Comment by dylan604
5 years ago
This bit of dialog should be the smoking gun in my opinion. Big Tobacco got taken to the woodshed over this very thing: making the product as addictive as possible. This should be the club that is used to beat Social Media platforms over their heads. As with Big Tobacco I'm sure it rings true with Social platforms as well in that not just one of them is doing it they all are.
One problem with this is that it's easy to conflate "addictive" with "people like to use it". Should television shows been punished for cliffhangers because they hook people into seeing the next episode? Breaking Bad had an interesting plot and character progression that made me want to keep watching - are they addicting me?
One person might say "We created all these statuses and features to be addictive" but it seems just as true to say "We created this stuff because people liked it and we are trying to make something people like."
> Should television shows been punished for cliffhangers because they hook people into seeing the next episode?
Does this significantly negatively impact the lives of viewers or of those around them? Addiction doesn't just mean "want to have it". Addiction means "want to have it so bad it messes up other aspects of my life".
(For what it's worth, I do personally avoid cliff-hanger shows because I find the anxiety and frustration of being left hanging is rarely sufficiently well compensated by the quality of the show.)
Doesn't addiction mean "compulsive consumption after habituation," as in the original enjoyment has worn off, but if you stop doing it you will experience a hangover ?
My trick for enjoying cliffhangers is to pause an episode halfway through before getting back to the series.
It's also a good trick for going to bed on time and breaking the 'just one more episode...' problem!
1 reply →
Facebook is definitely addictive. It took me more than a year of trials to be able to break the cycle and get off the platform. The thing is, it gets harder over time to take a pause from it.
But now that it has been one month since I last used it, and I noticed that all I did was to replace my Facebook time with Hacker News, I can't but wonder: Does the addiction problem lie with the user, or in the platform? Or is it, more generally, in the way the internet serves us content?
Well, many times the thing one addicted to is used to try to help manage negative feelings in other areas of life. So maybe it’s time to take stock of that?
Similar here, however HN doesn't fill me with dread like FB does.
Different words with different definitions. Who cares if people like to use it if it's addictive?
"Addiction is a brain disorder characterized by compulsive engagement in rewarding stimuli despite adverse consequences." Wikipedia
Honest question though, if we were to dig into “brain disorder”, how well defined is that really? Is there a measurable effect on a human brain when using an “addictive” product vs. one we are coming back to because we like to use it?
4 replies →
> Should television shows been punished for cliffhangers because they hook people into seeing the next episode? Breaking Bad had an interesting plot and character progression that made me want to keep watching - are they addicting me?
Honestly, this is a super interesting question. I would say anything designed to succeed by hijacking human brain chemistry instead of providing superior or novel quality is probably worth regulating at some level.
From that standpoint, Breaking Bad would not have an issue - it's superior and novel. Shows that succeed in making a viewer binge with a combination of (effectively) mid-episode endings and autoplay, are somewhat hacky. You can't regulate cliffhanger endings, so autoplay should probably not be legal - Netflix already asks you if you want to continue watching, they should simply do so after every episode. Shows with good content like Breaking Bad would still be easy to binge (just press yes once an hour), and poor quality shows would have a harder time taking advantage of brain chemistry by requiring an affirmative act.
Menthol cigarettes were, at one point, 'superior and novel'.
10 replies →
I agree. It's difficult to determine where the line is drawn. I think the primary considerations should be the methods used and the potential harm caused.
Yes, TV shows can be made to be "addicting" but what is the potential harm? Someone sits around watching too much TV? That's not a very big drain on society at the end of the day. Sure it's not great, but the negative outcomes for the society as a whole don't seem to be too impactful.
Now look at gambling. It's certainly addictive because of various techniques used by casinos to get people hooked. It seems that much of society agrees that it also has some negative impact on society as a whole. It drags people into impossible debts which can have a variety of negative externalities... loan sharks, violence, evaporation of wealth, financial crimes, etc.
It seems clear to me that not only is social media addictive but it is also having a net-negative impact on society and that is why people are concerned. If the impact was just people are spending their evenings glued to the screen but not going out and causing societal issues then I don't think anyone would be too concerned.
> Should television shows been punished for cliffhangers
The moment when Netflix execs openly says their competition is sleep, yes.
Do Netflix gain anything from having people watch more? Isn't it a flat monthly subscription fee?
1 reply →
TV shows have a definitive end, cliffhanger or otherwise, infinite scrolling through Facebook does not.
The General Hospital soap opera TV show has been running for 57 years. Facebook was only launched 16 years ago.
2 replies →
Tobacco use as a percentage of the population has consistently declined by .5% since data started to be gathered the 1960s [0].
The Master Settlement Agreement in 1998 [1] had no statistical impact on the rate reduction of smoking - the rate of decline of smokers is the same now as it was in 1965.
The tobacco industry is more profitable than ever and they are diversifying into nicotine delivery vehicles like vapes, gum [2]. So the underlying goal - increase nicotine dependence across the global population and capture the nicotine consumption market is still going strong.
Much like the desire to be intoxicated, the desire to influence people will never go away. It's baked into our biology. Everyone in this thread interacting with each other is trying to influence everyone else. Facebook etc... is just doing successfully what Bernays dreamed of.
You can beat these platforms all you want - just like the tobacco industry was beat. The problems will just surface elsewhere in a different form.
Attack the root issue - ban advertising. oh and do it in a way that allows for "free speech." The challenge of the century.
[0]https://www.lung.org/research/trends-in-lung-disease/tobacco...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agre...
[2]https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-tobacco-industry-rebounds-f...
I tend to agree with this line of thinking, but I wonder if banning advertising wont have similar difficulties. There will be more sneaky product placement, anonymous donations to podcasters who tend to promote certain products/beliefs/etc.
I say this not because I think we should just give up and not ban advertising but because I'm curious how it might be done effectively.
Almost certainly the same influence patterns would emerge in different forms elsewhere, perhaps even more insidious forms!
Hence, why I think it really is (one of) the hardest challenges of our century: How do you eliminate or severely restrict influence vectors?
Who/how determines what qualifies as good/bad influence or reality?
Should positive (however defined) influence be allowed/promoted?
Not sure this one is solvable as it would require a global optimization vector which we don't (and maybe can't) generate.
In order for the decline in smoking to remain linear, you must convince people who are increasingly less likely to quit. Consistent .5% decline is (weak) evidence for the effectiveness of efforts to combat smoking, not the opposite.
I don't know if that impacts your larger point with regards to nicotine addiction in general, but I think it's worth noting.
It's an interesting point. I would tend to agree with that in the sense that it's a log graph of "difficulty" required.
However I'm not sure how that would be supported without assuming there is some base-rate that would smoke no matter what, as though smoking specifically is a natural inclination, with everyone above the base rate on some log distribution of "ability to convince to stop smoking."
I disagree somewhat. The addiction argument is merely an extreme.
Suppose someone offered to mow your lawn for free. Great offer, so you take them up on it. Turns out they're also using the access you give them to mine gold you didn't know was in your backyard. Whether or not you were addicted to their mowing services is irrelevant, they're stealing from you.
The problem with Facebook is that they're taking your attention and monetizing it. There's no serious argument against requiring them to disclose their actions - particularly who is buying your attention. It doesn't make any difference if you're addicted or a mere user of their product, they're still using your attention without telling you. They simply know more about science.
I think it’s more than just making it addictive. It’s making choices that make the product more harmful in order to make it more addictive. Even that bar, though, hasn’t triggered action against food producers for sugaring things up. I think there also must be a critical mass of cultural anger.
They really didn't; cigarettes were allowed to flourish for decades and legal action was only taken once their popularity started to wane. Don't expect any meaningful action from your govt
Sure, Big Tobacco is still a thing. However, their actions of targeting kids/teens were curtailed. The money they were forced to spend on ad campaigns informing teens of "smoking is bad" appears to have worked. Current reports show smoking in teens has dropped significantly, including current downward trends in vaping as well.
The biggest thing you go do to hurt the likes of FB,IG,Twitter would be to brand them as lame and uncool. If people don't want to use it, then it effects their bottom line. Gov't action isn't require for this, but the right campaign attacking the cool factor will motivate people away from it. (I'm currently wearing my positive thinking cap)
> Big Tobacco got taken to the woodshed
And then nothing really happened in that woodshed other than some lousy warnings on a toxic product for the consumer and its surroundings.
Taxes made them pretty expensive.