I suppose it comes down to using the metric as the measure, whatever makes the company the most money will be the preferred route, and the mechanisms by which w

I suppose it comes down to using the metric as the measure, whatever makes the company the most money will be the preferred route, and the mechanisms by which we achieve those sales are rarely given enough thought. It reflect a more timeless mantra of 'if someone is willing to pay for it, then the offering is valuable' willfully ignoring negative psycho-social impacts. It's a convenient abdication of responsibility supported by the so-called "free market" ethos. I am not against companies making money, but we need to serious consider the second-order impacts that technology has within society. This is evident in click-driven models, outrage baiting and dopamine hijacking. We still treat the psyche like fair-game for anyone who can hack it. So hack we shall. That said, I am not for over-regulation either, since the regulators often gather too much power. Policy is personnel, after all, and someone needs to watch the watchers. My view is that systems (technological, economic or otherwise) have inherent values that, when operating at this level of complexity and communication, exist in a kind of dance with the people using them. People obviously affect how the tools are made, but I think persistent use of any tool will have lasting impacts on the people using it, in turn affecting their decisions on what to prioritise in each iteration.