Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I think this is addressed in the article:

> Isn’t it our own fault that we’re too easily distracted? Maybe we just need more self-discipline.

> That kind of rhetoric implicitly grants the idea that it’s okay for technology to be adversarial against us. The whole point of technology is to help us do what we want to do better. Why else would we have it?

...

> Does personal responsibility matter at all?

> I don’t think personal responsibility is unimportant. I think it’s untenable as a solution to this problem. Even people who write about these issues day to day, even me—and I worked at Google for 10 years—need to remember the sheer volume and scale of resources that are going into getting us to look at one thing over another, click on one thing over another. This industry employs some of the smartest people, thousands of Ph.D. designers, statisticians, engineers. They go to work every day to get us to do this one thing, to undermine our willpower. It’s not realistic to say you need to have more willpower. That’s the very thing being undermined!



Its funny because these points sound exactly like the ones I've heard made by former casino developers whom worked on any number of slot machines or video poker.

In any case, I'd have to disagree and say that even though you can't escape ads or even 100% avoid the lure of electronic clicks and taps, its ultimately up to you to decide what you do with your time and money and if you cannot do this yourself, then you need to seek help.

Just because a corporation has unlimited resources committed to targeting a person with ads or tappy and clicky stuff, it does not mean they should be held accountable for people's addictive habits or tendencies, just as you can't hold any existing casinos liable for a person's poor gambling choices.


> ...and if you cannot do this yourself, then you need to seek help.

> Just because a corporation has unlimited resources committed to targeting a person with ads or tappy and clicky stuff, it does not mean they should be held accountable for people's addictive habits or tendencies, just as you can't hold any existing casinos liable for a person's poor gambling choices.

You know, in my country there is a self-exclusion register for gambling. You put yourself on it knowing that you have a problem and as a result you're barred from entering a gaming establishment.

In doing so, gaming establishments now have a responsibility to keep you from gambling on their premises and there are consequences and liability transfers if they knowingly allow you to continue.


>its ultimately up to you to decide what you do with your time and money and if you cannot do this yourself, then you need to seek help.

It seems like you implying people are 100% free agents independent of external influences and subconscious evolutionary drives?

>Just because a corporation has unlimited resources committed to targeting a person with ads or tappy and clicky stuff, it does not mean they should be held accountable for people's addictive habits or tendencies

Should alcohol, cigarette, and porn companies be allowed to target children?

Should opioid manufacturers be allowed to target recovering addicts?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: