Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

To the product managers, strategists, and designers at Meta: you know, you could just decide NOT to create harmful, exploitative applications.



Can they? Or is the science so vague and under researched that they don't actually have a way to know if the next feature harms or helps?


Preface: I'm basically on your side on this.

But: I know some PMs and designers at various social media companies. There are also probably many among us here on HN. The thing is, I don't think most of them think to themselves "I am going to build a harmful, exploitative application". I think most of them, like many of us, wake up in the morning and aim to do a good job. To do good work. To design and build to the best of their abilities. AND - importantly - to excel in their careers, become more senior, and make more money.

The problem is their incentives. They are paid, promoted, and bonused to maximize things like "engagement". The more people use their (likely well-intentioned) feature or design, the more they're praised by their colleagues, the more they're promoted, the more they're paid. So they keep doing things to get more people to click and scroll more and get more praise and money for it. They make a button easier to understand - a post easier to share - a picture easier to like. They fill the feeds with more things that more people click and share and like. And they make more money and get more senior and the cycle continues ad infinitum.

I think SOME likely step back and consider the ramifications and maybe look at what they've built and see depression and rage and anger and misery, but those are the ones who aren't promoted and maybe leave the companies because that kind of observation doesn't make number go up. And number must go up to pay for that $5000/month apartment in SF or the $30k/year private school.

And others likely consider this but justify it by all the not-horrible things they see too -- the people who are happy, the influences who make a career out of using their tools - the "creators" who power the "creator economy". And their numbers go up too so they're happy and they tell the PMs and designers and engineers what a good job they're doing and so on and so forth.

So the problem is this cycle will continue as long as it's rewarded as richly as it is. And frankly, the free market WILL continue to reward it as long as number keeps going up (and that number is the stock price). Which is why a lawsuit by someone NOT part of that free-market cycle (or part of a different part of it) might actually make a small dent in this horrible infinite cycle.


I was at a talk awhile back where a designer for a large gambling corporation was asked in the Q&A if they had any ethical concerns working for a company that preys on the vulnerable.

The designers answer was…… interesting. They basically said (and I’m paraphrasing) that their aim every morning was to go to work to ensure that users were not being mistreated by dark patterns and unclear design. Their aim was to was to design the best experience for their users to ensure that their users could find an easy way to stop gambling if they wanted to.

I was on the fence about their stance. However they truly believed that they would never intentionally do harm to users, they always wanted the best for their users.


They (and by they I mean everyone - not just the PMs, strategists and designers) either flat out don't care or have deluded themselves into thinking they can still make a positive difference. I'm not sure which is worse.




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

Search: