4 ms·

I was an alcoholic for over a decade before I found my recovery. But I couldn't turn around and tell a distilleryman that he has to brew his liquor a certain w

• crawfordcomeaux 8y ago
  Alcohol poisons the body, so there are natural limits to how much one can drink. How much one can game is limited by how well one's meeting their own needs, eg. food, water, sleep, connection, etc. Point being alcohol probably can't be designed to be more addictive, while games can. As a recovering information addict & software developer who has studied dark designs, I can confirm people are intentionally making things with the intention of creating addicted customers. Information and gaming of various types is also freely available at most libraries, not to mention on all smartphones. Information & games are way more ubiquitously available than alcohol. They're not comparable & recovery for behavior addictions that don't contribute to social skills the way substance addictions often do can be a bit more complex. Substance addicts usually learn to navigate society well; behavioral addicts typically don't. Social connection is really important for recovery & requires skills the addict may need to develop. I know I had to do LOADS of work on connecting, as well as developing my emotional intelligence, since I started addictively avoiding my emotions around age 9. People designing things to be addictive are absolutely liable to some degree.
  • qop 8y ago
    So I've heard of dark patterns before, but wouldn't it be a logistic nightmare to try and describe, and therefore regulate, design patterns that dont actively injure users? I'm using injure to mean induction of the addictive behaviors. Design is something I'd consider very subtle, and with lots of moving parts. Here's an example. What if Google decided that when you pull down for notifications on android, items originating from DoubleClick should be prioritized to the top, regardless of user settings? A lot of people who have apps that generate advert-ifications wouldn't immediately notice the difference but the effect would begin to work in their brains as that consumption impulse is triggered more and more often. Or what if they decided that same thing for the lock screen notifications? Eventually you're fending off consumption impulses everytime you touch your phone. These are patterns I trust independent users, like bloggers and columnists, enthusiasts, those sorts, to keep me informed about. I remember hearing about the search engine nuking years ago when it actually was committed. That sort of media is in my eyes, a decent way to inform people that they need to mentally condition themselves to subvert the patterns. But many never become aware of these things, and of course those are the people usually more vulnerable to the effects of psychological conditioning in the first place. I'd love to hear some moonshots about how to safely and fairly try and regulate something like design.
    • svachalek 8y ago
      Pulling down for notifications is a form of addictive behavior in itself, much like pulling the arm on a slot machine. You might get nothing, you often get something boring, you rarely get something great. Perversely, they can taper off how often it pays off which makes it more addictive (deep instincts tell us to keep trying when we know the odds are bad), which is a pattern that's easily observed in a lot of games. Sorting ads to the top is, as far as I know, not a mechanism for increasing addiction so much as a way to try to monetize it. It's more likely to run into anti-trust regulations than public health concerns in my opinion. But as to regulation, it's likely to run behind the technology but it's not hard to document dark patterns and write laws against them, just like bait-and-switch and various con jobs that were well known before the Internet age.
    • crawfordcomeaux 8y ago