4 ms·

I'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 t

I'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 ago
Speaking 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 ago
  I 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.
  - edmundsauto 6y ago
    There are also users whose use of a service is driven by direct value received (connecting with families, for free). Both can be asserted as true, both carry very little informative value as statements. The strongest statement that this leads to is something like "some users are manipulated, some receive value."
    - CivBase 6y ago
      > "some users are manipulated, some receive value." Sure. That brings us back to my original question. Why invest in "providing value to users" when psychological manipulation is so much cheaper? So long as psychological manipulation has a greater ROI, there's no incentive to invest in providing value. Why pay $200 for a fishing net when a $20 one is easier to use and catches just as many fish?
      - edmundsauto 6y ago
        Because the people in charge of those companies understand the value in users returning to use their service. And that short term trickery isn’t really a good route to building value over decades, which is what these companies are eying. Can you give a concrete example of short term thinking that has surfaced in product? I see a lot of hand waving (in general, not from you) about BJ Fogg’s work, but I’d like to know what you specifically think was a decision made to favor “short term trickery” instead of investing in a long term quality product.
        CivBase 6y ago
        The mobile games market is an excellent, concrete example of service providers which not only favor "short term trickery" over "long term quality", but actively reduce the long term quality of their services to engage in that trickery and are wildly successful for doing so. Modern mobile games are chuck full of time gates, grinds, fake currencies, and many other dark patterns designed to physiologically manipulate their users. They usually give users just enough value for them to become invested. After that, the sunk cost fallacy keeps them "engaged" despite the terrible value proposition. Some users tough it out and consume a torrent of ads to keep playing for "free", while others fork over money for microtransactions to keep up with the game's demands without wasting so much time. Either way, it's a terrible experience for users that makes mobile game developers tons of money.
        edmundsauto 6y ago
        Ahh, that is a great example. Zynga (when I was a game player) did this a lot. But they also strike me as materially different in behavior than the massive tech companies that often are labeled as manipulative. No disagreement from me that games, like gambling, use this technique a ton. I’m just not sure this menta mode applies to the decisions made by big tech.

edmundsauto 6y ago

Speaking 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 ago
I 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.
- edmundsauto 6y ago
  There are also users whose use of a service is driven by direct value received (connecting with families, for free). Both can be asserted as true, both carry very little informative value as statements. The strongest statement that this leads to is something like "some users are manipulated, some receive value."
  - CivBase 6y ago
    > "some users are manipulated, some receive value." Sure. That brings us back to my original question. Why invest in "providing value to users" when psychological manipulation is so much cheaper? So long as psychological manipulation has a greater ROI, there's no incentive to invest in providing value. Why pay $200 for a fishing net when a $20 one is easier to use and catches just as many fish?
    - edmundsauto 6y ago
      Because the people in charge of those companies understand the value in users returning to use their service. And that short term trickery isn’t really a good route to building value over decades, which is what these companies are eying. Can you give a concrete example of short term thinking that has surfaced in product? I see a lot of hand waving (in general, not from you) about BJ Fogg’s work, but I’d like to know what you specifically think was a decision made to favor “short term trickery” instead of investing in a long term quality product.
      - CivBase 6y ago
        The mobile games market is an excellent, concrete example of service providers which not only favor "short term trickery" over "long term quality", but actively reduce the long term quality of their services to engage in that trickery and are wildly successful for doing so. Modern mobile games are chuck full of time gates, grinds, fake currencies, and many other dark patterns designed to physiologically manipulate their users. They usually give users just enough value for them to become invested. After that, the sunk cost fallacy keeps them "engaged" despite the terrible value proposition. Some users tough it out and consume a torrent of ads to keep playing for "free", while others fork over money for microtransactions to keep up with the game's demands without wasting so much time. Either way, it's a terrible experience for users that makes mobile game developers tons of money.
        edmundsauto 6y ago
        Ahh, that is a great example. Zynga (when I was a game player) did this a lot. But they also strike me as materially different in behavior than the massive tech companies that often are labeled as manipulative. No disagreement from me that games, like gambling, use this technique a ton. I’m just not sure this menta mode applies to the decisions made by big tech.