
Center for Humane Technology - thinkMOAR
http://humanetech.com/problem
======
ozten
When I saw my first computer and it had a painting program, I was blown away
at the creative possibilities.

Today many people have a super computer in their pocket, but 99% do nothing
creative with this power. [1]

TV, Radio, Books we've always seen the potential to amplify humanity early in
roll-out of the technology, but eventually settle on the lowest common
denominator as human behavior gravitates towards self-indulgence and
entertainment.

We should try to curb corporate abuses, but I don't expect a shift in how the
masses use technology.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_(Internet_culture)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_\(Internet_culture\))

~~~
jackhack
I have long wondered how much Mozart could have composed with a modern
synthesizer and garageband. And similarly, Shakespeare with an electric
typewriter, or (more incredible yet) a word processing rather than a quill and
ink!

But then my cynicism kicks in and I imagine them each spending days on
facebook and watching cat videos.

------
8_hours_ago
This reminds me of tobacco company funded anti-smoking campaigns. I'm sure
they hope it doesn't work too well...

~~~
DanielleMolloy
Mh, indeed curious somehow. Their list of countermeasures:
[http://humanetech.com/take-control/](http://humanetech.com/take-control/)

While it mentions uBlock in their list of recommended apps, it does not seem
to give ad-blocking much importance with a dedicated description. At least in
this list it seems less important than, e.g. "go grayscale". The
countermeasures subpage does not even mention ads.

------
GCU-Empiricist
The general problem will always be that the lowest common denominator of users
will always fall into Skinner boxes, and barring a complete change how
resources are allocated services that use low level manipulation of human
psychology will attract advertising dollars.

~~~
jackhack
So long as we accept the idea of being the product that is sold, yes, that is
the case. I expect the market to stratify though, as some not-insignificant
percentage realizes their life/time is too valuable to be wasted on someone
else's marketing spend.

------
joeblow9999
the smug, it is strong with these ones.

They might as well say "We are your betters and you should live how we think
is best for you"

Maybe I _like_ the YouTube feature that autostreams the next video. It's like
they didn't even consider that maybe not everyone wants to live exactly their
way.

They even go so far as "We are advising governments on smart policies and
better user protections." Please save me from the Youtube autostreaming
feature! Please save me from looking at my friends' selfies on Instagram.

Jesus Christ people.

~~~
rbongers
You're right, it would be great if we could all use software how we wanted.

Unfortunately by exploiting people's psychologies, what people want and what
people do become very different things for some.

For example, it's currently not possible to turn off youtube's autoplay
feature on some devices. This is a practice that could be deemed unethical.

Of course, as an adult, I can actively seek out forms of improving my self
control and getting out of habit loops, but children are not educated in these
subjects and need to seek them out themselves. They could be taught these
subjects in school.

These are just some areas that governments could help with that could
potentially help people achieve more of what they want in life without
infringing on what anyone wants to do with software.

~~~
joeblow9999
"These are just some areas that governments could help with that could
potentially help people achieve more of what they want in life without
infringing on what anyone wants to do with software."

Governmen should get involved with whether or not YouTube autoplays the next
video? Are you serious?

Out of curiosity, what do you think government should NOT be involved in?

~~~
rbongers
"Governmen should get involved with whether or not YouTube autoplays the next
video?"

This is reductive. The government should be involved in preventing practices
that harm consumers. Some consumers would find that they can't help themselves
from watching endless videos. And no, they should not be involved in whether
it autoplays. They should be involved in allowing OPTIONS deciding whether it
autoplays. This was just an example. Why should the government not help
consumers who feel harmed in a way that would not impact others just because
you wouldn't find a use for it?

"Out of curiosity, what do you think government should NOT be involved in?"

This is also a reductive. I have only named one area the government should be
involved in. I am not a statist. There is a clear harm caused by certain
practices which exploit the behavioural instincts of humans. I think there is
enough harm to warrant government involvement to protect consumers.

------
civilian
On the plus side, Netflix is saving children from hundreds of hours of
commercials a year!

Snapchat does add the metric of conversation streaks, but _that isnt the
point_ and it's honestly not enough to keep me using it. I like snapchat cuz I
like seeing people's faces or the random things that they are seeing.

This is a stupid initiative.

~~~
rbongers
I think it's great that you don't find that Snapchat impacts your life
negatively, and you're probably in good company. For many people this isn't
the case.

All we have is our life. Some people feel that they waste theirs on platforms
like Snapchat and they're powerless to stop. I don't think that for those
people this initiative is stupid.

~~~
civilian
"People can't help themselves" lacks so much persuasion. You'd be at home in
puritan Massachusetts, where all fun is banned.

~~~
rbongers
"People can't help themselves" is natural.

The fact that there is a gap between who people want to be and the choices
they make is not a disputed fact.

Without it, we would have no concept of shame, motivation, or self
improvement.

Further, it's not disputed that companies have now been studying and
exploiting the mechanisms of human behavioural triggers for the better part of
a century now (just look into the history of advertising strategies).

Outright banning is not what I would want, and I would hope that it isn't what
anyone would want. It's about giving MORE people the freedom to use software
how they want. Options to control their use of software should they need it.
Education for children on these exploitation techniques in order to protect
them from it. Not banning anything.

