4 ms·
Yeah, there was a lot of denouncing evil practices, and very little instrospection. Like with every human vice, there being bad agents exploiting the phenomenon
by EmilioMartinez 6y ago
Yeah, there was a lot of denouncing evil practices, and very little instrospection. Like with every human vice, there being bad agents exploiting the phenomenon shouldn't overshadow the fact that its deep rooted in how we work, because it risks precluding self-examination and self-awareness as a way out.
Remember when the Flappy Bird guy removed the game from the store because it was too addictive for his liking? It goes to show how the addictiveness of tech can easily be accidental. And then people complained that he did. Even when a creator says "please, stop, this is harmful" it will go unheard. So putting all the blame on evil corporate decisions is an incomplete picture, but it sells better I guess.
- madjam002 6y agoHuh, I forgot about Flappy bird!! That pretty much hits the nail on the head. I agree blaming corporations sells better, but they really exaggerated it. I just rewatched some of it and got to the bit on A/B testing and how it is mind control and we are all guinea pigs being manipulated... apparently every marketing department in every business, and every advertising company is now some evil puppet master controlling people without their consent!
- EmilioMartinez 6y agoIronically, I recall a discussion on HN about people being irrationally afraid of A/B testing, and how overcoming it could greatly benefit society (the centerpiece topic at the moment were variants of hospital posters about hand-washing, ircc). A/B testing is just another neutral tool, but productions like this feed on those fears.