> This is not a "bad" thing, but it's not what the Average Joe wants, it's more what the Average Joe is incited to do. More clicking (on ads directly, or on "en

> This is not a "bad" thing, but it's not what the Average Joe wants, it's more what the Average Joe is incited to do. More clicking (on ads directly, or on "engaging content" that shows more ads) is what the business owners want from an Average Joe. This is a bit of a philosophical question. Are there things we want that weren't somehow influenced by society (e.g. family, peers, advertisements, culture, etc.)? I'd argue very few things, aside from the basic biological needs. By corollary, almost everything we want is the result of external influence. > But "people do it == people directly desire it" is a manifestly wrong metric. When something is in short supply in a store, people will line up to secure the chance to buy it. But Apple would be insane to think that people lining up to buy a newest Macbook on the day or release want lining up, and that more lining up is what they'd enjoy. People tolerate lining up to get what they desire. Equally, people tolerate more clicking in order to get what they desire, and what they'd likely prefer to obtain with one click. If you measured line up times at Apple stores, you would almost certainly find out that its effect (of longer line ups) is a decrease in revenue (and therefore not something people want). If your point was that metrics can be misinterpreted and misused, I absolutely agree with you. My question was specifically about the revenue/engagement metrics commonly used for software. To me they seem like reasonable proxies that you are building software people want.