I'm reminded of Clay Shirky's talk/essay (wish I could find a link, but it doesn't seem to be on his website any more) about the tremendous consumption of gin (and other drugs) during the Industrial Revolution as a way to deal with the changing world and cognitive surplus of extra time. My hope is that we're in a transitional period when it comes to the internet; we'll become more and more aware of how to use the internet responsibly and regulate ourselves individually or communally to use it for its greatest benefit. But we're in the midst of the Great Binge right now, playing with technologies that have massive psychological effects without considering their long term impacts, giving people what they want in the short term while really reshaping culture, society, and what it means to be a person in the long term.

In my more pessimistic/imaginative moments, I feel like after the coming apocalypse the internet will be banned, Butlerian Jihad-style; long-range communication technologies only for the elite in strictly regulated contexts, because too much access for the individual causes addiction and madness. To be clear, I don't think this is a good outcome (as with the Industrial Revolution, technology has huge long-term benefits if the terrible costs can be overcome) but I think there needs to be a really serious change in how we think about communication technology, and part of that means acknowledging its harms.

You may be thinking of his book by that same name. https://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Surplus-Technology-Consumer...

It looks like it's also summarized as a TED talk (I've not seen it) https://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_how_cognitive_surplus_...

Yeah its really ridiculous how quickly people focus on gamification, like if you have a marginally functional product just gamify it as much as possible and people are into that.

I remember seeing this guy playing "point and click" games, and they looked so pointless...

> Even Plex, although I'm not sure what they're getting out of it.

This should be a hint that every feature that makes a product easier to use isn't some nefarious anti-consumer plot: sometimes they're made with the intent to, uh, make the product easier to use.

> Ultimately, I suppose it's up to the consumer to resist the addiction while availing themselves of the value provided by these products, in much the same way that most of us can enjoy and appreciate beer, wine, and spirits without becoming alcoholics. But thinking about these things is making me reconsider what sort of projects I'd like to work on.

As contrarian as I come across in these threads, I don't disagree with the concept that the user doesn't bear 100% of the responsibility for an addictive environment. What I do find odd is how incredibly common the view is across HN that the user bears 0% responsibility, and that they're just a hapless, helpless victim of forces beyond their control.

There are some positive things in life that require maturity and self-control to enjoy safely: I like alcohol less than most of my friends, but I don't go around railing against drinkers and blaming alcohol dealers for being exploitative. I like other drugs a lot more, and I'm well-aware that, just like alcohol, enjoying them comes with the responsibility to be safe about them.

You might find this interesting: https://www.1843magazine.com/features/the-scientists-who-mak...

I have wished with my friends that there was a way when binge watching a TV show to know if the next episode ends in a cliffhanger.

We've gotten caught out several times watching 'just one more episode' because there was a cliffhanger only to discover to our frustration that it was a double cliffhanger.

It would have been better for us if we had saved the previous episode for another day instead of going down the rabbit hole.

>most television apps have adopted the annoying "play the next episode unless the user opts out in X seconds"

To be fair, this is how broadcast/cable TV always worked.

This is true, and I've known people who seem to find that quality of broadcast TV addictive. Over the years, they tuned the transition to keep viewers from switching channels -- removed the trailing commercial gap, sped up the closing credits, etc. -- and perhaps increased the addictiveness in the process.