3 ms·

That's being facetious since you're now using morally questionable examples and rohypnol wouldn't fit the example of buying something that relies on willpower t

by hoi 13y ago

That's being facetious since you're now using morally questionable examples and rohypnol wouldn't fit the example of buying something that relies on willpower to stop you. A better example would be, an exam revision/study website that affiliates themselves with energy drinks/bars. There isn't a requirement to buy the energy drinks to continue to use the app, but would be interesting to see if people are more inclined to buy the energy foods. Alternatively a bakery/cake website, whether they can increase conversions.

PavlovsCat 13y ago
> That's being facetious since you're now using morally questionable examples No, I'm 100% serious. It's morally questionable for the same reason, it just has lots more of that reason: To softly encourage someone to go against their own interest, or to force them, is a difference of degree, not in morality. As Kathy puts it: But if it's "content" designed solely to suck people in ("7 ways to be OMG awesome!!") for the chance to "convert", we're hurting people. If we're pumping out "content" because frequency, we're hurting people. > There isn't a requirement to buy the energy drinks to continue to use the app, but would be interesting to see if people are more inclined to buy the energy foods. Why not pay breastfeeding mothers to put stickers of Ronald McDonald on their breasts? Wouldn't it be interesting to see if more kids grow up eat at McDonald's a lot? For more info, search on youtube for "mitchell webb kill the poor"... i.e. just because it's possible, just because it's profitable for YOU, doesn't mean you should do it. Just because you win a little, for a while, doesn't mean zero sum games aren't a waste of time and life in the long run. Because I know you love my analogies: This is like someone reading Nineteen-Eightyfour as a manual; a tragic waste of a great point made. > Alternatively a bakery/cake website, whether they can increase conversions. To find ways to make people eat unhealthy, because who cares what suffering (and for those who only understand that: gigantic costs, too) that produces down the road?

by hoi 13y ago

PavlovsCat 13y ago

> That's being facetious since you're now using morally questionable examples No, I'm 100% serious. It's morally questionable for the same reason, it just has lots more of that reason: To softly encourage someone to go against their own interest, or to force them, is a difference of degree, not in morality. As Kathy puts it: But if it's "content" designed solely to suck people in ("7 ways to be OMG awesome!!") for the chance to "convert", we're hurting people. If we're pumping out "content" because frequency, we're hurting people. > There isn't a requirement to buy the energy drinks to continue to use the app, but would be interesting to see if people are more inclined to buy the energy foods. Why not pay breastfeeding mothers to put stickers of Ronald McDonald on their breasts? Wouldn't it be interesting to see if more kids grow up eat at McDonald's a lot? For more info, search on youtube for "mitchell webb kill the poor"... i.e. just because it's possible, just because it's profitable for YOU, doesn't mean you should do it. Just because you win a little, for a while, doesn't mean zero sum games aren't a waste of time and life in the long run. Because I know you love my analogies: This is like someone reading Nineteen-Eightyfour as a manual; a tragic waste of a great point made. > Alternatively a bakery/cake website, whether they can increase conversions. To find ways to make people eat unhealthy, because who cares what suffering (and for those who only understand that: gigantic costs, too) that produces down the road?