that we're in a transitional period when it comes to the internet; we'll become more and more aware of how to use the internet responsibly and regulate ourselves individually or communally to use it for its greatest benefit. But we're in the midst of the Great Binge right now, playing with technologies that have massive psychological effects without considering their long term impacts, giving people what they want in the short term while really reshaping culture, society, and what it means to be a person in the long term. In my more pessimistic/imaginative moments, I feel like after the coming apocalypse the internet will be banned, Butlerian Jihad-style; long-range communication technologies only for the elite in strictly regulated contexts, because too much access for the individual causes addiction and madness. To be clear, I don't think this is a good outcome (as with the Industrial Revolution, technology has huge long-term benefits if the terrible costs can be overcome) but I think there needs to be a really serious change in how we think about communication technology, and part of that means acknowledging its harms.

em3rgent0rdr 9y ago

I don't like the lumping of Facebook with computer games in general. A "one more turn" experience in a good game is something I genuinely want.

anindha 9y ago

I wouldn't lump either Google or Youtube with Facebook. I signed up for Youtube Red, their commercial free subscription. I fill my subscriptions with topics I want to learn more about. It is easier to curate content on Youtube than Facebook. I would pay Facebook $2-5/month not to show me advertisements.

newscracker 9y ago
> I would pay Facebook $2-5/month not to show me advertisements. I'd expand that beyond ads alone, to have the payment prevent tracking, profiling, "filter bubbling", and sometimes emotional manipulation experiments. [1] But that model won't scale, and it wouldn't offer Facebook growing value over time either. [1]: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-28051930 http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-28051930
- anindha 9y ago
  Why wouldn't it scale? It is the same strategy that Apple uses: build a compelling base product, and then sell additional services. You could still have a free service that displays ads.
  - ubernostrum 9y ago
    Apple's successes have generally not involved a default position of "free but ad-supported". For example, the iTunes store is a massive success for Apple, but didn't begin with free downloads supported by embedded ads in the music (which is what other music services have done). Instead they said "here it is, $0.99 per track". Apple's track record of not needing to track me or sell my personal information to prop up its business models, because they launch products that have real "get the end users to pay money for it" business models, is one reason why I stick with their products.
- jpalomaki 9y ago
  Most expensive keywords on Google can cost something like $50 per click. If you put a monthly fee for ad free service, probably your mostly valuable customers (those error m with money to spend) are first to switch. Facebook can probably generate vast amounts of profits from the users if it manages to be part of the actual transaction, not just an ad platform. The same kind offer thing Google was planning with Google Checkout. IIRC the idea was they would not charge for clicks, but would get payment of customer actually makes the purchase. Think about Facebook first creating for you the urge to buy something (by manipulating you feed) and then selling the thing or taking their cut off the transaction.

eduren 9y ago

So then liquidate your shares in both and donate the money to charity maybe? I sincerely doubt he regrets making millions.

aw3c2 9y ago

Invest in indieweb and similar good developments then?

placebo 9y ago

Show me one groundbreaking technology that wasn't also used to the detriment of humanity. As long as there are shitty human traits, there will be shitty use of new technology. The only question is whether good will outweigh the bad. Just as with nuclear technology, it is still too early to tell whether humanity will be wise enough to handle its own intelligence.

alexashka 9y ago

Roger should read a couple of books or travel outside his rich 1% oasis where people spending their free time on facebook/youtube is an issue. Without realizing it - his short sightedness is exactly the root of the problem he's complaining about.

adventured 9y ago
Absolutely correct. For the other ~99% of humanity, acquiring access to these digital tools has been a massive leap forward in all regards. Whether you were stuck in a small town in Oklahoma, born into a family in Bangalore earning $20 per month, or millions of scenarios around the globe that are in-between. McNamee seems to have no idea how the rest of humanity actually lives and what access to Internet-based information, messaging or media has made possible in terms of dramatic life improvement.
- wutbrodo 9y ago
  Even for 1%ers, there are people mature enough to enjoy the benefits of these services without falling prey to abusing them. You can abuse anything that feels good: TV, junk food, tabloids, etc etc.
  - jhayward 9y ago
    To equate a susceptibility to addiction with immaturity is a severe error which will prevent you from ever dealing with addiction, in yourself or others, in a rational and realistic fashion. It is not about moral character, or immaturity, or lack of Godliness. It is a disease process with roots in biology and genetics. Also, everyone is susceptible to manipulation of their dopamine reward system, no matter how robust. The impact of effect varies from person to person.

diego_moita 9y ago

> Like gambling, nicotine, alcohol or heroin [...] produce short-term happiness with serious negative consequences in the long term Same applies to Big Macs, pizza, slushies, Cheetos, TV, seating, laziness, political pundits, marijuana, ... In the end it is all about caveat emptor: is up to the customer to decide.

defined 9y ago
> Same applies to Big Macs, pizza, slushies, Cheetos, TV, seating, laziness, political pundits, marijuana, ... > In the end it is all about caveat emptor: is up to the customer to decide. In a balanced world, where choices are relatively evenly spread, this may be true. In a world where the number of harmful choices far exceed the number of healthful ones, and the harmful ones are much more profitable (and so promoted more heavily), free choice becomes a different proposition. However much willpower, intelligence, and savviness we think we have, we get tripped up by our firmware defects, even when we know they are there and try to be wary[1]. Deliberately exposing ourselves to proven brain hacks and thinking we are immune and have real choices is ... inadvisable. Anyone who is diabetic (or simply overweight) and tries to buy or eat food that is not harmful to the pancreas will appreciate how eternally vigilant one must be to avoid the cleverly hidden food label traps, and how choice is manipulated, cynically and incessantly, by the US food industry. Extrapolate this to most US industries, and re-evaluating "choice" may be a depressing task. [1]: Thinking: Fast and Slow, by Daniel Kahneman EDIT: typo

adventured 9y ago

> Facebook and Google — most importantly through its YouTube subsidiary — produce short-term happiness with serious negative consequences in the long term. He says that and then proceeds to provide absolutely nothing to back up such an extraordinary claim (emphasis on the serious negative + long-term part). This article reeks of some terrible combination of nanny state authoritarianism and trite moral lecturing about proper use of one's time (something that was more common a century or more ago when the US was overflowing with lecturing about how to live a 'proper' life). Want to know why people are spending 50 minutes per day on Facebook? Because for those people it's better than the alternative, their lives are devoid of anything better to do with that time (specifically the person doesn't want to do anything else with that time, after all it's their free will choice). That's the same reason those same people were previously watching four or more hours of TV each night (which they frequently pay/paid a lot of money to do). They want to watch hours of tv, they want to spend 50 minutes on Facebook - who are you to tell them how to live? Twitter, Snapchat, WhatsApp, Kik, Viber, Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, email, text messages, etc. People want to hyper socialize, you can think it's unhealthy if you like, you still don't get to determine how people live and you never will.

DonnyV 9y ago

Of all companies to worry about Google and Facebook are at the bottom of my list. How about we worry about Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, etc. You know the companies that actually can affect our lives and mold politics.

ImSkeptical 9y ago
Google is what people use to get information. Facebook gives people news. Both of these companies could have a large impact on our lives and politics.

ne0free 9y ago

Author is more like wannabe pus ... Give me that money if you dont want

johnvonneumann 9y ago

Agree wholeheartedly with the entire article. Gotta cringe when you get to the end though, and you get blasted with "Top 3 Dog Pics You Have To SEE To Believe!!!", ironic.

RichardHeart 9y ago

Give people what the should want, and make them want it, not what they shouldn't want, but do.