3 ms·
Which they openly admit to doing on purpose to “increase engagement” or whatever, even attaching a monetary value to shoving new stuff in your face before you c
by KyeRussell 4y ago
Which they openly admit to doing on purpose to “increase engagement” or whatever, even attaching a monetary value to shoving new stuff in your face before you can finish the old stuff.
- nonrandomstring 4y agoThis is why I believe forced interoperability is essential to the future of online consumer tech. We've discussed it here in the context of social media monopoly regulation, but it has far greater implications. Salient examples are the alternative Twitter interfaces that proliferated, and indeed those for Hacker News. One huge benefit is that users won't be stuck with a single, often hostile UI, but be free to either interpret data client-side, or make use of a possible open market in presentation layer websites which may add their own value.
- robertlagrant 4y agoThat would be cool, but then some of those interfaces (probably the ones with the most ad funding) would be part-owned by one of the streaming services and would push their content the most. Feels like it'd be just one more hull on the Titanic.
- solarkraft 4y agoWhich is fine as long as the better ones are available.
- robertlagrant 4y agoMy point being that most people will get the experience I mention, as they'll only be able to follow the ads.
- barnabee 4y agoCouldn’t agree more. Infrastructure/service providers cannot be allowed to continue to control the interfaces that are used to access their services.