Hacker News Reader

Comment by munificent | Hacker News Reader

> I fail to see how making your product as addictive as you can, without breaking laws, is terrible.

I think it's important to be clear about "addictive" because people use it in different ways. If by "addictive" you mean "really compelling" then, sure, it may not be intrinsically terrible. A product that, for example, makes it really compelling for users to improve their physical health or fight climate is probably not terrible.

But the clinical definition of "addiction" which is why "addiction" has a strong negative connotation is that for something that is so compelling that your need to use it causes significant disruption to your quality of life of that of those around you.

Read the testimony again. The argument here is not just that Facebook is super engaging. It's that Facebook use harms its users and the world at large and its level of engagement magnifies that.

View on HN

For sure. But I mentioned the "too addictive" argument specifically. I understand and agree that facebook does more harm than good, and that is wrong and must be addressed. I just don't understand this addiction angle. Making your product as addictive as you can, without breaking laws, is not wrong IMO.

But I think I see where you coming from. They're getting people addicted to something wrong, did I understand you?

> They're getting people addicted to something wrong, did I understand you?

That is part of it, yes.

Also, the mechanism of addition itself often causes the harm. With chemical addiction, the same components that make the substance addictive also cause miserable withdrawal symptoms.

With social media, this is more nebulous, but I do think part of what makes systems like Facebook "engaging" is the anxiety they create when you aren't on them, and the low self-image that users try to assuage by posting flattering photos of their life.

Part of addiction (and advertising too, for that matter) is creating a need for your product in the mind of the user. They were probably happier before they had that need in the first place.

> With social media, this is more nebulous, but I do think part of what makes systems like Facebook "engaging" is the anxiety they create when you aren't on them, and the low self-image that users try to assuage by posting flattering photos of their life.

> Part of addiction (and advertising too, for that matter) is creating a need for your product in the mind of the user. They were probably happier before they had that need in the first place.

I cannot agree with this. Facebook cannot be responsible for people wanting to be on the site/app or for which photos of their life they choose to post. I thought we were discussing the methods by which they make people want to be on FB.

As for your last paragraph, I may be missing your point. Advertising is creating a need for your product, or tapping an existing need. People being happier before they had that need cannot be a reason to stop companies from trying to sell a product. If you bought something that made you feel worse, you would probably just stop using it. Now, if you can't stop using it because you're addicted, but the company didn't do anything illegal to make their product addictive and the risks are clear (not saying this is FB case), why should they be blamed?

If I totally missed your point, please feel free to enlighten me.

> If you bought something that made you feel worse, you would probably just stop using it.

The ad (which you never requested enter your life) makes you feel worse. The product just gets you back to your baseline.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com