4 ms·

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 ter

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.

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.