4 ms·
> Should television shows been punished for cliffhangers because they hook people into seeing the next episode? Breaking Bad had an interesting plot and charact
by arrosenberg 6y ago
> Should television shows been punished for cliffhangers because they hook people into seeing the next episode? Breaking Bad had an interesting plot and character progression that made me want to keep watching - are they addicting me?
Honestly, this is a super interesting question. I would say anything designed to succeed by hijacking human brain chemistry instead of providing superior or novel quality is probably worth regulating at some level.
From that standpoint, Breaking Bad would not have an issue - it's superior and novel. Shows that succeed in making a viewer binge with a combination of (effectively) mid-episode endings and autoplay, are somewhat hacky. You can't regulate cliffhanger endings, so autoplay should probably not be legal - Netflix already asks you if you want to continue watching, they should simply do so after every episode. Shows with good content like Breaking Bad would still be easy to binge (just press yes once an hour), and poor quality shows would have a harder time taking advantage of brain chemistry by requiring an affirmative act.
- nickff 6y agoMenthol cigarettes were, at one point, 'superior and novel'.
- arrosenberg 6y agoSure, but they were developed and implemented to better hijack human behavior, which was part of the investigation into the tobacco industry.
- nickff 6y agoYou presented a dichotomy: >"I would say anything designed to succeed by hijacking human brain chemistry instead of providing superior or novel quality is probably worth regulating at some level." My point is that there is no real dichotomy, 'Breaking Bad' and menthol cigarettes are not so different; they each possess both qualities.
- TeMPOraL 6y agoWere they, or were they marketed as such until the perception stuck? Manipulative advertising is an act of malice, particularly with addictive products.
- nickff 6y agoI'm not a smoker, but adding a nice flavor to a (previously unflavored) cigarette seems to be 'superior and novel'. You originally posted that: >"Advertising is an act of malice, particularly with addictive products." But changed it to: >"Manipulative advertising is an act of malice, particularly with addictive products." What do you see as the difference between "manipulative advertising" and regular "advertising", and how is either (or both) malicious? Advertising is basically telling people that you are offering them something, and trying to persuade them to buy/use it, and I am not sure how that is "characterized by unscrupulous control of a situation or person."
- arrosenberg 6y agoYou are talking to two different people, and the streams are kind of crossing. I agree adding a flavor can be superior and novel, but if you read what I originally wrote it was specifically worded to make the addictive quality the overriding concern. Menthol wasn't more addictive because of the flavor, it was addictive because it allowed the user to get more nicotine per hit.
- nickff 6y agoTeMPOraL was making the case that menthol was not superior and novel, and I was contesting that specific assertion. That aside, if you consider the addictive quality to be the overriding, and believe that "Breaking Bad" possesses (some of) it, then why doesn't BB's addictiveness override its superiority and novelty?
- arrosenberg 6y agoIs Breaking Bad addictive? It's a good show, and it's compelling, but my analysis wouldn't conclude that it is addictive.