Comment by ALittleLight
5 years ago
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!
I figured out that trick recently too! It worked really well for "Devs". Every episode of a cliff-hanger-y show tends to have a point 1/3 of the way through where they have resolved the previous episode's tension but not yet started the next one. I stop right there.
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?
The dividing line over whether an addiction or behaviour is "bad" is whether or not it negatively affects your life and/or the lives of those around you.
https://www.asam.org/Quality-Science/definition-of-addiction
At least with tobacco there’s good evidence of chemical dependency on nicotine. That IMO is what distinguishes that from whatever moral panic people are into at the moment.
2 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'.
Sure, but they were developed and implemented to better hijack human behavior, which was part of the investigation into the tobacco industry.
1 reply →
Were they, or were they marketed as such until the perception stuck?
Manipulative advertising is an act of malice, particularly with addictive products.
7 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?
They do have embedded product placements. More sinister than ads with "sponsored" labels because there's no indication to users that it's an ad. Also, someone who watches Netflix 4+ hours a day is probably much more likely to be hooked and unable to cancel their subscription than someone who watches 30 mins a day.
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.
And when it's done for the day, it's done. You can't turn on your TV every 7 minutes to check for new General Hospital, and even if you binged 57 years of episodes, you would in time exhaust the content.
1 reply →