I invested in Google and Facebook years before their first revenue and profited enormously. I was an early adviser to Facebook’s team, but I am terrified by the damage being done by these Internet monopolies.
Facebook and Google get their revenue from advertising, the effectiveness of which depends on gaining and maintaining consumer attention. Borrowing techniques from the gambling industry, Facebook, Google and others exploit human nature, creating addictive behaviors that compel consumers to check for new messages, respond to notifications, and seek validation from technologies whose only goal is to generate profits for their owners.
The people at Facebook and Google believe that giving consumers more of what they want and like is worthy of praise, not criticism. What they fail to recognize is that their products are not making consumers happier or more successful. Like gambling, nicotine, alcohol or heroin, Facebook and Google — most importantly through its YouTube subsidiary — produce short-term happiness with serious negative consequences in the long term. Users fail to recognize the warning signs of addiction until it is too late.
This line of thinking is very odd to me. As mentioned downthread, there are plenty of wonderful things you get out of YouTube, Google, Facebook, etc: music, personal connections, education, exploration, art, etc etc etc. The dopamine-kick stuff isn't inherent to the product: the efficiency of delivery just means that that stuff is easier to get. My usage of all these services is extremely healthy, and none of the complaints people have about addictiveness resonate with me at all; but I've also never been into idle TV watching, or junk food, or celebrity gossip. Unhealthy usage is not inherent to the product.
Advances in food production means that the proportion of people starving and undernourished is lower than ever. It also means that, for the first time, excess food is a problem for more than just kings. It would be kind of crazy to complain that these advances in food production are per se a bad thing because they enabled obesity. They're just a tool that accelerate both good and bad uses.
It was already possible to feed the idle, addiction-prone part of your mind with channel-surfing and People magazine. The Internet has accelerated this possibility by making everything about access to content more efficient, but describing efficiency solely as "making access to bad stuff" more efficient makes no sense.
To me it seems similar to blaming an advance in fuel efficiency for making it cheaper for bank robbers to get to their targets. It's true, but also missing the point.
Like alcohol or gambling, it's probably inherent in the product for some people with genetic predispositions to certain types of addictive behavior. My hypothesis is that the level of "dopamine-kick" is at least partially a function of genes and probably partially a function of nurture. For example there are some people who cannot drink socially, encouraging them to have one drink "to relax with the rest of us" may cause them harm. To the extent that you are designing your application to consume more and more of the user's attention (note that the customer is the advertiser, the addicted user is the product), to make it more and more addictive, you may be ruining some people's lives.
> To the extent that you are designing your application to consume more and more of the user's attention (note that the customer is the advertiser, the addicted user is the product), to make it more and more addictive, you may be ruining some people's lives.
Our economy is intertwined enough that "your actions somewhere down the line may be making it easier for someone to make choices that ruin their lives" is probably true of literally every single person. If you work on a product making low-skill hiring more efficient, you're also lowering McDonald's costs and making it even harder for people with unhealthy relationships with food to resist, and thus "you may be ruining some people's lives".
It's so broad a claim that it's utterly meaningless.
If your direct goal is to consume more and more of your user's attention so that you can sell it to your customers and you don't place any limits on how much you will "harvest" you are on a path to destroy people's lives. Your points are also valid as to second and third order effects but I think you need to distinguish between the deleterious impact of primary goals and side effects. I would suggest the goal of developing an addictive app is similar to developing digital heroin: likely to be highly profitable but ethically and morally bankrupt. I think McNamee is offering a direct and specific ethical test for anyone developing applications.
The hole I see in this idea is that we could have all of the benefits of Youbute, without "YouTube". All of the benefits of these services can exist without the predatory privacy invasive behaviour.
The problem is that there's a ton of value created by the information the services collect. Delivering more value to advertisers allows more video creators to make their livings.
If you started your own site there's absolutely no way you could be profitable competing on both hosting costs and payout to creators.
I broadly agree that creators hugely benefit from these platforms, but that really doesn't seem to be what they're optimizing on imho. And you basically admitted they're a monopoly with that final statement.
It costs money to host video. The volume of advertising you sell supports your costs, with a fraction going to the content creators. Using information you gather increases how much advertising you can sell. The more advertising you sell the more money everyone gets.
Having a low cost infrastructure for video streaming and good advertising deals is not a monopoly, it's an investment.
> Like gambling, nicotine, alcohol or heroin, Facebook and Google — most importantly through its YouTube subsidiary — produce short-term happiness with serious negative consequences in the long term
How could the system incentivize companies like Facebook and Google to use prosocial utility functions in their recommendation engines?
e.g. a video recommendation engine that on default settings suggests videos it thinks will cause the viewer to feel satisfied and change activities if it thinks it will improve their overall wellbeing to stop watching videos now.
I find the grouping of Facebook and Google interesting because I don't view them as similar at all. His Google complaints seem to be aimed at YouTube, and while certainly it could be argued YouTube is addictive, it doesn't seem anywhere near as insidious or manipulative as say Facebook. It is also an amazing platform for creators of all kinds, and also unlike Facebook is creating this incredible resource of freely available, forever archived videos. I see great public good from that.
Yeah, I don't really partake in the weird side of youtube, the number of things i've learned how to do(fix things, build things, cook things etc) from youtube is enormous. Most things I should be able to do myself, and it's because of the people who post things on youtube.
You should see the way young children use wooden blocks if you doubt that wooden blocks are addictive.
I watched my nephews, for 20 minutes, simply throw blocks into a box and say "throw and a miss! Throw and a hit!" It was mindless and ritualistic, and frankly we should frightened of this wooden blocks trend. Don't get me started on the game they call "Tag". /s
I feel like the word "addiction" is losing it's meaning. Just because someone likes something and continues to do it doesn't mean that it's an addiction.
// edit: And really, think about your own experience with video games. Sure, we all played video games at the expense of our homework and conversation with my parents. But who could blame me? Middle & high school cater to the students with room-temp IQs, my parents just rambled about the economy and weather and the boring things I talk about now, and I lacked any challenge in my life expect punking noobs in Starcraft.
You make a really funny analogy, but I hope you see the other side to that argument.
Kids really might stay up all night playing with "addictive" wooden blocks. They might spend 10+ hours a day with the blocks. They may have violent mood swings when you take the blocks away.
But wooden blocks...suck. The types of entertainment kids have had access to in the past is nothing like what they will have access to in the future.
When I was 6-10, I had an unhealthy relationship with comic books. I stole them. I read them to the detriment of education. My parents just had to manage my addiction, because beating it was impossible. And these were just ultimately just crappy drawings on crappier paper.
When my child is 6-10, he will be able to put on a VR Headset and actually BE a comic book superhero. If children can be overwhelmed by a wooden blocks obsession, how the fuck are they supposed to incorporate the type of stimulus into their lives we are now building for them?
At least blocks and comic books have some value for kids' development (and maybe a lot).
If we're at a point where we consider hours of toy unboxing videos and watching adults play with toys on a little screen developmentally equivalent to hours of playing with physical objects or reading comic books, I guess I give up on this whole humanity experiment.
I remember as a kid one Christmas playing with the boxes themselves with my younger siblings, almost forgetting about what was in them. I seriously doubt my (future) kids will do that and that makes me sad and is a little terrifying.
You make a good point-- it does still feel like you want your kids to be bored though. :-P
I think that if the games are structured correctly they can be pro-social. I've been playing PUBG and I've made a handful of friends by joining a squad where I only know one person, and meeting the other people, and then next time I see them on Discord saying hello.
I suppose the other parenting fear is that kids who are addicted to amazing games/VR/youtube won't have the drive to accomplish things in life? I think that games can, to some extent, teach and reward goal-setting. I bait-and-switched Youtube for Games in my previous comment, and I am concerned with kids who watch TV for multiple hours a day, so... the youtube/toddler criticism from kodt may be pretty on-point.
I'm starting to seriously think that moving out to the middle of nowhere and letting my kids run around and play in the woods all day would be the absolute best thing I could for them. Along with a shed to build stuff. I have a six-year-old who is obsessed with YouTube Baby Alive videos and gets very, very upset as we limit her time watching them. It's upsetting for everyone involved as what started out as a cool, fun thing for her as evolved into a daily problem.
I had a borderline unhealthy obsession with legos when I was a kid. It would be all I thought about at school before I got home.
Fast forward a few decades and I've found a nice niche in hardware supply chain. I think play that becomes an obsession can indeed have healthy effects that aren't immediately apparent at the time, but I share your skepticism about YouTube.
The Amish made the argument that maybe we shouldn't be getting so much sugar. They were obviously wrong on the whole.
Now our sugar is being upgraded to crack-cocaine. The Amish are always going to be wrong, until they are right.
I work in Las Vegas, where we had to put VERY strict rules on the gaming industry to prevent them from absolutely destroying large chunks of the population (more than they already do). I'm sure that someday our government will have to step in and protect the vulnerable in our society from the Candy Crush of the next decade.
I won't address most of your comment, but if my generation's interest in video games is anything like the future, I have very little hope in our ability as humans to resist being manipulated by people with money.
It's less the homework and more your ability to interact with your neighbor without a reward.
It was easier to cut the TV time for the kids. Every kid has a cell phone nowadays, for practical and popularity reasons, it's so much more difficult to manage their "online time". In the end, they become more tech-savvy than you and they will remove the technical limits if you happen to set them up for them.
Yes. Facebook is evil, Google is misguided. Besides, Google's services give me much more value than anything Facebook has to offer. Facebook's """"hidden"""" ads in my feed trigger me. Do they think I'm stupid?
Borrowing techniques from the gambling industry, Facebook, Google and others exploit human nature, creating addictive behaviors that compel consumers to check for new messages, respond to notifications, and seek validation from technologies whose only goal is to generate profits for their owners.
I've been thinking a lot lately about much our industry seems to be trying to leverage addiction. It's certainly not just Facebook and Google -- it seems to be happening throughout consumer technology. For example, video games seem carefully optimized to turn us into Skinner mice, and most television apps have adopted the annoying "play the next episode unless the user opts out in X seconds" feature. (Even Plex, although I'm not sure what they're getting out of it.)
Ultimately, I suppose it's up to the consumer to resist the addiction while availing themselves of the value provided by these products, in much the same way that most of us can enjoy and appreciate beer, wine, and spirits without becoming alcoholics. But thinking about these things is making me reconsider what sort of projects I'd like to work on.
I'm reminded of Clay Shirky's talk/essay (wish I could find a link, but it doesn't seem to be on his website any more) about the tremendous consumption of gin (and other drugs) during the Industrial Revolution as a way to deal with the changing world and cognitive surplus of extra time. My hope is that we're in a transitional period when it comes to the internet; we'll become more and more aware of how to use the internet responsibly and regulate ourselves individually or communally to use it for its greatest benefit. But we're in the midst of the Great Binge right now, playing with technologies that have massive psychological effects without considering their long term impacts, giving people what they want in the short term while really reshaping culture, society, and what it means to be a person in the long term.
In my more pessimistic/imaginative moments, I feel like after the coming apocalypse the internet will be banned, Butlerian Jihad-style; long-range communication technologies only for the elite in strictly regulated contexts, because too much access for the individual causes addiction and madness. To be clear, I don't think this is a good outcome (as with the Industrial Revolution, technology has huge long-term benefits if the terrible costs can be overcome) but I think there needs to be a really serious change in how we think about communication technology, and part of that means acknowledging its harms.
Yeah its really ridiculous how quickly people focus on gamification, like if you have a marginally functional product just gamify it as much as possible and people are into that.
I remember seeing this guy playing "point and click" games, and they looked so pointless...
> Even Plex, although I'm not sure what they're getting out of it.
This should be a hint that every feature that makes a product easier to use isn't some nefarious anti-consumer plot: sometimes they're made with the intent to, uh, make the product easier to use.
> Ultimately, I suppose it's up to the consumer to resist the addiction while availing themselves of the value provided by these products, in much the same way that most of us can enjoy and appreciate beer, wine, and spirits without becoming alcoholics. But thinking about these things is making me reconsider what sort of projects I'd like to work on.
As contrarian as I come across in these threads, I don't disagree with the concept that the user doesn't bear 100% of the responsibility for an addictive environment. What I do find odd is how incredibly common the view is across HN that the user bears 0% responsibility, and that they're just a hapless, helpless victim of forces beyond their control.
There are some positive things in life that require maturity and self-control to enjoy safely: I like alcohol less than most of my friends, but I don't go around railing against drinkers and blaming alcohol dealers for being exploitative. I like other drugs a lot more, and I'm well-aware that, just like alcohol, enjoying them comes with the responsibility to be safe about them.
I have wished with my friends that there was a way when binge watching a TV show to know if the next episode ends in a cliffhanger.
We've gotten caught out several times watching 'just one more episode' because there was a cliffhanger only to discover to our frustration that it was a double cliffhanger.
It would have been better for us if we had saved the previous episode for another day instead of going down the rabbit hole.
This is true, and I've known people who seem to find that quality of broadcast TV addictive. Over the years, they tuned the transition to keep viewers from switching channels -- removed the trailing commercial gap, sped up the closing credits, etc. -- and perhaps increased the addictiveness in the process.
I haven't used Facebook in a long time, deactivated my account. I had 2 factor auth on with my phone and they just pinged me twice, back to back, yesterday from their 2 factor auth number asking me to reactivate.
Spamming me from a 2 factor auth number to use your product is a new low I've never encountered elsewhere.
Personally speaking, Google and Facebook provides me with useful and timely information. Life was more inconvenient before these companies were around. Yes, they introduce some of their own new problems, but I would rather not return to the pre-G/FB days. It would be best if future companies and products learn lessons from the current situation and build even better information platforms.
> Facebook and Google — most importantly through its YouTube subsidiary — produce short-term happiness with serious negative consequences in the long term.
He says that and then proceeds to provide absolutely nothing to back up such an extraordinary claim (emphasis on the serious negative + long-term part).
This article reeks of some terrible combination of nanny state authoritarianism and trite moral lecturing about proper use of one's time (something that was more common a century or more ago when the US was overflowing with lecturing about how to live a 'proper' life).
Want to know why people are spending 50 minutes per day on Facebook? Because for those people it's better than the alternative, their lives are devoid of anything better to do with that time (specifically the person doesn't want to do anything else with that time, after all it's their free will choice). That's the same reason those same people were previously watching four or more hours of TV each night (which they frequently pay/paid a lot of money to do). They want to watch hours of tv, they want to spend 50 minutes on Facebook - who are you to tell them how to live?
Twitter, Snapchat, WhatsApp, Kik, Viber, Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, email, text messages, etc. People want to hyper socialize, you can think it's unhealthy if you like, you still don't get to determine how people live and you never will.
I wouldn't lump either Google or Youtube with Facebook.
I signed up for Youtube Red, their commercial free subscription. I fill my subscriptions with topics I want to learn more about. It is easier to curate content on Youtube than Facebook.
I would pay Facebook $2-5/month not to show me advertisements.
> I would pay Facebook $2-5/month not to show me advertisements.
I'd expand that beyond ads alone, to have the payment prevent tracking, profiling, "filter bubbling", and sometimes emotional manipulation experiments. [1] But that model won't scale, and it wouldn't offer Facebook growing value over time either.
Most expensive keywords on Google can cost something like $50 per click.
If you put a monthly fee for ad free service, probably your mostly valuable customers (those error m with money to spend) are first to switch.
Facebook can probably generate vast amounts of profits from the users if it manages to be part of the actual transaction, not just an ad platform. The same kind offer thing Google was planning with Google Checkout. IIRC the idea was they would not charge for clicks, but would get payment of customer actually makes the purchase.
Think about Facebook first creating for you the urge to buy something (by manipulating you feed) and then selling the thing or taking their cut off the transaction.
Apple's successes have generally not involved a default position of "free but ad-supported". For example, the iTunes store is a massive success for Apple, but didn't begin with free downloads supported by embedded ads in the music (which is what other music services have done). Instead they said "here it is, $0.99 per track".
Apple's track record of not needing to track me or sell my personal information to prop up its business models, because they launch products that have real "get the end users to pay money for it" business models, is one reason why I stick with their products.
Show me one groundbreaking technology that wasn't also used to the detriment of humanity. As long as there are shitty human traits, there will be shitty use of new technology. The only question is whether good will outweigh the bad. Just as with nuclear technology, it is still too early to tell whether humanity will be wise enough to handle its own intelligence.
> Same applies to Big Macs, pizza, slushies, Cheetos, TV, seating, laziness, political pundits, marijuana, ...
> In the end it is all about caveat emptor: is up to the customer to decide.
In a balanced world, where choices are relatively evenly spread, this may be true.
In a world where the number of harmful choices far exceed the number of healthful ones, and the harmful ones are much more profitable (and so promoted more heavily), free choice becomes a different proposition.
However much willpower, intelligence, and savviness we think we have, we get tripped up by our firmware defects, even when we know they are there and try to be wary[1].
Deliberately exposing ourselves to proven brain hacks and thinking we are immune and have real choices is ... inadvisable.
Anyone who is diabetic (or simply overweight) and tries to buy or eat food that is not harmful to the pancreas will appreciate how eternally vigilant one must be to avoid the cleverly hidden food label traps, and how choice is manipulated, cynically and incessantly, by the US food industry.
Extrapolate this to most US industries, and re-evaluating "choice" may be a depressing task.
Of all companies to worry about Google and Facebook are at the bottom of my list. How about we worry about Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, etc. You know the companies that actually can affect our lives and mold politics.
Absolutely correct. For the other ~99% of humanity, acquiring access to these digital tools has been a massive leap forward in all regards. Whether you were stuck in a small town in Oklahoma, born into a family in Bangalore earning $20 per month, or millions of scenarios around the globe that are in-between. McNamee seems to have no idea how the rest of humanity actually lives and what access to Internet-based information, messaging or media has made possible in terms of dramatic life improvement.
Even for 1%ers, there are people mature enough to enjoy the benefits of these services without falling prey to abusing them. You can abuse anything that feels good: TV, junk food, tabloids, etc etc.
To equate a susceptibility to addiction with immaturity is a severe error which will prevent you from ever dealing with addiction, in yourself or others, in a rational and realistic fashion. It is not about moral character, or immaturity, or lack of Godliness. It is a disease process with roots in biology and genetics.
Also, everyone is susceptible to manipulation of their dopamine reward system, no matter how robust. The impact of effect varies from person to person.
Agree wholeheartedly with the entire article. Gotta cringe when you get to the end though, and you get blasted with "Top 3 Dog Pics You Have To SEE To Believe!!!", ironic.
I invested in Google and Facebook years before their first revenue and profited enormously. I was an early adviser to Facebook’s team, but I am terrified by the damage being done by these Internet monopolies.
Facebook and Google get their revenue from advertising, the effectiveness of which depends on gaining and maintaining consumer attention. Borrowing techniques from the gambling industry, Facebook, Google and others exploit human nature, creating addictive behaviors that compel consumers to check for new messages, respond to notifications, and seek validation from technologies whose only goal is to generate profits for their owners.
The people at Facebook and Google believe that giving consumers more of what they want and like is worthy of praise, not criticism. What they fail to recognize is that their products are not making consumers happier or more successful. Like gambling, nicotine, alcohol or heroin, Facebook and Google — most importantly through its YouTube subsidiary — produce short-term happiness with serious negative consequences in the long term. Users fail to recognize the warning signs of addiction until it is too late.