5 ms·
This stuck out to me the most: >The authors seem genuinely surprised by recent developments and have distanced themselves from dark patterns Time and again, p
by hoorayimhelping 6y ago
This stuck out to me the most:
>The authors seem genuinely surprised by recent developments and have distanced themselves from dark patterns
Time and again, people just refuse to accept that there are unintended consequences to their well-intentioned actions. There's a reason knowledge like this is often referred to as a Pandora's box, and it seems like not many people really take those old fables to heart. Like, it had never once entered into these people's minds that these might get warped given the a perverse set of incentives? "They were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."
- rgoulter 6y agoA related question came up in Andrew Przybylski's 2019 GDC talk about the science of gaming addiction. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVwu4RDChsY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVwu4RDChsY Q&A from 49:30 and at 59:30 are relevant. Someone asked about the responsibility of those who looked into these kinds of things; and about "if we have facts about addiction the bad people will use them". Przybylski argued that it's better to have the facts about how people behave, rather than act based on opinion.
- TeMPOraL 6y agoI wish people would take it to its natural conclusion, though. That is, if you have facts about how people behave, and then your product creates pathological behavior, then you're fully responsible for it because you've done it on purpose. This particularly applies to all the skinner-box "games" that are so popular in mobile scene these days. They're purposefully optimized to be as addicting as possible, so their authors should be made to face consequences of all the problems caused by the addiction of their players.