6 ms·

>>if , e.g. Apple or Google actually _were_evil Sean Parker on Facebook (and other Social Media giants) exploiting dopamine triggers and psychological drives f

• tzs 9y ago
  Isn't that a fancy way of saying they are making their product do things that people enjoy, so that people will use the product? This reminds me of the time I once had a chance encounter with Richard Feynman and was able to solve right there for him a particular instance of the local labeling problem in applied chronometrics that had stumped him. (Less fancy version: Feynman asked what time it was. I looked at my watch and told him).
  • zepto 9y ago
    No it’s not. Unless you think of a heroin addict as simply ‘enjoying a well designed product’.
    • nerfhammer 9y ago
      sharing photos with your aunt is not like heroin
      • wu-ikkyu 9y ago
        Facilitating mass consumerism in the face of ecological self-destruction by manipulating billions of people's emotions and consciousness using the most powerful advertising machine in history, is a little bit like the self-destruction caused by heroin
      • Chaebixi 9y ago
        > sharing photos with your aunt is not like heroin That's missing the point entirely. You can say heroin is a "well designed products" because it's users enjoy its immediate effects and keep coming back for more. That characterization is misleading because it leaves out all the downsides, including addiction. Similarly... >> Isn't that a fancy way of saying they are making their product do things that people enjoy, so that people will use the product? ...is a misleading characterization for exactly the same reason.
  • leggomylibro 9y ago
    Try flipping it; they could be trying to make their people enjoy things that their product does.
  • trevyn 9y ago
    >Isn't that a fancy way of saying they are making their product do things that people enjoy Humans have a tendency (called "hyperbolic discounting" in the literature) to choose a small immediate reward over a larger delayed reward. In this case, the small immediate reward is reading an interesting post on Facebook, and the delayed reward is... pretty much anything else. If we're lucky, people will become aware of this bias and start making better decisions, by designing their life to align their available immediate rewards with their choice of distant rewards. This is basically what things like Fitbits do -- provide small immediate rewards (number of steps going up!) that align with your desired larger distant reward (being in shape). Or the very notion of "getting off Facebook" -- increasing the personal effort/mental distance required to claim a small reward that does not align with a more distant goal. The reason this is particularly challenging is that "the Internet" is very useful for doing things that do align with our legitimate, long-term goals, but once the Internet is available, the distance to "Facebook rewards" is low. It might be interesting if Facebook, as a response to this backlash, finds a way to offer short term rewards that do align with your long-term goals...
  • seangrogg 9y ago
    Not necessarily, no. Dopamine is involved in much more than enjoyment; importantly it is also spiked in "near misses" (think a card away from a royal flush) and excessive amounts are seemingly related to paranoia. And this is only from one of the pathways that dopamine affects; it is also linked to other aspects of cognitive function that play a role in attention and addiction (and various other parts of the brain). Thus, a product that triggers dopamine responses isn't necessarily nefarious in and of itself. Indeed, an application that triggers dopamine response initially does so through mostly positive things (connecting with friends, sharing a story people like, winning at a roulette wheel). However, it's questionable when you start leveraging the power of dopamine to enforce attention, feed paranoia, and drive addiction; things like making sure people win often enough that they don't realize how much they're losing.
  • Chaebixi 9y ago
    >> Social Media giants) exploiting dopamine triggers and psychological drives for social validation > Isn't that a fancy way of saying they are making their product do things that people enjoy, so that people will use the product? No, It's actually a fancy way of saying they design their products to be addictive, like slot machines are for many people. It's not true enjoyment, but mindless engagement exploited for profit.
    • AndrewKemendo 9y ago
      It's not true enjoyment, but mindless engagement exploited for profit. Slot machines are "enjoyment" for many millions. It's a tightrope walk that doesn't really lead anywhere constructive to try and make a judgement between good, bad and "true" enjoyment. Unfortunately because it's so subjective and laden with judgement calls, you'll never settle on a definition for what is and is not a "true" form or enjoyment.
      • Chaebixi 9y ago
        I don't really agree with that. Maybe that's true if you try to come up with a positive and universal definition of true enjoyment, but I think it's totally possible to rope off areas that are clearly not it. Those areas would include slot machines and much of social networking that resembles them. I think arguments against drawing distinctions between good and bad (e.g. "who are you to say that slot machines aren't true enjoyment") often tend to just serve to distract people from confronting real problems. I'm sure they're well-liked by the gambling industry and others who profit from those problems. Not to say that was your indention or that you were approaching this in bad faith.
        • AndrewKemendo 9y ago
          I'm really trying to get better with my discussion here, so what in my post could have been considered arguing in "bad faith?" I'm not trying to trick anyone into something here, I'm being pretty explicit about my POV. I think it's totally possible to rope off areas that are clearly not it. My point is that I think it might be locally possible for small enough groups, but for what we're talking about with whole swaths of industries like social media not only isn't it possible, it's likely misguided.
• fredgrott 9y ago
  but than Sean Parker never gave back the millions he earned via past Facebook impl's...so his point is somewhat entirely hollow.. Its like a gun manufacturer saying automatics are bad but still making them
  • Chaebixi 9y ago
    > but than Sean Parker never gave back the millions he earned via past Facebook impl's...so his point is somewhat entirely hollow.. That's not true at all. His explicit confession makes what once could only be speculation something much closer to a believable truth, which means people can do more about it. Chiding him for not donning sack-cloth in penance just undermines what good his statements could do. > Its like a gun manufacturer saying automatics are bad but still making them Does he even still work for them?
  • r00fus 9y ago
    Instead of giving back, I'd agree if he paid (even some of) it forward and created an anti-FB/Goog/etc group that fought and lobbied for changes.
    • rhizome 9y ago
      FB can withstand occasional bad press, but they can't withstand divestiture. I imagine Zuck's knives would come out in full force if Parker announced he was engaging your suggestion.
      • r00fus 9y ago
        Interesting. So what would the "knives coming out" look like?
        • rhizome 9y ago
          Likely a PR campaign, which wouldn't have his name on the byline, natch.
  • rhizome 9y ago