Engineered Addictions

This Hacker News discussion delves into the societal impact of social media and online platforms, often framing the issues in terms of addiction, profit motives, and the erosion of human connection. The core themes revolve around the problematic business models driving these platforms, the difficulty for alternative models to gain traction, and the broader implications for individual well-being and societal health.

The Problematic Nature of "Engagement-Driven" Monetization Models

A significant theme is the critique of business models that prioritize engagement and user attention above all else, often leading to the exploitation of human psychology. Users believe that the "free" nature of many online services necessitates a constant drive for user engagement, which in turn fuels addiction.

• "The problem is not the apps, the problem is the users. Which means the problem is human nature." observed rufus_foreman. This sentiment is countered by the idea that the design of the platforms is the primary driver.
• The article's core argument, as articulated by users, is that "The company is the product." ChrisMarshallNY expands on this: "The company is the product... you can't even get an A round, without an 'exit plan.' I feel that the very existence of an exit plan, dooms the user. No one cares about them. It's all about fattening the company, and making it look good."
• Nifty3929 connects monetization directly to addiction: "When your monetization model is tied to usage, then of course you will try to maximize usage, rather than user benefit. It can't be any other way if your reward function is tied to product usage."
• b00ty4breakfast starkly states: "the goal is profit and everything is subordinated to that. This is how the system works and how it is designed to work. When profit and some external thing like social responsibility are at odds, profit is going to win out every time."

Addiction as Engineered Exploitation

The discussion frequently frames the addictive qualities of social media not as a natural consequence of engagement, but as a deliberate engineering effort to capture user attention and time. This is compared to industries known for their addictive products.

• "Engineering of addiction in any form should not be legal for the same reason that kidnapping someone and raping them or forcing them to do my labor is not legal," argues api. "Fix this problem — remove the mind control and violence — and a market niche opens up for honest business models."
• nine_k draws a parallel to gambling: "So it's more like a discussion on gambling, casinos, etc, but the current forms of addiction-forming experiences are much more underhanded."
• When discussing the book "Hooked: How to Built Habit-Forming Products," MobileVet mentions, "I heard somewhere he felt bad about the impact of Hooked… but I don’t have a source." This highlights a perceived ethical conflict among some creators.
• rustycage adds, "We’ll keep wondering why we can’t just put our phones down, not realizing that billion-dollar companies have spent a decade making sure we can’t."

The Role of Venture Capital and "Growth or Die" Mentality

Venture capital (VC) funding is identified as a primary accelerant for the problematic engagement-driven models. The pressure to achieve rapid, exponential growth creates a relentless demand for user acquisition and retention at any cost.

• "Having spent a few years in the VC world I have been increasingly convinced outside investment is the biggest reason why companies lose their morals," states klik99. "The legal obligation to represent shareholders erodes morality."
• HWR_14 succinctly captures the VC imperative: "In many segments, especially ones served digitally, only one or a few companies will survive. It's very much 'grow or die'."
• sneaks offers a similar point: "The moment you take VC money, you are obligated to attempt to achieve VC scale. It’s nothing to do with social media, and everything to do with the wrong KPIs."
• chubot emphasizes the incentive structure: "Show me the incentive, and I'll show you the outcome."

The Difficulty of Alternative Models and "Bootstrap" Mentality

Many users lament the difficulty for non-extractive or ethically-driven social platforms to compete with VC-funded giants. The network effect is a major hurdle for smaller, bootstrapped, or non-profit projects.

• sv_bubble_time questions the very need for social media in its current form: "What do you really get out of social media? I mean other than most of you getting crippling anxieties about things that aren’t even real, of course."
• alwa contrasts the current paradigm with older, smaller-scale internet communities: "If you want to play with lots of money and seek out lots of money, there’s lots of money swirling around seeking to involve you in that game. But if you just want to make something nice and human-scale and small, what better time than now?"
• smikhanov's query about a simple, paid social network highlights the challenge: "How in the world is it easier to attract people to some new VC-funded nonsense?" Jensson replies, "VC-funded means you have money for marketing."
• scoofy describes the "flywheel" dynamic: "Once you get the product on people’s phones, the value is easy to see, but to get the app in their phones, you need a bunch of money to create value to get people there. This is why the VC funding is so pernicious..."

The Case for Regulation and Utility Models

A recurring suggestion is for greater regulation of social media platforms, drawing parallels with industries like tobacco and alcohol. Some also propose that social media could be treated as a public utility.

• "Regulated Algorithms: We regulate tobacco companies because their products are addictive and harmful. Algorithmic transparency or giving users control could preserve the benefits while reducing the addictive design patterns," suggests joshdavham, referencing the article's proposed solutions.
• tadzikpk posits: "Right, maybe social networks are a utility, like electricity or ISPs."
• fullshark identifies regulation as the unspoken solution: "The proposed solution is hinted at in this piece but dare not spoken: government regulation."
• jay_kyburz proposes a specific regulatory change: "You simply need to remove common carrier exemptions from hosts so that if false or misleading information is delivered to a user from a platform, that platform can be sued for damages."

The Erosion of Morality and the "Shareholder Value" Doctrine

The discussion grapples with the concept of shareholder value and its perceived corrosive effect on corporate morality and societal well-being. There's a debate about whether this "obligation" is truly legal or a self-imposed justification for exploitative practices.

• "The legal obligation to represent shareholders erodes morality," contends klik99. jaredklewis strongly disputes this, calling it an "internet rumor that does not exist in the real world" except in specific buyout scenarios, asserting that executives "are no in legal jeopardy" for not prioritizing shareholder value in normal operations.
• to11mtm disagrees, stating, "Oh 1000%." and recounts a story where a founder's company pivoted away from its original mission due to external pressures after taking funding.
• duped argues that the "duty to maximize shareholder value" is more a concept from business ethics than actual law.
• kelseyfrog champions the "common good": "If I had to choose between common good and shareholder value all else being equal, I'd choose common good every time." This sparks a debate about the definition and attainability of the "common good," with wonderwonder expressing concern about subjective moralizing by corporations.
• myflash13 extends this critique beyond tech: "It’s not just social media. Externalized financialization ruins everything. Private equity firms quickly gut everything they buy... It’s capitalism gone mad: financial incentives disconnected from any other considerations."
• stego-tech summarizes: "Founders aren't trying to solve a problem, they're trying to grab table scraps from VCs and the already-wealthy... VCs and their wealthy backers aren't looking for good business, they're looking for good profit."

Human Nature vs. Engineered Environments

A subtle but persistent debate revolves around the extent to which users are actively choosing addictive behaviors versus being victims of manipulative platform design.

• rufus_foreman places the onus on users: "The problem is not the apps, the problem is the users. Which means the problem is human nature."
• superkuh pushes back against the term "addiction" in the context of technology, arguing it dilutes the meaning of addiction related to substance abuse and misrepresents neurochemistry. They argue screens do not subvert incentive salience in the same way.
• notarobot123, conversely, cites research suggesting behavioral addiction is similar to substance addiction.
• czhu12 offers a "stated vs. revealed preferences" perspective: "We all think we want a place to find community, learning, connection, etc, but given the choice will choose stimulus."

The Value of Offline Connection and Simpler Models

Several users champion a return to offline interactions, simpler online platforms, and a conscious rejection of the pursuit of massive scale and profit inherent in VC-backed ventures.

• darkhorse222 suggests an "anti-tech" stance for certain aspects of life: "Some things, the things closest to our humanity, like love and community, are not all that better with technology in my opinion."
• lrvick shared a personal anecdote of ditching smartphones and cell phone subscriptions, reporting a significant increase in "attention span, happiness, and productivity."
• DaveZale praises smaller, non-profit models that prioritize substance over scale: "Small is beautiful... The current internet is ruled by evil reptiles seeking to rip off your time, your data, your privacy, your friends..."
• quaintdev controversially suggested that the solution might be to "stop building social networks if we want to bring people together."
• A sentiment of working at a smaller scale and focusing on genuine value, rather than hyper-growth, is echoed by justcool393: "The 'stack' I mentioned here isn't fancy or particularly tightly optimized, it's in fact pessimized in a lot of ways... and still, it scales well."

Overall, the discussion reveals a deep-seated concern about the direction of online platforms, largely attributed to the pervasive influence of venture capital and an economic system that incentivizes exploitation of human psychology for profit. While solutions are debated, from regulation to paradigm shifts in business models, there's a clear consensus that the current trajectory is unsustainable and detrimental to individual and societal well-being.