Hacker News Reader

Comment by i_am_nomad | Hacker News Reader

That is somewhat unfair. Most of the time, it’s a naive consumer on one side, and an army of UI experts and behavioral scientists on the other. That consumer is hopelessly outmatched, and the company will absolutely find a way to hack his or her psychology.

View on HN

Yep. I read behavioral studies by scientists so I can use this info to manipulate others. This is my job and I am good at it or I wouldn’t be doing it. There are hundreds of behavioral tricks to make people buy. Even when one is aware of them. It’s funny when people say sales don’t work on them. Those are EXACTLY the people sales work best on.

Citing human psychology is a sad excuse to excuse one's self from personal responsibility. You are the final arbiter of all decisions that you make. Nobody else. You are the one that is ultimately responsible.

If this were loot boxes, then maybe we'd be having a different discussion, but unless they're tricking you into something other than what is advertised, then the onus ultimately falls upon you to control your desire to purchase something.

Um, what makes one form of dishonesty acceptable and loot box dishonesty unacceptable?

Personally I lean on the "I am the final arbiter of my purchasing decisions" side, but surely this principle would have to be applied consistently (and what this looks like is I have bought almost nothing online ever)

Lootboxes aren't a form of dishonesty. It's a form of gambling. Gambling needs to be regulated, because that specifically does abuse psychology, whereas when you're buying a product, you know exactly what you're getting. There's no deception there, unless there is, in which case we have laws against it, because it's called false advertisement. We have laws against gambling, because we know how math works and the human mind doesn't by default.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com