2 ms·

Do you have a specific example of a subscription based platform that is as insidiously addicting as the ad supported ones?

codethief 8mo ago
Netflix?
fauigerzigerk 8mo ago
- Games. - Gambling while rarely subscription based is usually paid for directly rather than ad funded. - Newspaper subscriptions are no less addictive for news junkies than purely ad funded newspapers. - I watch a lot of Youtube, far more than I used to before I started paying for the subscription. - Netflix and in the olden days TV. I'm not entirely sure what "insidiously addictive" actually means. I do sometimes scroll through some TikTok vids. I don't find it particularly addictive compared to, say, Hacker News.
- ajam1507 8mo ago
  You're right that modern video games and Netflix are a good examples of things that are non-ad-based, but are insidiously addictive. I used "insidiously addictive" to mean something which is engineered specifically to maximize addictive potential, and is not addictive purely on its own merits. An example of a game development pattern that I would consider "merely addictive" would be a game developer trying to make their game as fun as possible. Does maximizing fun inherently make a game more likely to be addictive? Of course, but addiction was not the criteria being optimized for. An example of an insidiously addictive video game would be one where the developers specifically created features in the hopes that they would create a dependency with the product to drive subscriptions or sales. It's at least partially about the level of cynicism with which the product is being developed. A more stark example would be a fast food restaurant refining their recipe to make it more delicious versus one adding drugs to the food to make people addicted. Newspapers and Youtube are both examples of services that are engineered to be ad-based but have a subscription option, so they're most likely still driven by the same attention-seeking incentives.
  - fauigerzigerk 8mo ago
    Corporations want to sell as much as possible to make as much money as possible. Whenever the frequency, quantity or intensity of use drives up earnings, you are bound to get the same result: More "addictive" designs are better for earnings than less "addictive" designs. The difference (if any) between addictive because fun and addictive by design is irrelevant for this outcome. What I will grant you is that the link can be more direct with ad funding. If a newspaper publisher knows that some very loyal subscribers only ever read 5 articles every morning, making that particular group read 30 articles would not drive up earnings. But I think on average across all readers the link between reading more and higher earnings would still exist and hence the incentive to make the product more "addictive".
    - ajam1507 8mo ago
      > If a newspaper publisher knows that some very loyal subscribers only ever read 5 articles every morning, making that particular group read 30 articles would not drive up earnings. I think it's hard to say if that's true. A consumer might be willing to pay more for a service they use a lot rather than a little. What I do know is that I can see plainly that advertising-driven services are among the worse offenders for creating addictive products and other revenue models generally provide healthier incentives to direct development. The EU's general approach here is probably better than banning advertising since it diagnoses a clear problem, but leaves it open for regulators and companies to address it.
      - fauigerzigerk 8mo ago
        >What I do know is that I can see plainly that advertising-driven services are among the worse offenders for creating addictive products and other revenue models generally provide healthier incentives to direct development. I can see plainly that this is not the case and I have given you a number of examples. But I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. >The EU's general approach here is probably better than banning advertising since it diagnoses a clear problem I also prefer this to a ban because a ban would be incredibly destructive and regressive while this regulation will be merely ineffective.

codethief 8mo ago

Netflix?

fauigerzigerk 8mo ago

- Games. - Gambling while rarely subscription based is usually paid for directly rather than ad funded. - Newspaper subscriptions are no less addictive for news junkies than purely ad funded newspapers. - I watch a lot of Youtube, far more than I used to before I started paying for the subscription. - Netflix and in the olden days TV. I'm not entirely sure what "insidiously addictive" actually means. I do sometimes scroll through some TikTok vids. I don't find it particularly addictive compared to, say, Hacker News.

ajam1507 8mo ago
You're right that modern video games and Netflix are a good examples of things that are non-ad-based, but are insidiously addictive. I used "insidiously addictive" to mean something which is engineered specifically to maximize addictive potential, and is not addictive purely on its own merits. An example of a game development pattern that I would consider "merely addictive" would be a game developer trying to make their game as fun as possible. Does maximizing fun inherently make a game more likely to be addictive? Of course, but addiction was not the criteria being optimized for. An example of an insidiously addictive video game would be one where the developers specifically created features in the hopes that they would create a dependency with the product to drive subscriptions or sales. It's at least partially about the level of cynicism with which the product is being developed. A more stark example would be a fast food restaurant refining their recipe to make it more delicious versus one adding drugs to the food to make people addicted. Newspapers and Youtube are both examples of services that are engineered to be ad-based but have a subscription option, so they're most likely still driven by the same attention-seeking incentives.
- fauigerzigerk 8mo ago
  Corporations want to sell as much as possible to make as much money as possible. Whenever the frequency, quantity or intensity of use drives up earnings, you are bound to get the same result: More "addictive" designs are better for earnings than less "addictive" designs. The difference (if any) between addictive because fun and addictive by design is irrelevant for this outcome. What I will grant you is that the link can be more direct with ad funding. If a newspaper publisher knows that some very loyal subscribers only ever read 5 articles every morning, making that particular group read 30 articles would not drive up earnings. But I think on average across all readers the link between reading more and higher earnings would still exist and hence the incentive to make the product more "addictive".
  - ajam1507 8mo ago
    > If a newspaper publisher knows that some very loyal subscribers only ever read 5 articles every morning, making that particular group read 30 articles would not drive up earnings. I think it's hard to say if that's true. A consumer might be willing to pay more for a service they use a lot rather than a little. What I do know is that I can see plainly that advertising-driven services are among the worse offenders for creating addictive products and other revenue models generally provide healthier incentives to direct development. The EU's general approach here is probably better than banning advertising since it diagnoses a clear problem, but leaves it open for regulators and companies to address it.
    - fauigerzigerk 8mo ago
      >What I do know is that I can see plainly that advertising-driven services are among the worse offenders for creating addictive products and other revenue models generally provide healthier incentives to direct development. I can see plainly that this is not the case and I have given you a number of examples. But I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. >The EU's general approach here is probably better than banning advertising since it diagnoses a clear problem I also prefer this to a ban because a ban would be incredibly destructive and regressive while this regulation will be merely ineffective.