4 ms·
If a service is monetized with ads, then the user is the product. We say that a lot but I think a lot of people still don't understand it, especially outside t
by CivBase 6y ago
If a service is monetized with ads, then the user is the product. We say that a lot but I think a lot of people still don't understand it, especially outside the tech sphere. "Engagement" isn't about building a better service; it's about serving more ads. "Driving user engagement" should be seen as synonymous with "psychologically manipulating users to use the service so they see ads".
- hinkley 6y agoIf George Carlin were alive we’d have 3+ hours of material on this topic from him.
- api 6y agoThis is true, but it's not exclusively limited to ad-driven models. It can also be true of surveillance or in-app purchase models. The latter has become big in gaming where games addict the user and then steer them toward purchasing special items, expansion packets, "loot boxes," etc. Basically any app or service where there is a direct link from the amount of time the user spends on it to revenue incentivizes shady "Skinner box" addictive designs and other dark patterns.
- edmundsauto 6y agoWhy not “providing value to users so they use the service so they see ads”? A lot of providing value is marketing and engagement. It can be manipulative and it can also be beneficial to the user - both should be accounted for.
- viraptor 6y agoDifferent metrics. Providing value could be measured in different ways concentrating on that. Engagement doesn't even have to provide value. User going through more pages to get to the thing they need and spending more time in the app is engagement.
- edmundsauto 6y agoIt depends on how you define engagement, I suppose. I've never heard people discuss time spent as an engagement metric, which is (IME) usually actions taken by a user that the business wants to measure. Engagement just measures how engaged your users are. Time spent measures that. These are all proxies for value, because it is very hard to measure value received.
- benlivengood 6y agoThis would be great if the metric was measuring value. Measuring value is hard; the closest quantified analog we have is money. So a valid comparison might be "how much would anyone actually pay for this ad-funded thing?" It turns out the answer is often $0.
- edmundsauto 6y agoTime or attention is another way we can measure value. Imperfect, but all measurements are imperfect.
- CivBase 6y agoWhy invest in "providing value to users" when psychological manipulation is so much cheaper?
- Nasrudith 6y agoBecause people tend to drop you and forget about it when you only provide clickbait and doomscroll fodder when they realize that you have nothing of value to provide.
- CivBase 6y agoI'm not so sure about that. What value does Facebook offer that isn't done better by a dozen other platforms? Most people I talk to openly admit it provides them with no value, but they still idly scroll through their feeds day after day and can never bring themselves to ditch the platform. Simply put, they're addicted. Facebook is widely hated yet wildly successful because they have mastered psychological manipulation.
- edmundsauto 6y agoSpeaking for myself as a light FB user in the US, I get a ton of value from seeing my relatives' updates. Otherwise, I would have no connection with the next generation of babies in my family. I generally find this line of thinking problematic: conversations with a homogenous and small group -> generalization based on an interpretation of their interpretation of their experience. Also objectionable but on the other side: people's revealed preferences for how they spend their time are better indicators of what they find valuable. Neither explanation is particularly compelling except as confirmation bias IMO.
- CivBase 6y agoI was providing a quick and simple example, not making a generalization about all Facebook users. Just as my anecdotal evidence does not necessarily demonstrate an addiction problem across all Facebook users, your anecdotal evidence does not demonstrate a lack thereof. The point is that there are users whose use of a service is driven by psychological manipulation, not by a value proposition. The relationship between many people I know and Facebook is merely an example.
- hutzlibu 6y ago"It can be manipulative and it can also be beneficial to the user" Example please, how it can be beneficial to me, to be manipulated by ads.
- edmundsauto 6y agoAds pay for a service that allows you to video chat on a reliable and private connection with anyone in the world, for free. They also pay for google search, which has immense value to you.
- themacguffinman 6y agoThey also connect consumers with products they might want. Most advertising is simply making sure people know about a product if/when they need it, no deception required.
- hutzlibu 6y agoThe ads are still not beneficial to me. I simply trade something bad for value.
- edmundsauto 6y agoIt’s possible other people have a very different perception and experience than you do.
- devmunchies 6y ago> If a service is monetized with ads, then the user is the product false. The derived data and access to eyeballs is the product. The user is a resource for creating the product. Some analogies: - Cows are not the product, milk is the product. Cows are a resource/asset. - Prostitutes are not the product, sex is the product. The women are resources. I feel this more accurately dehumanizing than simply stating users are the product.
- 8note 6y agoI don't think the eyeballs are the product. Eyeballs don't need to be advertised to because they don't spend money
- Nasrudith 6y agoSpending money is the assumption but that is unworkable as a metric for a third party. Far easier to say you did your part with x views than whatever janky curve on attributed sales would result in.