Hacker News Reader

> Way back before social media existed, things like BBS' and later on newsgroups were similarly extremely addictive.

Social media today is almost nothing like BBS and Newsgroups. Social media is supercharged to be a dopamine slot machine that sells attention to the highest bidder with the explicit aim of changing their behavior. None of that existed on BBS or Newsgroups.

> Way back before social media existed, things like BBS' and later on newsgroups were similarly extremely addictive.

I'm not so sure about this (having lived both). The "algorithm" has a massive addictive effect that simply was not present in the BBS days, it is nearly universally agreed. Certainly it's believed enough for Meta to spend billions on it.

This is one of those topics that LLMs are quite good at for digging up information and consensus on, because they've been trained on stuff that you may have either forgotten or not been a part of the culture of. BBS were universally deemed extremely addictive. Early telnet BBSs then brought this up to an even more ridiculous extreme. Their usage even cropped up on early studies of internet addiction like this. [1] And similarly for usenet/newsgroups.

I think the algorithm's primary purpose is to be able to more seamlessly push ads. I also think that at some point there was a sort of dystopic interest in seeing if people could be controlled by content. Facebooks emotional control experiments are public validation of that. But these are again tangential red herrings once we establish clearly that addiction happens even without such, and it certainly did and does.

[1] - https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED416838

How are you quantifying it?

This is like saying short form content scrolling apps are adictive but it's just the same as TV back in the day. Yeah there were studies on TV addiction. Yeah it was a discussed topic. No they're not equally addictive. It's not even close.

Having lived through it, participated in it, and being able to personally contrast people then and now. It's not particularly different, outside of the fact that in the past you had 0.1% of people (if that) using these services, whereas now you have the majority of humanity doing so, so all that's really changed is scale.

Beyond that I think there's also a first principles approach one can take. Not only were these services addictive, but so was Facebook (and other similar services) long before 'the algorithm' was a thing. The core interaction is interpersonal, and people simply want to see what other people are saying. We could define that as FOMO, entertainment, or whatever else - but I think this is the shared common core.

Even on this site, there are many people who are clearly addicted - myself probably amongst them. Yet there's not even a notification of when something you've written has been responded to, let alone some guiding algorithm. Even having to jump through hurdles to achieve interpersonal dialogue, it is still quite addictive.

>Having lived through it, participated in it, and being able to personally contrast people then and now. It's not particularly different, outside of the fact that in the past you had 0.1% of people (if that) using these services, whereas now you have the majority of humanity doing so, so all that's really changed is scale.

Having lived trough all the same i'd say the exact opposite and i'd even add that phones add a constant presence element that is a differernt factor but still i'd say theres a very noticable difference.

And if we look past our own experiences the reason why is fairly straightforward. The whole point of the algorithm is to make it more addictive. All those companies would not spend their time and effort on it otherwise if it did not help on this front. And the fact that they spent quite a lot of research on it and make it quite intricate with lots of computation involved and the fact that it is quoted plenty as the reason for new players such as tiktok coming to prominence should tell you it's a quite impactfull one.

Again as mentioned above I'd strongly recommend using an LLM to search for some info from this era. These systems were all considered extremely addictive.

As for the algorithm - in modern times all these companies driven by advertising. The algorithm works as a means to enable more effective advertising, and especially native advertising. It also likely helps build more effective profiles on people which can then be further monetized with advertising. I'm certain it increases addiction, but that's like saying that the special jingles and bells and whistles on a slot machine increase addiction. You're just adding to an already highly addictive baseline.

I also don't think TikTok really 'won' because of their algorithm. Facebook is now for parents and grandparents, while younger people moved onto other services to find their own place. I think the same sort of view of a service being dated became true of YouTube, even moreso as it moved more from YouTube to CorpoTube. Most, if not all, alternatives tried to be YouTube but with less content and worse CDNs. TikTok actually tried to put the 'You' back in 'YouTube' and caught on exactly like YouTube did back in the day. Go figure.

>Again as mentioned above I'd strongly recommend using an LLM to search for some info from this era. These systems were all considered extremely addictive.

Which is so relative it's meaningless. Cigarettes are also extremely addictive but i'm not about to compare it to TV

>I'm certain it increases addiction

Then what's the discussion about? Companies incentivised and given the technological means to create a more addictive product create a more addictive product. Don't tell me it's by hapenstance or that it's just an insconsequential increase on an addictive baseline when the difference is so easily noticed and the things only wielding the addictive baseline are comparatively abandoned if not for societal innertia.

>I also don't think TikTok really 'won' because of their algorithm. Facebook is now for parents and grandparents,

There I think it's actually both. It's both the new things away from the old and the algorithm was actually good whilst youtube's was garbage in comparison. There were other contenders and ones that died (vine) so i think their execution was also part of it. For all the outrage about slop, dances and dangerous and short form addictive content if the tiktok algorithm detected you liked ....let's say science and gardening videos in medium to long form it would give you exactly that and would only deviate enough (unless you searched on went on your own tangent) to see if your prefrences deviated but in a way that wouldnt be bothersome. In the meantime youtube was putting the same recommended unappealing vids among others in the sidebar for more than a year straight. It had all the annoying incentives that led to clickbait titles, thumbnails, intros, fillers. I deleted tiktok because i have an addictive personality and it was too good at giving me both that dopamine fix and what i actually wanted in the moment. Oh and as a 3rd factor it had less and less intrusive ads.

The issue I'm trying to point out is that attacking the algorithm isn't attacking the problem. It's like attacking, per your example, flavorings in cigarettes. Those certainly make them more addictive and more appealing to a certain demographic, but even without those flavorings they're harmfully addictive.

And I think without understanding the core problem, solutions are going to fail. If I were a self centered oligarch in charge of one of those companies, I would certainly ensure there was astroturfing focused on the algorithm, as the tides of society turn more towards regulating these businesses, because you can drag that issue out forever, make a surprised face when nothing meaningfully changes, and continue to play this game for decades.

And yeah I agree TikTok did some other things right as well, but I don't necessarily think it was the short-form stuff. It was the fact that 'you' - a regular nobody, could put out a video and have a reasonable chance of it reaching a massive number of people, very much like in the early days of YouTube. YouTube created a system where the big get bigger which inevitably leads to stagnation. TikTok created a more 'decentralized' system, for lack of a better term.

I don't doubt that BBSes were deemed addictive, but your argument is implying that "the algorithm" provides no additional addictive value. And I think the amount of money that goes into it strongly suggests it has a massive amount of addictive value.

It doesn't imply literally none. I'm sure flavored vapes helps improve their addictiveness for their target demographics - children, but they'd also be extremely addictive even without the flavorings. The reason I brought up advertising is because Facebook, Meta, whatever they want to call themselves, is an ad company. And the algorithm is a critical part in delivering both traditional ads as well as native advertising. It likely also helps create more complete profiles on individuals which can then again be monetized with advertising.

> this would be a major issue even without 'the algorithm' and other such 'engagement' maximization efforts

Thank you, I don't know why nobody else brings this up. The engagement algorithms certainly aren't good, we should regulate them, but it seems like a stretch to think they're the root of the problem.

Heck, you don't even have to go back to BBS and newsgroups. People can get addicted to group chats, to games, to browsing HN. Kids can get bullied on all these places. No engagement algorithm needed.

I think there's a fallacy of sorts where when something becomes harmful we assume it's evil. Computers make it really easy to shovel entertainment at our eyeballs, it's easy to get addicted to that and for it to cause social problems.

Because there is a huge difference between 0.1% of the population being addicted and 20%. It’s possible to get dropdown drunk drinking Miller Lite. That doesn’t imply that handing out bottles of everclear is safe social policy.