4 ms·

It's a very good point that I think some commenters here should take to heart. No matter how enlightened we think we are, we're all part of the masses and behav

It's a very good point that I think some commenters here should take to heart. No matter how enlightened we think we are, we're all part of the masses and behave this way at one point or another.

telios 3y ago
The reason it works is because they've done the research to make it work. It isn't a coincidence DAUs increase. I think it is important to recognize that it can impact you, and take steps to account for that, even if - or especially if - you don't want it to. You are not immune to propaganda, and all that.
- raxxorraxor 3y ago
  In German the DAU is the "dumbest assumed user", the worst case consideration when designing UI. My impression is that if you try to increase DAUs, you often increase both types.
npsimons 3y ago
> No matter how enlightened we think we are, we're all part of the masses and behave this way at one point or another. While this is true, it stands to question: why build systems to encourage this? Shouldn't we be trying to do better? If nothing else, how can one avoid falling into these traps?
- intended 3y ago
  Spitballing - Perhaps due long tail effects. Tech (platforms) will always be advertising focused, because information systems scale with compute. marginal costs are so minor, that the limit becomes human attention. Which is also why apple may be able to focus on user centric design better. They are product + tech. Then again I can see other physical product firms delving into advertising - so its most likely corporate behavior/values.
- tqi 3y ago
  I think the problem is there isn't a clear delineation between "traps" and "meaningful improvement." Take Signal for example - early days they had a ton of success with a core group of users, in spite of a number of product warts. Ever since then, they've been making usability improvements to lower friction and appeal to more and more marginal users. Is that good or bad? Based on the hn threads I've seen, it seems like the jury is pretty mixed?
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    Signal is a special case because it's a generic messenger app - meaning it's target audience is legitimately everyone, and with its philosophy and E2EE in general preventing interoperability, it has to capture everyone. It has to be optimized towards a Marl, or else it'll fail to network effects. Some software is like that. Most isn't - but the enshittification culture is affecting it all the same.
    - tqi 3y ago
      I don't think signal is an especially special case. While it may be clear and obvious to you which apps are which, I think that the reality is that its never a clear delineation.
- spott 3y ago
  Because there is an endless amount of human time spent like this, but we all have limited attention for other things. If you try to appeal to someone’s better parts, then there is a limit to the amount of attention that they can apply to your product. If you try to appeal to someone’s base need for dopamine, then the limit of attention is much higher.
- airtonix 3y ago
  [dead]
- rglullis 3y ago
  We have them, they exist for millennia. It's just that most of them are considered too boring or are judged as a whole by looking at some of its members of questionable character - who ironically are there because they know they are not perfect but trying to be better.
- RugnirViking 3y ago
  > While this is true, it stands to question: why build systems to encourage this? Shouldn't we be trying to do better? until incentives change, people will continue to encourage this. The base instinct behaviors when one is stressed and tired and checked out are the most profitable, the most susceptible to adverts etc. The way to encourage conciencousness, taking pride in creation etc is to see a few (the right amount of) others (who are seen by the user as peers, not unnatainable far off creators) doing the same. Maybe stretched/challenged a little - one or two at most people above their skill level, who appear approachable and humble. It's the format of most true knowledge creation, be it classrooms, effective workplaces, sports programs, and others
beefield 3y ago
This is something important that people do not seem to grasp. Intelligence is a really high dimensional thing. Even the ones that are highly intelligent in some dimensions are dumb as rock in vast majority of other dimensions. So we all are basically morons with some occasional flashes of intelligence in some individuals.
- checkyoursudo 3y ago
  Really dumb people don't know that they are really dumb. Dumb people know that they are dumb. Below average people think they are average. Average people think they are smart. Smart people know they are smart but not highly intelligent. Highly intelligent people think they are geniuses (including in all possible fields). Geniuses, real honest-to-goodness geniuses, know that they are smart in many ways but mostly dumb. I cannot prove it, but this is how I think it is. For the record, I think I am smart; however, because of the Iron Rule of Intelligence above, it is equally possible that I am only average.

It's a very good point that I think some commenters here should take to heart. No matter how enlightened we think we are, we're all part of the masses and behave this way at one point or another.

telios 3y ago

The reason it works is because they've done the research to make it work. It isn't a coincidence DAUs increase. I think it is important to recognize that it can impact you, and take steps to account for that, even if - or especially if - you don't want it to. You are not immune to propaganda, and all that.

raxxorraxor 3y ago
In German the DAU is the "dumbest assumed user", the worst case consideration when designing UI. My impression is that if you try to increase DAUs, you often increase both types.

npsimons 3y ago

> No matter how enlightened we think we are, we're all part of the masses and behave this way at one point or another. While this is true, it stands to question: why build systems to encourage this? Shouldn't we be trying to do better? If nothing else, how can one avoid falling into these traps?

intended 3y ago
Spitballing - Perhaps due long tail effects. Tech (platforms) will always be advertising focused, because information systems scale with compute. marginal costs are so minor, that the limit becomes human attention. Which is also why apple may be able to focus on user centric design better. They are product + tech. Then again I can see other physical product firms delving into advertising - so its most likely corporate behavior/values.
tqi 3y ago
I think the problem is there isn't a clear delineation between "traps" and "meaningful improvement." Take Signal for example - early days they had a ton of success with a core group of users, in spite of a number of product warts. Ever since then, they've been making usability improvements to lower friction and appeal to more and more marginal users. Is that good or bad? Based on the hn threads I've seen, it seems like the jury is pretty mixed?
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  Signal is a special case because it's a generic messenger app - meaning it's target audience is legitimately everyone, and with its philosophy and E2EE in general preventing interoperability, it has to capture everyone. It has to be optimized towards a Marl, or else it'll fail to network effects. Some software is like that. Most isn't - but the enshittification culture is affecting it all the same.
  - tqi 3y ago
    I don't think signal is an especially special case. While it may be clear and obvious to you which apps are which, I think that the reality is that its never a clear delineation.
spott 3y ago
Because there is an endless amount of human time spent like this, but we all have limited attention for other things. If you try to appeal to someone’s better parts, then there is a limit to the amount of attention that they can apply to your product. If you try to appeal to someone’s base need for dopamine, then the limit of attention is much higher.
airtonix 3y ago
[dead]
rglullis 3y ago
We have them, they exist for millennia. It's just that most of them are considered too boring or are judged as a whole by looking at some of its members of questionable character - who ironically are there because they know they are not perfect but trying to be better.
RugnirViking 3y ago
> While this is true, it stands to question: why build systems to encourage this? Shouldn't we be trying to do better? until incentives change, people will continue to encourage this. The base instinct behaviors when one is stressed and tired and checked out are the most profitable, the most susceptible to adverts etc. The way to encourage conciencousness, taking pride in creation etc is to see a few (the right amount of) others (who are seen by the user as peers, not unnatainable far off creators) doing the same. Maybe stretched/challenged a little - one or two at most people above their skill level, who appear approachable and humble. It's the format of most true knowledge creation, be it classrooms, effective workplaces, sports programs, and others

beefield 3y ago

This is something important that people do not seem to grasp. Intelligence is a really high dimensional thing. Even the ones that are highly intelligent in some dimensions are dumb as rock in vast majority of other dimensions. So we all are basically morons with some occasional flashes of intelligence in some individuals.

checkyoursudo 3y ago
Really dumb people don't know that they are really dumb. Dumb people know that they are dumb. Below average people think they are average. Average people think they are smart. Smart people know they are smart but not highly intelligent. Highly intelligent people think they are geniuses (including in all possible fields). Geniuses, real honest-to-goodness geniuses, know that they are smart in many ways but mostly dumb. I cannot prove it, but this is how I think it is. For the record, I think I am smart; however, because of the Iron Rule of Intelligence above, it is equally possible that I am only average.