Eco Cycles or How I Feel About Technology | Hacker News Reader

Eco Cycles or How I Feel About Technology

maksimizmaylov.com

62 pointsKvakes58 comments

Why is the iPad so addictive that children have to be kept away from it?

Because every single person designing apps and websites is incentivised to try and win 100% of your attention. Reed Hoffmann put it nicely — "We're competing with sleep, on the margin."

The default apps, browser excluded, are pretty harmless - their incentive is to create a device you decide to welcome into your home. I don't see children spending 4 hours doomscrolling the calculator.

The challenge is to think of another model for creating apps and content — one that retains most of the innovation without the harm

Absolutely, 100%. Not all tech is the same. A chair is a form of technology, but it doesn't try to make you sit all the time. Although some technologies (like books) are replaced with e-readers through which we handle over a certain degree of freedom to whomever the platform we use belongs to.

The challenge is the system of incentives around the technology

If chair designers were paid based on the number of hours you sat in the chair, I expect we'd see some very different chairs. Probably not better ones for anyone whose life ambitions involve getting up out of a chair.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcXMhwF4EtQ

>The challenge is the system of incentives around the technology

The solution is simple: Outlaw advertising. It should have been done decades ago, considering the negative externalities it puts on society (in terms of visual pollution, and harmful incentives it creates).

There is no real reason for it existing. The original argument was that it provides customers with information based on which to make purchasing decisions. It hasn't done this since at least Edward Bernays'[1] time. And there is no argument to be made that customers with internet existing lack information based on which to make purchasing decisions.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays

I'm deeply jealous of the few US states that have banned billboard advertising -- it really feels like pervasive advertising is outright caustic to my brain.

On the other hand, I can imagine that banning that banning one form of advertising drives those would-be advertisers to other mediums, such as the ones that drive addictive apps and such. This would in turn increase the revenue of those apps, and make that business model more attractive, compared to e.g. apps that are a one-time purchase

> There is no real reason for it existing

Except the fundamental human right to be able to say what you want, when you want, how you want, even (especially?) for commercial purposes.

> fundamental human right

Meh, someone wrote them, we can change them, they're not universal, even in the US true free speech doesn't exist. libel ? slander ? incitement ? defamation ? &c. you can't even swear on tv...

And even if... what does it mean ? Should I invent a 400dB personal loudspeaker for people to express themselves 24/7 because they have "the right to say whatever they want however they want, whenever they want" ?

That's a schoolyard level take on what freedom of expression is...

Gratis vs libre.

I don't mind freely given personal recommendations for products, paid recommendations are suspect.

That seems like it requires a notion of corporate personhood? I don't mind some neighborhood pizza place boasting in their front window that they're the best in town (even though that's unlikely). But targeted ads across devices don't strike me as the free expression of a person.

There is no fundamental human right to walk down the street at 2am with a megaphone and scream "BUY MY USED CARS" into people's open bedroom windows while they're asleep. That counters "where you want, how you want, when you want". "Especially" for commercial purposes is even more objectionable - as if anyone should get more rights if they are trying to extract money from people than if they aren't?

a chair is a form of technology?

Technology: Noun

1. The application of science, especially to industrial or commercial objectives.

> The challenge is to think of another model for creating apps and content — one that retains most of the innovation without the harm

This is impossible! You missed the whole point of the article! Like sugar is addictive because it is extracted from the fruit that carries all the nutrients, the apps are addictive because they are extracted from the challenge of imagination and boredom.

The last line of that essay: "You don’t win by keeping up. You win by stepping out."

I disagree with the conclusion of the article

An invention comes as the solution to a problem. The qualities of the solution depend on the parameters of the problem.

Many/most technologies have not scaled to the point where their negative externalities outgrow their benefits: GPS, Cordless power tools, OLED TVs, Contactless payments. Of course all have some negatives.

We're learning that if the problem is 'make as much ad revenue as possible for the inventor', the solution is going scale harmfully

> An invention comes as the solution to a problem.

What is the problem that the invention of email solved? And what problems did the invention of email create?

Inventions do not solve problems. An invention is a mental fabrication, nothing more.

It solved piles of papers and faxes for inter-office memoranda. It solved a 2-week delay for communications with customers (everything from “your order has been placed” to “you still owe us money” to “here’s our christmas catalog”). Email solved the problem of the physical post being (comparatively) expensive and slow.

All of thosethings were not problems at the time, they’re only problems in retrospect.

You read what you wanted from the article. Think about what the article is saying. A technologist saying that the technology that they ostensibly co-created is so toxic that it has to be opted out of, the whole game and all. That is rank shirking of responsibility, a self-centered and anti-social non-remedy.

> The default apps, browser excluded, are pretty harmless - their incentive is to create a device you decide to welcome into your home. I don't see children spending 4 hours doomscrolling the calculator.

At least Facebook and Youtube are default apps nowadays

Not on Apple devices.

If you don't pay for the product, you are the product.

A very outdated saying. Cars and IoT are very much things people pay for, but tech enables companies to double-dip and turn them into billboards for the highest ad bidder.

> The challenge is to think of another model for creating apps and content

The original content model was sustainable for centuries.

Customer pays per viewing, and experiences entertainment for an hour or so.

Then another model emerged after the printing press and record player.

Customer pays once and experiences the same thing as many times as they want.

Now we have a model where a customer pays constantly for no specific entertainment in particular and has no control over when they lose access to some entertainment.

Maybe we just go back to people paying for just what they want…

The issue is the addiction to growth and VC money tech has. We can’t have simple transactions in tech. It needs to be recurring or predatory.

YouTube kids was banned quickly in my house. My kids can select a movie and sometimes a kids show. They can also play this playground app, 2 iPads can connect and they can play together.

They also don’t have free rein over iPads and maybe they get access to once a week in the car or something. They are 6 and under so I’ll probably tweak rules as needed.

If, like me, you read comments before links, this refers to Umberto Eco, not low water usage cycles on washing machines

I disagree with his take on traffic jams though. Public transportation, bikes, and well designed cities really do solve traffic

True enough, but those are technological solutions to a social problem. E.g., if the public transportation is terrible because it's dangerous or you get hassled on it, people don't use it.

The guy sitting in a 4 hour commute every day is doing it for a reason. It's a cost he's willing to pay for some benefit.

Sure, and sometimes it’s the reasons you cite and sometimes the lack of an alternative. I always was surprised at people tolerating I-80 even when capital corridor would work for them.

None of those are as good as being able to drive a car around somewhere which is traffic free and has ample parking. Of course, it's inherently not possible for that experience to be open to everyone.

True, though when I had a buddy (a poor man’s Vespa) it was close enough to that to feel like a cheat code.

Not having to drive is usually much nicer, though. You can do something else while travelling, you don’t have to plan around where you leave your valuable vehicle, you can drink alcohol, etc.

Either way, for occasional driving to be pleasant it’s necessary for most travel to happen by public transport, so it has to be the most convenient option for most journeys.

This is something the Daoists have talked about for 3000 years.

The "easier and faster" is only facilitated by an unseen debt. You cannot have "easier" without a "harder". The harder will always follow, as sure as the night follows the day. The simplicity of technology is a facade.

So yes, I agree; "You don’t win by keeping up. You win by stepping out."

I am happy to see the Dao making itself visible again.

A lot of old wisdom seems to be coming back. It's as funny as it's sad that we have to wait for "scientists" to confirm to us that fasting, extreme hot/cold, are evidently good to us. Also I've recently seen an ad for a company that builds houses out of carbon-negative materials (wood!).

I feel like the jump from what the comment u were replying to was saying, I.E. something ‘easier’ might be harder in the long run to saying it’s sad scientists need to collect empirical evidence to prove things like fasting and ”extreme hot/cold” (I assume temperatures?) are good is a big one and not necessarily a good one.

What good would fasting or these extreme temps do and how would we prove it if not for evidence.

Scientists are NOT the problem here.

It's a personal essay about how not all—probably most—technology is destined to liberate us.

Well, when all is said in done, people like to own things and other people. The form will differ, sure, but the concept stays.

How do you explain the saying 'sharing is caring'? If you're correct and people inherently enjoy the exploitation of others, how could such a saying spontaneously develop and resonate with rather large groups?

And how did the feasts of large religions develop? Things like iftar, where you communally share lots of food with both people you know and strangers, including the impoverished and disadvantaged? There ought to be quite a bit of violence involved to make such practices palatable if you're correct about this.

Because that saying originated as a US bourgeois thing, people willing to liberate themselves from really caring for the other (much poorer) people living just besides them in exchange for writing some code. Just look at the streets of San Francisco, for example, not much sharing there.

And before someone mentioning that people like Torvalds and such other open-source luminaries are not technically Americans, they’re Americans in spirit, and by this point they’ve already got either US citizenship or a US green card, not to mention the hefty comps coming via US tech colossuses (either directly or indirectly).

As the original article mentions, the secret to all this tech non-sense is to log out and experience life, while always remembering that Uncle Ted was right.

> As the original article mentions, the secret to all this tech non-sense is to log out and experience life, while always remembering that Uncle Ted was right.

That you evoke Uncle Ted shows that this is a half-measure at best.

There is a great book called The Dawn of Everything (Graeber and Wengrow) that talks about how cultures like that existed, and we (the Western civilization) decimated them.

Graeber's Debt has similar themes in some places too.

Don't look at what people say, look at what they do. People like feeling virtuous, but rarely act that way unless they stand to gain from it.

My experience is that if people are in an environment where helping others is socially encouraged rather than punished, most people want to help even strangers providing no benefit to themselves other than the healthy little dopamine hit. There's exceptions of course, but not enough to actually cause a problem.

Unfortunately I find there's a lot of social pressure (at least in the US) telling people that if they help others they're a rube and a mark, or worse, so help isn't normalized.

>My experience is that if people are in an environment where helping others is socially encouraged rather than punished, most people want to help even strangers providing no benefit to themselves other than the healthy little dopamine hit. There's exceptions of course, but not enough to actually cause a problem.

What they stand to gain in that situation is good standing in their peer group which is a personal gain. It's basically personal public relations management.

How often do people truly do something good without standing anything to gain? That is the true measure of innate human tendency to doing good. I'm sure there is some of that, but very little.

If I do something good because it makes me feel good, is that a selfish action or is it feedback from my 'innate human tendency'?

We are social creatures. Seeing our social group benefit is a hardwired desire, and it makes us feel good. Being recognized as a valuable member of the group also feels good, and double-dipping on the dopamine hit is what motivates people towards contributing.

Why does some states in the US punish generosity towards e.g. unhoused people if that's the case?

It's common for modern states to act violently to suppress empathy and generosity, and it's common to use the school system for the same purpose.

I wouldn't say we "like" to do it, but in a certain sense it's an existential necessity to do so.

Disagree: the DiSC personality assessment codifies dominance as a key motivator of behavior. As much as I think the DiSC assessment is just business horoscopes, I still see canonizing dominance as a response to a real impulse, along with a way to easily sell decision makers on the fact that they are, in fact, just wired differently from all those other people below them.

Now that is an acronym I haven’t seen in decades, is it still a thing?

Yup. There's probably an infinite appetite for business horoscopes that tell people what they want to hear. Just have to dress it up with a veneer of authority.

The old school name for this is "tragedy of the commons" and it's not just a tech thing.

No. Tragedy of the Commons is a bogus thought experiment where the contradictions of mixing private property with the commons was blamed on The Commons.

> In What Technology Wants, he argued that technology evolves like a living system.

Such an interesting take

Silicon Valley or SC-ideological technologists have this ideological short-circuit for social problems. Let’s call it the Law of SC since every short-circuit needs an authoritative-sounding name, I mean law.

- The premise is that there is a social problem

- There are some examples of this repeating through history

- It always plays out this way

- Therefore we will conclude that it is technological determinism

- Bonus: Argue that this is fundamentally human nature-determinism by evoking Darwin, Buddhism or Stoicism

- Since this is Determinism (tech. or human) it can’t be solved

- You have now achieved the end-goal: “Explaining” the problem, which gives you smartness cred

- Bonus: Argue that technologists were already in the know. (Steve Jobs once admitted that his kids weren’t allowed to use the iPad.)

That this is a hopeless attitude is revealed in the conclusion:

> You don’t win by keeping up. You win by stepping out.

Because you cannot step out. You can’t rewind the clock. This is reactionary in the political sense since it aspires to go back to the past—but you can’t.[1]

We have made these technological dependencies for ourselves, or fetters. Now we need to deal with them. We need to make them work for us. What we don’t need is to stick our heads in the snad and proclaim that the best we can do is to take timeouts from technology, to create smartphone-free zones or whatever. Really? You advance these gadgets to the point where you need them (or a laptop/desktop) to minimally function in society... and then you become scared of them? No.[2]

What’s the incentive for technology companies? To prey on your attention, your time, and erode your self-worth. This is already known. Where’s the technological determinism here? Just look at the Wizard, pulling the strings—is this your technological determinism?

You (or we) are just complicit in making shitty technology. Don’t blame technological determinism or human nature. Blame yourself.

Commutes don’t expand. Home prices go up into stratosphere near any place people have to work. And the car industry lobbies against public transport. These are all human-made problems. There is nothing deterministic about them.

Your Dilbert-style laws are a crutch. Try to expand your focus beyond your narrow expertise. Then you’ll see that something better is possible.

[1] Try to become a hermit. Civilization (modernity) will eventually encroach on your little hermitland.

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43510559

I think you're right on most accounts. What do we do?

Tech. companies left to their own devices will push technology that benefits them. People (the majority of society) have to take control over society so that we can find the proper balance: technology that makes our lives better/easier/simpler/more enjoyable and that doesn’t infringe on our attention and so on.

I’m already happy with a lot of software that I use that interfaces with the governmnet. The government wants to do less work. I want to do less work. The software ends up being less work than the prior technology was.

Why are you supposed to rely on Facebook for communicating with your local volunteer group? Why isn’t there a viable option (according to network effects)? Nothing says that we need predatory social media companies that sell people’s data in order to operate local volunteer groups. That’s absurd and and a falsehood that Bit Tech simply wants to convince people of.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com