Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose that
something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite so
bad as it was made out.
Is one's first feeling, 'Thank God, even they aren't quite so
bad as that,' or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling
to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies are as bad as
possible?
If it is the second then it is, I am afraid, the first step in a process
which, if followed to the end, will make us into devils. You see, one is beginning to
wish that black was a little blacker. If we give that wish its head, later on we
shall wish to see grey as black, and then to see white itself as black. Finally we
shall insist on seeing everything -- God and our friends and ourselves included -- as
bad, and not be able to stop doing it: we shall be fixed for ever in a universe of
pure hatred.
And even worse than this, is that I see people go on to accuse the writer of the second story as being an apologist for the events in the first, and making them out to be even worse than the perpetrators of the first story. Essentially, whoever is the first to bring "bad things" to light, must be immediately trusted and considered completely truthful and no criticism is possible. Whoever "cancels" somebody first automatically wins. There is no chance for defence, counter-argument, or questioning the "evidence"/here-say. If you get in first with breaking a story, event, past mis-deed, then you win.
When engagement is all that matters, the most engagement comes when people are divisive, mad/angry or even pushed to extremes.
When you feel yourself getting bothered, angry and you have to prove someone wrong on the internet, step away. You are taking valuable time from your own projects and quality of life.
People can have different opinions and that is ok, your ideas and opinions are what make you, see that as your unique tool to success. On top of that many "organic opinions" are actually astroturfing and PR designed to promote or get you to "engage".
The internet has magnified it but outrage had been driving American culture for decades before social media. At least since 24 hour news, and that too was just expanding an old playbook for new tech (cable television).
Unplugging is a good tool for all of us but the real problem is that outrage is ruining all our lives, not just those who indulge it.
For me at least it's been a vice for decades. First it was discussion/gaming forums, then it was Fark, then Digg, and then Reddit.
It's just as detrimental as being addicted to alcohol/drugs/games to distract you from life. In controlled doses it's okay but when it starts to take over an entire day or periods of a day/week from doing other things that could be giving your mind/body some life, that's when you really have to check in and ask yourself is this worth it?
> When you feel yourself getting bothered, angry and you have to prove someone wrong on the internet, step away. You are taking valuable time from your own projects and quality of life.
The insidious problem is that, by the time you have that feeling, it is too late. It takes more time to let it go than it took to have that experience. Sometimes, responding feels like the only way to get closure. Better to never put yourself in a situation where having that experience is possible...unless you choose to have it.
I can’t square this conventional wisdom with the observation that ML-curated Facebook can hold my attention for a few minutes at most, while I have lost a good chunk of my youth to community-curated HN and Reddit. Engagement optimizations pale in comparison to simple popularity contests.
Everything is driven by engagement metrics. When was the last time you set out to read something or have an experience that wasn't engaging in some way?
I can assure you that every good author of both fiction and non-fiction is constantly thinking "how can I make this story more engaging?" Clicks provide an empirical method to measure that, for better or worse.
Trying to improve metrics is the path of least resistance in most situations. Should all writing be more informative, thought provoking and rewarding? Yes, but that's hard af. By comparison it's pretty easy to see what got clicks and try to do that again.
Sure. But what do you do about it when people make a free choice to use engagement-optimized platforms? The problem of doomscrolling and outrage addiction is just a special case of the problem of superstimuli hijacking our savanna-derived ancestral social instincts and directing them in a profitable and maladaptive direction.
What do you do about it? Ban this algorithm here or that UI pattern there? Impossible. You can't blunt the desires (even the harmful desires) of billions of people through some kind of centralized rulemaking. Look at the total shitshow that emerged after NYC tried to impose a tiny tax on sugary soft drinks, which are obviously bad for you. Why would an attempt to control engagement optimized platforms work when the soda tax didn't even the harms of engagement metrics are much less clear and the product more universally desirable?
The only thing that's going to help us deal with the problem of internet outrage wireheading is giving society time to develop cultural antibodies naturally. Eventually, one way or another, spending your days arguing with strangers will become low status and shameful --- just like drinking a big gulp with 32768 calories per cup is low status now. (Not that status fully solves the problem.)
In the meantime, well, we just have to hold on. The problem isn't engagement metrics. The problem is human nature. We are literally the dumbest possible primate that could form a civilization: keep that in mind.
This (both the article and the comment) makes me think of David Allen’s concept of “appropriate engagement”. Outrage is how to end up with a growing todo list each week.
100% agree with the premise. Outrage culture is ruining all reasonable discourse in this country (and world), and is now massively fueled by politicians, corporations, media for their own gains.
I do not, however, agree with their solution. Turning off the news/Facebook/Twitter and ignoring everything happening around you is not going to make things better.
The world has made a lot of progress over the last few centuries (as the article calls out), but all of it has been driven by common people like you and me getting outraged over things that might not directly concern us. Anger is sometimes justified.
Instead, when you read something that angers you, take a few minutes and do that extra step of research. Could it be completely fake? Does the headline reflect the contents of the article correctly (it is normally not written by the author)? Is the data researched and sourced? Is what you are reading heavily opinionated? Are you subscribed to a healthy mix of sources?
If enough people actually did this (instead of reading the title and going straight to Twitter/Reddit/HN), meaningless outrage will disappear without the trade-off of not being informed about the world. You will organically discover that everything is a lot more reasonable and moderate than people want you to believe. And if something actually isn't, you will be able to see it.
I was taught early on to "question everything", so it comes naturally. But it's really really tiring to do, when everything is at least a little bit wrong (and the things that are not obviously wrong are often the most insidious).
The most reasonable people in the world often end up in a fact-checking loop, where they will never have any real influence on the world. For me that's what sparks my outrage, when I realize everything I'm reading is full of truthful lies. Maybe you're right that this could fuel change; I am less optimistic.
I have time and time again debunked fake news sent to me by friends whom usually I would call intelligent, and kindly asked to next time do a minimum of fact checking. It's useless.
It's depressing but people don't care about truth. Not acknowledging this will give you a lot of frustration.
Over the last weeks I have watched hours and hours of historical TV from The Netherlands ( NL ). In the 70s and 80s people were protesting left and right, against nuclear reactors, nuclear weapons, against polution, against (child) traffic deaths, to preserve nature, womens rights, for better wages etc.
There was no public internet at the time. I remember parts of these times.
Nowadays engagement is pretty effortless. One only needs to feel enraged.
Well I don't think it has to be taken so literally. 1% of the news is actual new info that you should know, the other 99% is repetition, opinion, speculation, propaganda, etc. You can check the news once a day from a reasonably neautal source and know all the relevant information.
While I 100% agree with you, I think 2 things are somewhat implied in the article: that a ton of the outrage bait is in bad faith, overblown or in some instances completely fabricated, and that everyone will not do what you say everyone should do, so the outrage machine will continue. If these are both true, then yes, the solution 99% of the time is to tune out. And where it isn't, when something is really that bad and so important to you, just getting outraged about it makes you feel like you care even though you aren't doing anything. Discuss it clearly, without getting emotional, and if it is really important, try to do something about it if you can.
Exactly, outrage is bad but we can't just ignore the outside world.
For me, it's environmentalism that gets me. I do believe I have a reason to be outraged by this topic and our inactions, although so does everyone who is outraged. My thoughts basically hit all the checkboxes in the article, but does that make them excessively outraged, or is just that the situation itself is truly outraging?
But in the modern environment, a lot of people can't take a few minutes, because they're exposed to too many things that anger them. A Twitter poweruser can easily see 100 maddening tweets in a day, and most are unlikely to have the 5 free hours it would take to investigate each.
I stopped participating in social media outside of old-school forums, and my stress level went way down. I took a look around, saw that fewer people were living in poverty than ever, I have a quality of life my parents never had, and all the predictions of doom over the past decade or so never came about. Life is pretty much the same or slightly better for me since then. Maybe I am lucky, but a lot of the broad stats back up that this is a great time to be alive.
You are the winner. There are multiple lenses to look at everything. Chose the lenses that works for you - optimism is just as realistic as pessimism and nihilism.
While I am glad you have found inner peace or some thing ignoring the world won't make it any less shitty for those who have to deal with the consequences. While social media is fueling outrage people have reasons to be angry with the world and to ignore it is to be ignorant of the problems that real people have to deal with.
I just got off a two month, almost completely disconnected van dwelling trip. With such little Internet, I literally forgot who the president was. The complete detoxification from the outrage machine... it was like pure heroin.
The snap back to reality almost broke me. Humans are not meant to doomscroll. They are not meant to be this angry, this often. Just like disconnecting felt like a high, coming back was the come down.
Those months/weeks completely changed my view on media and doomscrolling. I can't stomache it anymore, and avoiding that behavior has helped me be more positive over the last week.
I've done this a few times, although I usually had Internet wherever I stopped.
What surprises me every time is how few notifications and important things I miss. It seems to plateau quickly, and whether I leave for a day or a month, it's about the same.
I guess the outrage doesn't affect me so much. However, being constantly hooked on a source of dopamine does. After an hour away from the screen, I start planning activities, fixing things around the house etc.
I voted for GwBush 2x. I found myself annoyed by compulsive Bush hatred; it often seemed divorced from the reasons given. However, I did come to realize that the parallels between Bush hatred and my earlier Clinton hatred were too strong to deny.
FF and Obama wins 2008. I wasn't at all happy but so be it. Fifteen minutes later - as in 15 actual minutes - red rooms exploded with threads calling for his impeachment. Why? IDK. The reasons were incoherent. More than anything, it seemed like an arms-race escalation of rage-driven thinking.
It was enough for me tho. I wanted to be done being an outrage junkie.
I remember when I started working I got hooked on this subreddit tumblrinaction. At first it was just funny "Oh PC culture you're so ridiculous,", but over a few months it got really dark and I started impulsively heading there to feed this weird anger. On reflection I realized it was the same thing that happened to a family member with Fox News, but here it happened much more quickly.
The problem is that you can't go anywhere that's safe from outrage-bait.
You can't watch local news, network news, or cable news. You can't use Twitter, Facebook, or reddit.
All of those things mix objective info with outrage, and you can't seem to get the former without the latter.
I myself have given up all social media and use RSS readers now, but the "recommended" or "trending" stories on news sites still have some of those stories in them.
Over the past few years I've definitely been addicted to outrage porn and anything related to SJWs and cancel culture. Now I impulsively read YouTube comments to feel like I'm right. None of this has added any value to my life, if anything made me more antagonistic and feeling like the world is screwed. Meanwhile there are probably plenty of people out there who aren't caught up in the culture wars and are just working away at their craft, getting jobs they want and paid more.
unfortunately a lot of people have a hard time realizing 99% of the content they're exposed to is pointless and solely meant to waste your time/put you into a heightened emotional state. lot of mental illness on social media/twitter brought on by getting baited into interacting with all the noise
for the people using these platforms to build, I understand using them. for the rest of the users it's probably a net negative to themselves and the ones around them.
The premise is so compelling - you can improve your mental health, free up your time and improve your relationships by insulating yourself from any source of outrage. You, you, you, you. Sometimes we need to think about others too. Of course we shouldn't be outraged by everything or spend all our time doom scrolling. That much we can all agree on. But the solution proposed here - unplugging completely, has consequences too.
Last summer there were tragic deaths in America that triggered massive protests. One of the many heartening things about those protests is that many of those protesting weren't personally affected [1] by the issue at hand - policing of black communities. But they cared about their fellow citizens and they showed up. You want to call that outrage and demean it? Sure. But those people did something good.
If we turn inward and only care about ourselves, we might find that no one cares when we need help.
Sadly this pushes the people with the most insight and capability off the platforms where the outrage takes place. I've seen many capable people de-zucking and refusing to consume newspaper/radio/TV news. Notably a lot of HN readers too. These platforms although (insert outrage) heavily criticised, for me have fuelled the tech explosion which has brought so much collaboration and benefit - now all the techies are leaving because they're sick of it, is that good or bad?
He seems to be lumping in all outrage as the same. People being outraged at Nike doing something is the equivalent to voter rights being taken away because certain people of a certain race vote a certain way. These things aren't remote the same.
And his idea that political parties should "work together" often means you're negotiating the rights of people, who neither party member usually is part of, either to have more or less rights, and you're negotiating them like they're bargaining chips.
This author and so many people who aren't part of marginalized groups really can't grasp this.
But outrage is also a powerful motivator for changing society for the better.
Right now in the UK people are protesting an authoritarian anti-protest bill. How many are out there because they were outraged by it? What if they were at home, happily following their respective hobbies instead? If no one ever speaks up, what prevents society from sliding towards fascism / 1984 / etc?
The anger I feel now is much weaker than it was before. When I was addicted to weed and before I found my girlfriend which I currently have a child. The anger was my friend, thanks to it I never felt lonely, I never was alone (but I was, I was just alienated teen-ager that couldn't cope with life and my feelings). The anger I felt gave my strength. Strength to resolve problems and issues with relations and interactions. I felt so powerful I knew I could stand up to that person (father) that never told me good thing, never prised me, never agreed... The anger I felt to my parents I protected onto other people. The strong anger I felt sometimes was causing next day so blue that my mind was just wandering if suicide is the solution.
Outrage is a problem, but I don't think it's just (social) media that are responsible. The article says that things are better than they were 100 years ago, but politically speaking I'm pretty sure they're not better than they were 20 or 40 years ago, and they may well be worse. In the US and UK, at least, democracy seems pretty creaky.
So yes, your outrage is being gamed, but it is also real. The challenge is to channel it into something useful, and (social) media is little help with that.
Edit: on brief reflection, maybe (social) media is the problem after all, since perhaps politicians themselves are now optimising (social) media exposure via maximum outrage, and chance the consequences.
You can clearly see this in action: open reddit in an incognito tab and half of the posts on the front page are from outrage “porn” subreddits: PublicFreakouts, JusticeServed, instant_regret, IdiotsInCars. Go ahead and try it.
A lot of modern technology is something like the evolution of an angler fish.
Design a technology, optimize that technology for some metric, figure out a way to profit from it.
An angler fish lights up, attracts prey which hasn't learned to know any better, and eats it.
A tech company lights up with a feed, optimizes it (often blindly) to whatever attracts the most prey... er ... audience, and then takes from them what it can.
We didn't evolve in an environment with this kind of psychologically manipulative trickery, and the tech companies often barely know that what they are doing is manipulation at all, they're just measuring success and iterating to enhance that metric.
[+] [-] hprotagonist|5 years ago|reply
Is one's first feeling, 'Thank God, even they aren't quite so bad as that,' or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies are as bad as possible?
If it is the second then it is, I am afraid, the first step in a process which, if followed to the end, will make us into devils. You see, one is beginning to wish that black was a little blacker. If we give that wish its head, later on we shall wish to see grey as black, and then to see white itself as black. Finally we shall insist on seeing everything -- God and our friends and ourselves included -- as bad, and not be able to stop doing it: we shall be fixed for ever in a universe of pure hatred.
-- C.S. Lewis
[+] [-] Thorentis|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JMTQp8lwXL|5 years ago|reply
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." -- Mark Twain
[+] [-] winter_blue|5 years ago|reply
(Amazing quote by the way! Thank you for sharing.)
[+] [-] undefined1|5 years ago|reply
Friedrich W. Nietzsche
[+] [-] yazfield|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] drawkbox|5 years ago|reply
When engagement is all that matters, the most engagement comes when people are divisive, mad/angry or even pushed to extremes.
When you feel yourself getting bothered, angry and you have to prove someone wrong on the internet, step away. You are taking valuable time from your own projects and quality of life.
People can have different opinions and that is ok, your ideas and opinions are what make you, see that as your unique tool to success. On top of that many "organic opinions" are actually astroturfing and PR designed to promote or get you to "engage".
[+] [-] jfengel|5 years ago|reply
Unplugging is a good tool for all of us but the real problem is that outrage is ruining all our lives, not just those who indulge it.
[+] [-] colmvp|5 years ago|reply
For me at least it's been a vice for decades. First it was discussion/gaming forums, then it was Fark, then Digg, and then Reddit.
It's just as detrimental as being addicted to alcohol/drugs/games to distract you from life. In controlled doses it's okay but when it starts to take over an entire day or periods of a day/week from doing other things that could be giving your mind/body some life, that's when you really have to check in and ask yourself is this worth it?
[+] [-] madrox|5 years ago|reply
The insidious problem is that, by the time you have that feeling, it is too late. It takes more time to let it go than it took to have that experience. Sometimes, responding feels like the only way to get closure. Better to never put yourself in a situation where having that experience is possible...unless you choose to have it.
[+] [-] closeparen|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hooande|5 years ago|reply
I can assure you that every good author of both fiction and non-fiction is constantly thinking "how can I make this story more engaging?" Clicks provide an empirical method to measure that, for better or worse.
Trying to improve metrics is the path of least resistance in most situations. Should all writing be more informative, thought provoking and rewarding? Yes, but that's hard af. By comparison it's pretty easy to see what got clicks and try to do that again.
[+] [-] pmg102|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] quotemstr|5 years ago|reply
What do you do about it? Ban this algorithm here or that UI pattern there? Impossible. You can't blunt the desires (even the harmful desires) of billions of people through some kind of centralized rulemaking. Look at the total shitshow that emerged after NYC tried to impose a tiny tax on sugary soft drinks, which are obviously bad for you. Why would an attempt to control engagement optimized platforms work when the soda tax didn't even the harms of engagement metrics are much less clear and the product more universally desirable?
The only thing that's going to help us deal with the problem of internet outrage wireheading is giving society time to develop cultural antibodies naturally. Eventually, one way or another, spending your days arguing with strangers will become low status and shameful --- just like drinking a big gulp with 32768 calories per cup is low status now. (Not that status fully solves the problem.)
In the meantime, well, we just have to hold on. The problem isn't engagement metrics. The problem is human nature. We are literally the dumbest possible primate that could form a civilization: keep that in mind.
[+] [-] spoonjim|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WalterBright|5 years ago|reply
And then they ban the comment section because people engage.
[+] [-] randomsearch|5 years ago|reply
“Enragement is engagement.”
[+] [-] harles|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] paxys|5 years ago|reply
I do not, however, agree with their solution. Turning off the news/Facebook/Twitter and ignoring everything happening around you is not going to make things better.
The world has made a lot of progress over the last few centuries (as the article calls out), but all of it has been driven by common people like you and me getting outraged over things that might not directly concern us. Anger is sometimes justified.
Instead, when you read something that angers you, take a few minutes and do that extra step of research. Could it be completely fake? Does the headline reflect the contents of the article correctly (it is normally not written by the author)? Is the data researched and sourced? Is what you are reading heavily opinionated? Are you subscribed to a healthy mix of sources?
If enough people actually did this (instead of reading the title and going straight to Twitter/Reddit/HN), meaningless outrage will disappear without the trade-off of not being informed about the world. You will organically discover that everything is a lot more reasonable and moderate than people want you to believe. And if something actually isn't, you will be able to see it.
[+] [-] cout|5 years ago|reply
The most reasonable people in the world often end up in a fact-checking loop, where they will never have any real influence on the world. For me that's what sparks my outrage, when I realize everything I'm reading is full of truthful lies. Maybe you're right that this could fuel change; I am less optimistic.
[+] [-] linspace|5 years ago|reply
It's depressing but people don't care about truth. Not acknowledging this will give you a lot of frustration.
[+] [-] the-dude|5 years ago|reply
There was no public internet at the time. I remember parts of these times.
Nowadays engagement is pretty effortless. One only needs to feel enraged.
[+] [-] vlunkr|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] betwixthewires|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pnt12|5 years ago|reply
For me, it's environmentalism that gets me. I do believe I have a reason to be outraged by this topic and our inactions, although so does everyone who is outraged. My thoughts basically hit all the checkboxes in the article, but does that make them excessively outraged, or is just that the situation itself is truly outraging?
[+] [-] SpicyLemonZest|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jackcosgrove|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xyzelement|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] b0rsuk|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rcpt|5 years ago|reply
Only if you're ignoring climate change
[+] [-] jeetelongname|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whymauri|5 years ago|reply
The snap back to reality almost broke me. Humans are not meant to doomscroll. They are not meant to be this angry, this often. Just like disconnecting felt like a high, coming back was the come down.
Those months/weeks completely changed my view on media and doomscrolling. I can't stomache it anymore, and avoiding that behavior has helped me be more positive over the last week.
[+] [-] nicbou|5 years ago|reply
What surprises me every time is how few notifications and important things I miss. It seems to plateau quickly, and whether I leave for a day or a month, it's about the same.
I guess the outrage doesn't affect me so much. However, being constantly hooked on a source of dopamine does. After an hour away from the screen, I start planning activities, fixing things around the house etc.
[+] [-] WarOnPrivacy|5 years ago|reply
How I came to this same conclusion.
I voted for GwBush 2x. I found myself annoyed by compulsive Bush hatred; it often seemed divorced from the reasons given. However, I did come to realize that the parallels between Bush hatred and my earlier Clinton hatred were too strong to deny.
FF and Obama wins 2008. I wasn't at all happy but so be it. Fifteen minutes later - as in 15 actual minutes - red rooms exploded with threads calling for his impeachment. Why? IDK. The reasons were incoherent. More than anything, it seemed like an arms-race escalation of rage-driven thinking.
It was enough for me tho. I wanted to be done being an outrage junkie.
[+] [-] djohnston|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smt88|5 years ago|reply
You can't watch local news, network news, or cable news. You can't use Twitter, Facebook, or reddit.
All of those things mix objective info with outrage, and you can't seem to get the former without the latter.
I myself have given up all social media and use RSS readers now, but the "recommended" or "trending" stories on news sites still have some of those stories in them.
[+] [-] anm89|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nexus2045|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hi5eyes|5 years ago|reply
for the people using these platforms to build, I understand using them. for the rest of the users it's probably a net negative to themselves and the ones around them.
[+] [-] nindalf|5 years ago|reply
Last summer there were tragic deaths in America that triggered massive protests. One of the many heartening things about those protests is that many of those protesting weren't personally affected [1] by the issue at hand - policing of black communities. But they cared about their fellow citizens and they showed up. You want to call that outrage and demean it? Sure. But those people did something good.
If we turn inward and only care about ourselves, we might find that no one cares when we need help.
[1] - One Big Difference About George Floyd Protests: Many White Faces. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/us/george-floyd-white-pro...
[+] [-] maxrev17|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xmzx|5 years ago|reply
He seems to be lumping in all outrage as the same. People being outraged at Nike doing something is the equivalent to voter rights being taken away because certain people of a certain race vote a certain way. These things aren't remote the same.
And his idea that political parties should "work together" often means you're negotiating the rights of people, who neither party member usually is part of, either to have more or less rights, and you're negotiating them like they're bargaining chips.
This author and so many people who aren't part of marginalized groups really can't grasp this.
[+] [-] fullshark|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pharmakom|5 years ago|reply
Right now in the UK people are protesting an authoritarian anti-protest bill. How many are out there because they were outraged by it? What if they were at home, happily following their respective hobbies instead? If no one ever speaks up, what prevents society from sliding towards fascism / 1984 / etc?
[+] [-] gitowiec|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gmac|5 years ago|reply
So yes, your outrage is being gamed, but it is also real. The challenge is to channel it into something useful, and (social) media is little help with that.
Edit: on brief reflection, maybe (social) media is the problem after all, since perhaps politicians themselves are now optimising (social) media exposure via maximum outrage, and chance the consequences.
[+] [-] elteto|5 years ago|reply
Outrage is highly engaging.
[+] [-] colechristensen|5 years ago|reply
Design a technology, optimize that technology for some metric, figure out a way to profit from it.
An angler fish lights up, attracts prey which hasn't learned to know any better, and eats it.
A tech company lights up with a feed, optimizes it (often blindly) to whatever attracts the most prey... er ... audience, and then takes from them what it can.
We didn't evolve in an environment with this kind of psychologically manipulative trickery, and the tech companies often barely know that what they are doing is manipulation at all, they're just measuring success and iterating to enhance that metric.