4 ms·

It's frustrating to read articles making the kinds of points that Dustin's original piece did, and it's slightly cheering to see somebody change their mind. But

by z0r 7y ago

It's frustrating to read articles making the kinds of points that Dustin's original piece did, and it's slightly cheering to see somebody change their mind. But this: "There is no valid counterargument to the abstract idea. The fact is that if a company had better data and analyzed it more completely, they could obviously produce better experiences for their users." I think this is something that you don't need hindsight to understand is wrong. Modern ad driven companies work to maximize 'daily user interactions', not quality of experience. A lot of people think these are strongly correlated, but I think optimizing for that is likely to drive your products into bad directions for users.

JadeNB 7y ago
> > "There is no valid counterargument to the abstract idea. The fact is that if a company had better data and analyzed it more completely, they could obviously produce better experiences for their users." > I think this is something that you don't need hindsight to understand is wrong. Modern ad driven companies work to maximize 'daily user interactions', not quality of experience. A lot of people think these are strongly correlated, but I think optimizing for that is likely to drive your products into bad directions for users. Unfortunately that is also not a counterargument to "the abstract idea": this shows that companies don't produce better experiences, not that they couldn't produce better experiences. In fact I think, much as I am on your side on this, that the evidence shows that companies with more information can and do provide better experiences—for just long enough to normalise the privacy violation and lower expectations, at which point they turn from their users to the true audience of advertisers and other, uh, curious parties.
- Retra 7y ago
  Another way to think of it is that you can't truly optimize for user interests if you're not beholden to them; and if you take possession of their data, you're no longer beholden to them. To serve your users fundamentally means to empower them.
marcosdumay 7y ago
When you optimize too much for a proxy the overall correlation that made you choose this proxy doesn't matter anymore, because at the limits you are dealing with details, not the main picture.
shoo 7y ago
> if a company had better data and analyzed it more completely, they could [...] They could do a better job at doing whatever it is that solely-for-profit companies do! Which may include "provide a better user experience" but may also include other activities such as "sell the data of their customers to third parties for profit" or "make ads for unnecessary products even more accurately targeted" or "more effectively scrape the contact books of their customers to provide better sales leads" or "use individual data to influence custom pricing models to offer higher prices or decline service to some potential customers who are statistically less likely to be attractive customers" or "more accurately predict where individuals associated with government regulation might be trying to constrain the company's business activities" ...
scythe 7y ago
>"There is no valid counterargument to the abstract idea. The fact is that if a company had better data and analyzed it more completely, they could obviously produce better experiences for their users." There is a simple counterargument to the phrasing: could does not imply would. When you have relatively little information about your users, the two goals "make the user happy" and "make the user engage more with the product" are approximately the same goal. So making the user happy = engagement, with little data. But when you have a lot of data about your users' emotions and behavior, the two goals become separate. A typical business is going to pursue the second goal, not the first. They're not charities. It's sort of like an archer shooting at two neighboring targets. With fuzzy vision, they look like the same target, but with clearer vision, the archer sees them separately. The users want the archer to hit one target, but the archer will aim for the other. So, the users may be better off if the archer's vision is a little fuzzy, to make the targets blend together.
- danShumway 7y ago
  This is a good take, well phrased. To add another example: In the abstract, the fact is that a government with absolute monitoring and enforcement power over its citizens could obviously move faster to improve society and address injustices. However, like you said, could does not imply would, and most people would say that giving governments absolute power to monitor and enforce their whims on citizens is a terrible idea.
moron4hire 7y ago
Case in point: does anyone honestly think pay-to-play games are "better" products for the user? Charging easily hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars for what used to be a single purchase, on doing so in such a cookie cutter fashion that the games are basically all the same game with different graphics?

by z0r 7y ago

JadeNB 7y ago

> > "There is no valid counterargument to the abstract idea. The fact is that if a company had better data and analyzed it more completely, they could obviously produce better experiences for their users." > I think this is something that you don't need hindsight to understand is wrong. Modern ad driven companies work to maximize 'daily user interactions', not quality of experience. A lot of people think these are strongly correlated, but I think optimizing for that is likely to drive your products into bad directions for users. Unfortunately that is also not a counterargument to "the abstract idea": this shows that companies don't produce better experiences, not that they couldn't produce better experiences. In fact I think, much as I am on your side on this, that the evidence shows that companies with more information can and do provide better experiences—for just long enough to normalise the privacy violation and lower expectations, at which point they turn from their users to the true audience of advertisers and other, uh, curious parties.

Retra 7y ago
Another way to think of it is that you can't truly optimize for user interests if you're not beholden to them; and if you take possession of their data, you're no longer beholden to them. To serve your users fundamentally means to empower them.

marcosdumay 7y ago

When you optimize too much for a proxy the overall correlation that made you choose this proxy doesn't matter anymore, because at the limits you are dealing with details, not the main picture.

shoo 7y ago

> if a company had better data and analyzed it more completely, they could [...] They could do a better job at doing whatever it is that solely-for-profit companies do! Which may include "provide a better user experience" but may also include other activities such as "sell the data of their customers to third parties for profit" or "make ads for unnecessary products even more accurately targeted" or "more effectively scrape the contact books of their customers to provide better sales leads" or "use individual data to influence custom pricing models to offer higher prices or decline service to some potential customers who are statistically less likely to be attractive customers" or "more accurately predict where individuals associated with government regulation might be trying to constrain the company's business activities" ...

scythe 7y ago

>"There is no valid counterargument to the abstract idea. The fact is that if a company had better data and analyzed it more completely, they could obviously produce better experiences for their users." There is a simple counterargument to the phrasing: could does not imply would. When you have relatively little information about your users, the two goals "make the user happy" and "make the user engage more with the product" are approximately the same goal. So making the user happy = engagement, with little data. But when you have a lot of data about your users' emotions and behavior, the two goals become separate. A typical business is going to pursue the second goal, not the first. They're not charities. It's sort of like an archer shooting at two neighboring targets. With fuzzy vision, they look like the same target, but with clearer vision, the archer sees them separately. The users want the archer to hit one target, but the archer will aim for the other. So, the users may be better off if the archer's vision is a little fuzzy, to make the targets blend together.

danShumway 7y ago
This is a good take, well phrased. To add another example: In the abstract, the fact is that a government with absolute monitoring and enforcement power over its citizens could obviously move faster to improve society and address injustices. However, like you said, could does not imply would, and most people would say that giving governments absolute power to monitor and enforce their whims on citizens is a terrible idea.

moron4hire 7y ago

Case in point: does anyone honestly think pay-to-play games are "better" products for the user? Charging easily hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars for what used to be a single purchase, on doing so in such a cookie cutter fashion that the games are basically all the same game with different graphics?