HN Reader

So yes. Status seeking, and differential price seeking probably is a-social as a pattern when it's weaponised against the consumer.

That said, I hated Uber, they actually offered to underwrite people breaking the law to get foot in the door (how that didn't get them excluded as a corporate scofflaw is beyond me) and they continue to export all the profits offshore, but taxi services had become shit and now we have got used to Uber and I just don't worry about surge pricing. I got boiled slowly.

My fellow Australians all feel a bit shit about the introduction of tipping in paywave and food service. That's unaustralian. We have legally enforced minimum wages and penalty rates. Turn that feature off.

The European push to mandate included luggage in flight is seeing a fair bit of trolling. So there are still true believers who think needing clean underwear is weak.

This isn't theoretical, it's happening right now. The boom in digital detoxes, the dumbphone revival among young people, the shift from public feeds to private DMs, and the "Do Not Disturb" generation are all symptoms of the same thing. People are feeling the manipulation and are choosing to opt out, one notification at a time.

This is a good point. Some VCs were major proponents of this (and tons of other business people I'm sure), but this is of course just a guaranteed inflow into the largest companies and the companies that think they will be large some day. Yet another way to reallocate public cash to private companies.

Another similar example is UBI -- its proof of an economy that is not dynamic. It's a tacit approval and recognition of the fact that "no, you probably won't be able to find a job with dignity that can support you and your family, so the government will pay to make you comfortable while you exist".

But here is one that actually makes sense. Of course the self-reflection with who he otherwise praises and spends his time with will never set in, but at least others may take the time to look inward and do something differently.

Something has to change. Even HN seems to have had an increase in sentiment like this in the past few years. Maybe I’m just noticing it more myself. Maybe it’s not just the existence of the Grape, but rather where it came from.

https://github.com/commaai/openpilot/blob/a8ec08e5bbc2be0a32...

You can literally go outside and talk to people. There's no moat around dating apps. Human beings continue to exist in meatspace. I am yet to see a dating app contract that prevents you from being casually approached by strangers. Heck matchmakers still exist.

Take a colony of ants and destroy their ability to use a pheromone trail. What happens?

Take a colony of ants and use the pheromone trail to generate "profit" for some of the ants at the cost of others.

Ants probably have little self consciousness. But add that awareness to them - essentially tell them they are being manipulated - and then perform the above two experiments again.

A good way to understand complex adaptive systems, like the ones we humans use, is to try to build some. See John Holland's "Hidden Order" for some hints on how to go about this.

geohot is pretty deep into the center of the map afaict.

Here is what a man seeking woman profile needs:

1. Good Pictures. Honest. Good lighting. Appropriate grooming and attire (whatever than means in your social context). Smile in a carefree way in most of the pictures.

2. Attractive man in the pictures.

3. No icks.

Yes the pictures are more important than being attractive.

As a matter of storytelling, the theme is "aspirational", but the particular aspiration is up to you.

In a way the real baddies was the trivial stuff we fixated on along the way.

There are far more men than women on dating apps, women don't buy the boosts, etc.

So you are paying for exposure in that skewed market.

If it were a complete free-for-all then women would get thousands of messages a day and not use the apps at all.

The CTO, Adil Ajmal, says “we help people worldwide go deeper on their favorite games, entertainment, and culture.” How can I possibly do that with the absurd number of ads on the page?

The money incentive in software right now is to make it extremely shitty. We need ways to incentivize people, and especially executives, to make friendly decisions for their users.

Right now across the industry, many people are getting promoted and hired for decisions that are extremely hostile to their customers and visitors. Whether it be for replacing support with an unhelpful, dumb AI bot, or marginally growing revenue by shoveling ads down your unwilling throat, we are not incentivizing products that are good and friendly to humans.

Seriously, fuck all the investors who are incentivizing this BS.

Of course, we need drastic changes to the economic system (the counterproductive incentives exist everywhere), but you have a choice in the matter. It’s possible to build a good product and make good money and make some revenue growth without being absolutely insane about it. Companies are betting that customers won’t catch on. Facebook might be a good example. It’s turned into such a shithole that no one in a certain age range wants to deal with it anymore, outside of very specific niches. The primary feed & product has failed.

Good luck ever getting back onto the apps, especially if you've ever used facial verification to validate that you're you. Every future attempt to sign up again will be immediately blocked. No way to appeal. Dystopian.

Now for Uber. If you pay to upgrade to Uber X it’s a great experience. One time I got in the wrong Uber (not X). They said silver Nissan at station 4 at the airport in Atlanta. Got in the car and he was obviously going somewhere else than where I requested. When he realized I was the wrong passenger the driver became extremely agitated and aggressive. My bad for not checking his plate, his bad for not checking the passenger out. He was the driver so it’s really his responsibility since I may not know these things. Also I could not leave a bad review as I did not know who this driver was. Always always check you are in the right car.

AI is propping up the Web but I'm not convinced it can do that indefinitely.

The dream of Internet enabled disintermediation is not dead. We'll eventually switch protocols, change the incentive structures and build a social internet for ourselves - at least those of us who've not had our souls eaten by Moloch already. It's not inevitable but it is possible and it is what a lot of us actually want.

It changes with production, if production shrinks it shrinks. This is exactly what you need with a retirement account, otherwise you end up with a situation like the UK where the pension system is crushing the workers.

As long as everyone is OK with the losers losing big so the winners can win big, it will persist. As long as the “I've got mine, screw you” attitude keeps being culturally ingrained, it will persist.

We are and without AI. See how people struggle with their computers and devices, and how it is often caused by an undesired software update.

See how software updates, or the lack thereof, are weaponized to make devices unusable or obsolete.

Anarchism, socialism and communism can work perfect in a small village where everyone knows and trusts each other. But if you scale it up it does not work well because people can be corrupt. If you want to scale up to a Geo Global level that is trust-less the best way we know is to use Capitalism, but Capitalism ends up becoming more and more centralized.

Because Capitalism is inherently competitive there will always be winners and losers and these are not just businesses it's everyone in the system because capital is required to partake in the system. This competitiveness is also what leads to the lack of "morality".

What will it take?

I think you cannot have the benefits of capitalism without these side-effects.

I don’t have an answer - is there scientific research on this?

Taxation? Loopholes will be found.

Lawfare against it? Lobbying will win.

I am amazed by capitalism, but at the same time it is a ruthless machine - and in democratic countries it is highly unlikely that a single political party can force the machine into a new direction. Perhaps that is a very nice feature, at the cost of also having to tolerate rent seeking, but it sure as hell sucks to see these downsides.

We don’t need advertising, which fundamentally is little different from lying and manipulation, at all, and society would be a lot better if we denormalized advertising.

If a company paying an influencer to talk about them, or placing an ad on a sports game, would be denormalized to the extent that it would lead to people deliberately not buying the product.

Instead one could subscribe to trusted reviewers who make their money off subscription revenues and therefore their interests are aligned with the customer rather than the ad supplier.

Isn't this a reasonable way to achieve many desirable results? Hardcovers/paperbacks, watch a movie right away or after a few weeks, etc.

Nobody twisted your arm to use Hinge rather than utilize local dating resources like singles meetups, speed dating, and matchmaking services.

Or just get a group-oriented hobby and talk to people in real life.

Clarifications would be greatly appreciated...

boosts, uber fees, late fees, small order fees, busy hour fees...it's like this is what people spend their time thinking up

when i see people stuck in traffic on their morning commute, i think thats a net positive for humanity in some small way

I'm from GenX. It can be done. We used to do it. Just stop playing their game. The only winning move is not to play.

Uber, Booking.com, AirBnB, ClassPass, Steam, DoorDash - these winner take all middle-men rent seeking tech behemoths are bad for society and are hostile to consumers and the businesses that rely on them.

Let's decentralise this shit.

Relevant here, all the way from 1975:

"...In any technologically advanced society the individual’s fate MUST depend on decisions that he personally cannot influence to any great extent. A technological society cannot be broken down into small, autonomous communities, because production depends on the cooperation of very large numbers of people and machines. Such a society MUST be highly organized and decisions HAVE TO be made that affect very large numbers of people. When a decision affects, say, a million people, then each of the affected individuals has, on the average, only a one-millionth share in making the decision. What usually happens in practice is that decisions are made by public officials or corporation executives, or by technical specialists, but even when the public votes on a decision the number of voters ordinarily is too large for the vote of any one individual to be significant. Thus most individuals are unable to influence measurably the major decisions that affect their lives. There is no conceivable way to remedy this in a technologically advanced society. The system tries to “solve” this problem by using propaganda to make people WANT the decisions that have been made for them, but even if this “solution” were completely successful in making people feel better, it would be demeaning."

- Industrial Society And Its Future, Ted Kaczynski (1975)

Perhaps this person lived in a fantastic futuristic city before. But for a lot people, getting a cab was not a good experience. Uber singlehanded changed that.

And dating apps are not middlemen for dating. They're middlemen for dating outside your social circle, which is always a mess. Whatever subscription you pay to the app per month is probably cheaper than a single drink at a bar anyway.

And the antagonistic algo everywhere world is starting to suck. And google removing their "don't be evil" sure seemed very self-aware.

...but not sure about the whole "needs WW3 to reset" angle...seems a bit much

How about we try love, empathy, and compassion to solve our problems? Collaboration?

A second-order difficulty is that the tools with which we could go about dissecting, reimagining and reconstructing new society are also tainted by the powers that have delivered such malignant incentives and effects. This is not new and the fervour and insistence will continue to mount as the cracks in the dam grow in number and size.

There are, however, positive routes forward but in my experience they are somewhat alienating because the majority of people around you will think you are mad, weird or simply delusional. To be clear, I am probably all of those things (definitely the first two), but I prefer that to being a commodity powering a machine that is disinterested in anything that doesn't make it bigger. Two illustrations:

First, cognitivism. A sneaky, anthropocentric idea that simulataneously promotes and soothes a sense of dissonance. We don't, imo, create meaning primarily by modelling simulations of the world in our heads and forming goals based on them. Sure, this happens, but to give it primacy will lead to all sorts of unexpected and unpleasant effects. Alternative: constructivism.

Second, systems of perpetual (exponential) growth. Every day we buy into this by transacting within a system that has this implicit assumption built into it. We do not (an cannot) comprehend the scale and influence of this, because society is unpredictable and the effects are often emergent. Example: tragedy of the commons. This system didn't just show up by itself, nor was it the creation of a shadowy cabal - it perpetuates because we all use it, all the time. Alternative: imagine harder, build systems that mimic nature in its sigmoidal beauty, not only their growth phase.

An important milestone is, imo, proper systems thinking. This is no-ones fault and we are all complicit, but we all possess the ability for radical adaptation and, where it has been cultivated, the ability to rebuild all that which is broken.

I regularly think/read about, work towards and promote such angles, including ethical algorithm design, open-model behavioural analysis and value-aware technology. If anyone would like to join my micro-revolution, you are most welcome. I should warn you though, it doesn't pay well.

Obviously it is not black and white like this. In turn- we all have the free choice to not engage. I don't engage with 99% of contemporary market economy tech, for these reasons. Heck I still carry cash just so I can leave cash tips, or make small cash payments at stores, bribe an official, etc.

I sold my TV. Don’t wanna get creeped on thanks. A TV with a microphone might be convenient for some but for us that’s a hard pass.

I drive a 12 year old car, its fuel efficiency is horrendous and its entertainment system barely works. But it’s off the grid! When I turn it off it TURNS OFF. It doesn’t creep on me, it doesn’t sell my driving habits or report my location or upload microphone recordings at the dealer when it’s plugged in for a service.

I’m biding my time until enough others think like me that a company takes notice. One day someone will make a car that loudly says it doesn’t creep on you, one day someone will make a TV that doesn’t creep on you. One day companies will care again about the customer. One day people will be wise enough to recognize enshittification and will call companies on their shit, and the market will speak.

Not today, but soon. Eventually.

Absolutely none of my business but technically this is on-topic right now, in this thread.

Stop participating. Hinge is towards the top of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, you'll do just fine without it.

Very poor thought. Likely written after consumption of some bad drugs.