4 ms·

That's because the systems are designed to 'hook' people that way No they aren't. Nobody sat down and said "how do we design Instagram to be maximally addictiv

That's because the systems are designed to 'hook' people that way No they aren't. Nobody sat down and said "how do we design Instagram to be maximally addictive". They just said, hey, look, I made some neat photo filters and someone else said, hey, love the filters, it'd be neat if I could share these photos with my friends. Badaboom, a social network. The fact that so many people spend so many hours on Instagram is nothing to do with the software itself and everything to do with how people use it. To be brutally honest here, in my experience it's 90% girls who obsess over Instagram. I know very few men who use Instagram at all, let alone post regularly. Women use it so much because the posts they configure the app to show them consist mostly of girls boosting each others self confidence by telling each other how beautiful or successful they look in each photo. Equally important - what's not there: no politics, re-sharing of links that someone might expect you to read or care about, and in general nothing that would require any mental effort at all. Nobody designed Instagram to be full of trivial ego pumping, it's a neutral photo sharing tool. There are no dark patterns, whatever they're meant to be, unless you believe that the absence of a "share this link" feature is a dark pattern. It just so happens that this is how many people choose to use the tool. In the same vein, nobody designed Twitter to be mentally less taxing than other social media sites, it was just that due to technical limits SMS restricted your character count, and Twitter inherited that limit, and limiting the size of a post sets a very low but very consistent quality bar on tweets, such that people who would have been intimidated by blogging full sized articles can now engage in online discussion without feeling out-competed. And why not? The attitude you display here shows a great feeling of superiority: people don't like Twitter or Instagram because they like the culture on these networks, instead it's because they've been "addicted" by "dark patterns" beyond their comprehension of control, in some sort of vast Silicon Valley conspiracy that is mysteriously unsupported by any sort of paper trail or emails showing discussion of these malign intentions. Please, grow up and just let people enjoy communicating in whatever way makes them feel good.

intended 9y ago
This is categorically Untrue. The article itself lists people directly who have worked on items and code meant to addict and make sites “sticky”. If that’s not enough - go look at gamification. Back when WoW launched I was impressed. They distilled the then amorphous knowledge of UI and game psych and upped the ante. At that time friends and i imagined what maximally addictive games would be. How we would use more malicious techniques from behavioral science and habit formation to keep people in game for longed. Then came TF and the hats/freemium model (Korea/SEA/China ). And from there to now, the worst of those ideas have been applied and evolved. Sites very definitely design themselves to trigger and keep people on site.
jansho 9y ago
Sorry, this is a strawman response. I was pretty clear about my concern for unfortunate unintended consequences; nobody is saying that there's a Silicon Valley conspiracy in action! Incidentally, I agree with your points on the benefits of social media. And it's awesome that we have so much engaging content today, but please explain if it's really OK for kids to get hooked on YouTube etc five hours a day. The solution is not to ban or demonise, but how we can educate people to have more control in their use of technology. Even Nir Eyal recognises this and implements tech restrictions in his own household. It's like gambling - sure we have self control, but let's be honest, gambling companies work very hard to make it addictive (I specifically used the term "psychologically hacked" earlier). That's a natural response to be expected from companies, user engagement is tied to company health/profitability/etc so it makes sense to maximise it as much as possible. But earlier when I called for a new design philosophy, I am hoping that tech companies can be better than that. Because you are right, nearly all of them start with a genuine belief that their tool can help people, or at the very least, it's cool and yo let's spread the word. The tools still work, like Facebook still functions as a platform to connect relatives and old classmates, but it has also become so much more than that: it's a news platform, it's a media engine, it's a publisher, it's an ad-clicking farm and so on. The tools have evolved into systems, which other forces (commercial companies, political groups etc) have learnt to leverage for their own benefit. They have become complex and life-evading enough that they can't be called neutral anymore, despite the company's best intentions. And I'll go as far as to say that these companies have some accountability. As a daily Instagram user, I do take offence with your comment regarding Instagram and girls - you are caricaturing a lot. It's not just high-fiving about body confidence and taking random selfies...
- peoplewindow 9y ago
  I was pretty clear about my concern for unfortunate unintended consequences The part of your post I quoted literally says "the systems are designed to hook people". It also says "Do we need to totally discourage unethical tactics like dark patterns". Don't try to wriggle out of it. The words "design" and "tactics" mean deliberate intended action, agency. My post is not a strawman: it responds to exactly what you were saying. Perhaps on reflection you think that position was too extreme: OK then. please explain if it's really OK for kids to get hooked on YouTube etc five hours a day Sure. They're kids. What would you rather they do? Play football for five hours a day, like my grandparent's generation did? Read story books - the ultimate form of passive media consumption? At least on YouTube they might be learning something more useful than how to kick a ball around, and who knows, might even be inspired to create something themselves. I think a lot of the complaints about social media and YouTube overlook that point. It's easy to complain. What's your proposed better alternative? As a daily Instagram user, I do take offence with your comment regarding Instagram and girls Alright, be offended, my lived experience does not care. All the girls I know use Instagram all the time. None of the guys do. I realise there are exceptions, it's a huge network. But I know from discussions with other men that they've had the same observation as me. If you find that fact offensive, too bad!
ZenoArrow 9y ago
> "Nobody sat down and said "how do we design Instagram to be maximally addictive"." The evidence points to the contrary. Why would you not want to make, as another commenter put it, a social network site as 'sticky' as possible? You have to understand how sites like Instagram make money, using methods which rely on keeping engagement high. It's the so-called 'Attention Economy'. Here's one article describing how Instagram's approach to generating revenue has evolved over time: https://www.feedough.com/how-does-instagram-make-money-instagram-revenue-model/ https://www.feedough.com/how-does-instagram-make-money-insta... Here's the Wikipedia article about the ideas behind the attention economy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_economy
- peoplewindow 9y ago
  What evidence? The article you link to just says they make money through advertising. Yes, and? Your argument is 'their business relies on their users being happy and using their service a lot' which is an empty statement: it's true of all businesses. It's not a sign of addictiveness or anything like that.
  - ZenoArrow 9y ago
    You're missing the key part of my argument. There are businesses built around offering products and services that have no need to maintain your attention, for example I'll go to the supermarket when I'm hungry, and I'll go to the barbers when I need a haircut. The difference with the players in the attention economy (including social media sites, news sites, basically almost any site where the main form of income is advertising) is that they rely on getting and keeping your attention on their site. If you can't see the gamification aspects of sites like Instagram as examples of that, I don't know what else I can say that will help you see it.
    - peoplewindow 9y ago
      You could argue that theatre, cinema and opera also rely on getting and keeping your attention. Nobody says they're addictive or "gamified". The reason I have trouble seeing the "gamification" aspects of Instagram is that there are none. This idea that a photo sharing site is designed to be like a drug exists in your head - every argument you make easily applies to many other kinds of business that nobody considers addictive.
propogandist 9y ago
>No they aren't. Nobody sat down and said "how do we design Instagram to be maximally addictive". you have no idea what you are talking about and everything you're saying is invalid. The companies noted in your post are run by and dependent on advertising. The number of users on the platform, their ability to lure users back to the platform and the amount of time spent within the platform is kkey to making money and is essential to keeping their stock price up.
amazingman 9y ago
Snapchat is literally designed to be maximally addictive. You know this, right?

intended 9y ago

This is categorically Untrue. The article itself lists people directly who have worked on items and code meant to addict and make sites “sticky”. If that’s not enough - go look at gamification. Back when WoW launched I was impressed. They distilled the then amorphous knowledge of UI and game psych and upped the ante. At that time friends and i imagined what maximally addictive games would be. How we would use more malicious techniques from behavioral science and habit formation to keep people in game for longed. Then came TF and the hats/freemium model (Korea/SEA/China ). And from there to now, the worst of those ideas have been applied and evolved. Sites very definitely design themselves to trigger and keep people on site.

jansho 9y ago

Sorry, this is a strawman response. I was pretty clear about my concern for unfortunate unintended consequences; nobody is saying that there's a Silicon Valley conspiracy in action! Incidentally, I agree with your points on the benefits of social media. And it's awesome that we have so much engaging content today, but please explain if it's really OK for kids to get hooked on YouTube etc five hours a day. The solution is not to ban or demonise, but how we can educate people to have more control in their use of technology. Even Nir Eyal recognises this and implements tech restrictions in his own household. It's like gambling - sure we have self control, but let's be honest, gambling companies work very hard to make it addictive (I specifically used the term "psychologically hacked" earlier). That's a natural response to be expected from companies, user engagement is tied to company health/profitability/etc so it makes sense to maximise it as much as possible. But earlier when I called for a new design philosophy, I am hoping that tech companies can be better than that. Because you are right, nearly all of them start with a genuine belief that their tool can help people, or at the very least, it's cool and yo let's spread the word. The tools still work, like Facebook still functions as a platform to connect relatives and old classmates, but it has also become so much more than that: it's a news platform, it's a media engine, it's a publisher, it's an ad-clicking farm and so on. The tools have evolved into systems, which other forces (commercial companies, political groups etc) have learnt to leverage for their own benefit. They have become complex and life-evading enough that they can't be called neutral anymore, despite the company's best intentions. And I'll go as far as to say that these companies have some accountability. As a daily Instagram user, I do take offence with your comment regarding Instagram and girls - you are caricaturing a lot. It's not just high-fiving about body confidence and taking random selfies...

peoplewindow 9y ago
I was pretty clear about my concern for unfortunate unintended consequences The part of your post I quoted literally says "the systems are designed to hook people". It also says "Do we need to totally discourage unethical tactics like dark patterns". Don't try to wriggle out of it. The words "design" and "tactics" mean deliberate intended action, agency. My post is not a strawman: it responds to exactly what you were saying. Perhaps on reflection you think that position was too extreme: OK then. please explain if it's really OK for kids to get hooked on YouTube etc five hours a day Sure. They're kids. What would you rather they do? Play football for five hours a day, like my grandparent's generation did? Read story books - the ultimate form of passive media consumption? At least on YouTube they might be learning something more useful than how to kick a ball around, and who knows, might even be inspired to create something themselves. I think a lot of the complaints about social media and YouTube overlook that point. It's easy to complain. What's your proposed better alternative? As a daily Instagram user, I do take offence with your comment regarding Instagram and girls Alright, be offended, my lived experience does not care. All the girls I know use Instagram all the time. None of the guys do. I realise there are exceptions, it's a huge network. But I know from discussions with other men that they've had the same observation as me. If you find that fact offensive, too bad!

ZenoArrow 9y ago

> "Nobody sat down and said "how do we design Instagram to be maximally addictive"." The evidence points to the contrary. Why would you not want to make, as another commenter put it, a social network site as 'sticky' as possible? You have to understand how sites like Instagram make money, using methods which rely on keeping engagement high. It's the so-called 'Attention Economy'. Here's one article describing how Instagram's approach to generating revenue has evolved over time: https://www.feedough.com/how-does-instagram-make-money-instagram-revenue-model/ https://www.feedough.com/how-does-instagram-make-money-insta... Here's the Wikipedia article about the ideas behind the attention economy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_economy

peoplewindow 9y ago
What evidence? The article you link to just says they make money through advertising. Yes, and? Your argument is 'their business relies on their users being happy and using their service a lot' which is an empty statement: it's true of all businesses. It's not a sign of addictiveness or anything like that.
- ZenoArrow 9y ago
  You're missing the key part of my argument. There are businesses built around offering products and services that have no need to maintain your attention, for example I'll go to the supermarket when I'm hungry, and I'll go to the barbers when I need a haircut. The difference with the players in the attention economy (including social media sites, news sites, basically almost any site where the main form of income is advertising) is that they rely on getting and keeping your attention on their site. If you can't see the gamification aspects of sites like Instagram as examples of that, I don't know what else I can say that will help you see it.
  - peoplewindow 9y ago
    You could argue that theatre, cinema and opera also rely on getting and keeping your attention. Nobody says they're addictive or "gamified". The reason I have trouble seeing the "gamification" aspects of Instagram is that there are none. This idea that a photo sharing site is designed to be like a drug exists in your head - every argument you make easily applies to many other kinds of business that nobody considers addictive.

propogandist 9y ago

>No they aren't. Nobody sat down and said "how do we design Instagram to be maximally addictive". you have no idea what you are talking about and everything you're saying is invalid. The companies noted in your post are run by and dependent on advertising. The number of users on the platform, their ability to lure users back to the platform and the amount of time spent within the platform is kkey to making money and is essential to keeping their stock price up.

amazingman 9y ago

Snapchat is literally designed to be maximally addictive. You know this, right?