“The thought process that went into building these applications, Facebook being the first of them … was all about: ‘How do we consume as much of your time and conscious attention as possible?’ That means that we need to sort of give you a little dopamine hit every once in a while, because someone liked or commented on a photo or a post or whatever. And that’s going to get you to contribute more content and that’s going to get you … more likes and comments,” he said
I wish it was possible to disable showing points in HN for this exact same reason. Both in stories and my comments. I'm sure Greasemonkey could help but I'd like this embraced by HN, if possible.
I've read that again and again, but my personal experience is just the opposite. I haven't felt "positive reinforcement" or "dopamine hits" for quite some time on Facebook. Since it shifted from social network to social media, it doesn't "give" me anything anymore. It is tedious, and I don't check it because I feel compelled, or even enjoy it, but I have to make a concious effort to login and check every now and then, like you check mail or your bank website.
Back when it was more about the profile, about "stalking" friends and connecting with real-life acquaintances, it was much more addictive. Features like "you know this person via these two steps", poking, but also subtle clues like the timing of when somebody visited your page, or that they commented on an old photo (meaning they browsed your gallery)... that is all missing now. Facebook was so addictive because it enabled you to obsess about social connections. Friends, crushes, people with common hobbies, and so on.
> I haven't felt "positive reinforcement" or "dopamine hits" for quite some time on Facebook.
A 'feed' does not have to be overtly social to have addictive potential.
Suppose you visit a news site, not a social one, no likes, hearts or any feedback from other users.
The stories appear in a feed that you can refresh. 80% of the stories are of no interest to you, but 20% are great.
You can't predict when an interesting story will appear.
This configuration is enough to create "positive reinforcement" and the unpredictability can foster addictive behaviour.
When you encounter an article you like, it's a bit like sifting through sand and finding a gold nugget, you get a dopamine hit for that.
The fact that the nuggets only come up randomly and are hard to predict
is called an "intermittent reinforcement schedule" and is known to elicit a high rate of response from the subject.
Related: Chimpanzees have higher dopamine release when the peanut dispenser only gives out peanuts "sometimes" instead of "every time" and can also explain (behaviorally) why some human become very addicted to the unpredictable nature of slots.
The term for that is variable-ratio positive reinforcement [2] which leads to habits that are resistant to "extinction" [3]. I just learned this the other day.
Wasn’t there another one in there called “ko”-something or other during the slashdot days? It’s funny how in all my years of internet, I’ve probably been reading comments by people I first read when I was much younger.
I hadn't fully realized this, but I think you nailed it. I stopped using Facebook regularly well over 5 years ago, and the only reason I have an account is because many people in my neighborhood are on a Facebook Messenger thread together (kind of an informal thing).
When I did use Facebook daily, it was for all the reasons you mention. If I ever log onto the site now I'm immediately driven away, it's just a bunch of advertising and nothing I care to see.
Timing plays a role into this too. If you're interested in getting into a discussion on a submission, you need to check the site frequently because after a few hours the discussion is going to be dead. Likewise, you need to make the comment fairly quickly instead of waiting a day or two to chime in. And after making a comment, there's pressure to check frequently to see if you got replies - again, if you wait for too long nobody is going to notice your reply back to them.
With the old web forums you could wait a day or two to respond or a day or two to check for replies. But the timing dynamic here (and on many other sites) encourages much more frequent checks and much more rapid-fire conversations.
I don't often comment on HN and this (the short-timed nature of discussions) is one of the main reasons. The other main reason is that I have a high threshold for considering my participation is worthy of other people's attention.
More often then not, when that threshold is crossed, I realize I'm too late and my post will just sit there, unread.
Aren't there others who think it'd be great to have a "sticky" or "follow" button, in essence signalling "I'm going to follow this discussion for a few days / weeks, because I'm genuinely interested"?
Also if there was a way to easily "suscribe" to a thread (email alerts) that'd help. (Someone mentioned hnreplies.com in a sibling comment, never tried it, but I'll check it out)
> The other main reason is that I have a high threshold for considering my participation is worthy of other people's attention.
This is one of the problems with online conversations in general. Person A makes a lot of low effort comments without putting much thought into it and without bothering to check the accuracy of what they're writing. Person B thinks about whether or not they have anything to add to the conversation, spends time thinking about other people's comments, checks any claims they make to see if they're accurate, rewrites their comment so that it flows better, etc. Person A is going to end up making many, many more comments than Person B. The conversation will look more and more like Person A's posts, even when those people are in the minority.
There are some places that suffer more from this than others, but I think it affects just about every online conversation to some extent. It would be interesting to see what effect posting limits would have.
You're right about that. It might be that I suffer from a "person B" problem :)
However I still think that the "short-lived" nature of discussions here is a relatively independent problem. I think integrating a way to "subscribe to a story" with email alerts on HN itself (rather than independent apps like hnreplies.com), and _displaying_ the number of people who did subscribe, would pave the way for longer-lived discussions. By seeing the number of people who did "subscribe to the story" you'd know whether or not it's still worth posting a comment even though it's been a day or two.
Maybe that's the reason forums have longer-lived discussions. You can easily get alerts when there are new posts in a discussion where you've posted.
It would be interesting if someone started a HN News discussion forum where people could continue the conversations that start here. That would at least help alleviate the problem of feeling pressure to respond to stories and comments rapidly, even if the other issues involved in online discussions (like the "Person A/Person B" one) remain.
In general I wish there was more attention paid to the way different platforms shape our conversations, and more interest in exploring alternative platforms.
I like the idea of a "discussion forum where people could continue the conversations that start here" (at HN).
Some discussions (not all :) that arise on HN are rich and deep, with intelligent people exploring the topic, often someone with expertise/experience/domain knowledge will pitch in to inform the rest - and I haven't found many places on the Web where such discussions happen regularly.
It's a pity sometimes when such a discussion gets swept away in the timeline, simply archived, rather than continuing it over a longer-term, to really have a chance to think deeply and collectively.
You could have a greasemonkey script that puts a 'continue this discussion on [site]' button and then auto-cross post on a click. Even also put auto put a comment in that says 'I'd like to continue this on [site], please join me there'.
For all that G+ is a horrible service, the fact that commenting on a post is effectively a subscription to that post has been among its more attractive elements. If the moderator of that post kicks crap (spam, shitposts) to the curb.
It's lead to the convention of "/sub" (or as I prefer, "/surveil") as an indicator of interest.
But a good conversation can remain alive for days, weeks, months, or even years.
Your points still stand but in case you haven’t heard about it, someone around here created hnreplies.com to help mitigate the “frequent checking” problem. Its awesome and free. (I have nothing to do with it, just an appreciative fan)
I find this frustrating as well. Occasionally a good back and forth does develop and then just... dies. No way to actually reach out to anyone just pray they keep checking the 'threads' link until that thread gets too far down.
I have no idea how anyone manages to follow conversations beyond their first visit to a story on vanilla HN - I can only manage it with a Greasemonkey script [1] which shows which previously-viewed stories have new comments, highlighting new comments and collapsing trees without new comments when you revisit them.
It would be nice if the site maintainers took notice of people using scripts like this and incorporate those improvements, but I suppose that will always be the nature of free but non-advertising-driven websites. Be careful what you wish for I suppose.
I made an account just to comment on this post. I’ve been a lurker for a little while, just getting the feel of HN. I never planned on making an account so I don’t see upvotes like I do on reddit. I will legitimately log out of my account after this comment because I have enjoyed the experience so much more.
Not sure, but is it not that bookmarklets need to be clicked by user on every page visit, whereas Extension can auto process every page visit without user intervention?
Good point. Although a bookmarklet can also ignore the current site and just open a new tab, it can't embed custom JavaScript into that new tab.
But at least it can open a new tab with a full-page iframe, which was just enough for me to implement my autoreload bookmarklet. [1]
Apart from that, I believe there are meta-extensions which provide a generic way to inject JavaScript into every page. This is just one extension, but manages multiple bookmarklets (or whatever they call these snippets).
What's the difference in this specific case? How do I automatically apply a custom CSS onto an external website? Is this somehow simpler than injecting JS into an external website?
That's a bad idea disguised as good one. Comments aren't born in a vacuum, there is a story and a pattern to people that helps put things into perspective when reading a string of comments.
idea: Give points randomly: When an up-vote is given, a random member gets the point. Seeing your comment or submission on the front page is a reward on itself, no need to get extra points too. This can be developed further by randomly selecting only from those who has up-voted the submission, so there would be a higher chance of getting negative points by up-voting "flame-bait" topics.
Why showing them then? If it's useful to not have them the first few days, why is it useful after?
I don't have any numbers, but I'd bet 99% of visits to comment pages are made in the first day of the article being submitted (i.e. when it's in the front page or second page).
I don't know how many people need the 'micro dopamine high' to contribute and engage. If that number is high engagement might drop off as they may go elsewhere to get the fix.
The flip side is that those of us who tend to have controversial opinions get negative dopamine hits (downvotes, often with no response or retort) and participate less.
I mostly just don't participate in upvoting or downvoting at all (here or on reddit), unless something really catches my attention.
Personally, I still think this is one thing slashdot had right. Random selection of certain established users as "moderator" who could not only give a comment a point rating between 0-5, but also a descriptor (funny, offtopic, etc).
Yes but then how will I know which comments are valid and acceptable.... We must have points for I am unable to think for myself and need the points system to tell me which views are correct /s
Because the points system replaces online the offline signals you, and we all, use for just that non-thinking - signals like facial disgust, like if a restaurant is full or empty, like other people in a room taking notice of one person.
we need social signals to determine how the society we are in is functioning. points, likes, follows are very poor proxies - but we need something. if those proxies are making billions for some people that's not the fault of our need for social alignment.
I think the authors point was that the companies are advocating for people to be using their services for as long as possible, and yet the bosses of the companies are using it minimally or not using it at all.
Once per day may indeed be a healthy usage but it's not the level of engagement desired by the companies.
Is it safe to assume that's because they don't like using the service or because they are too busy to be spending all day on social media sharing posts and tweets?
The article points out that ex-executives of these companies say that the services were designed to capture people's attention and act like a drug, and that they now disagree with it. The implication of this (and to answer the title, I guess) is that current executives know this and "don't get high on their own supply".
Whether that's the actual case or not is the question, and we could compare other executives of technological but non social media companies to see the level of how much of their own dog food they eat. There's a further question which is whether eating ones own dog food is a good measure.
My first impression was these folks that are in highly-visible positions at a highly-visible company probably are very conservative/careful with what they publicly share/post since they are under relatively higher scrutiny. I wouldn't be surprised if they all had private accounts which had more activity.
It really depends. I'm an extremely active Twitter user; my account is roughly nine years old, and I have 150,000 tweets in that time, it is just over 46 tweets/day.
That's also just on my personal account, I run another account as well, though it's lower traffic, and mostly retweets.
I have a (fairly bad) smartphone and no data plan (just a small 200mb/mo emergency contingent). I have deleted all social media apps (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Messenger, all Games). On the go, I use apps with offline capabilities. Pocket Casts for Podcasts, the Kindle app for my books, Spotify for music. Those get synced on Wifi
If I use any apps of this kind, I do so on my Laptop:
Here, I have more control by using three Chrome extensions:
Obviously it is possible to circumvent all of these self-imposed obstacles, but taking a couple of seconds to "take the safety off" is often enough to remind me why I have blocked those pages in the first place. It is enough time to let my prefrontal cortex reign in my dopamine seeking reptile brain.
Taking these measures has allowed me to drastically reduce my time spent on distracting sites.
Do you also use a shitty computer just to protect yourself from addictive video games?
I honestly don't get it when people have to do all that stuff to "protect" themselves instead of just... not going on Facebook 15 times a day? I consider myself like an easy target for addictive services but, I don't know, I guess I just have better things to do.
Once you develop a habit of doing something, it can be tough to drop the habit without something to interrupt your thought process.
For instance, I noticed myself picking up my phone and browsing certain websites (dopamine sources) whenever my thoughts wandered into a topic I find distressing -- instead of confronting those thoughts and thinking them through. For me, Facebook happens not to be addictive, but other sites are (for instance, Quora). I was wasting hours on those sites instead of doing productive things.
Setting up a content blocker to make me think twice before visiting them has helped. So has adding an app that I can set to block using my phone for a given period of time, forcing me to put it down and do other things.
Everyone has better things to do. You are not addicted because you did not use them like they are supposed to.
Addiction is built-in in these apps from every possible way. There are lots of information on how they do that. Your comment is like saying, why don't people just stop taking narcotics, there are better things to do.
Here's another idea: change your profile pic to a banner saying you're quitting social media. The social pressure against being called out for breaking your pledge will help make it stick. You'll be less able to silently return (like you can if you "disable" your account), and you can still use your account in limited, less addictive ways (e.g. logins, messaging with people who don't have other contact info, etc).
I tried these approaches, but it never worked for me. I find the best way to kill these things is by breaking the things that make them addictive. E.g. I unfollowed (not de-friended) everyone on Facebook. I can still use it to send/receive private messages and organise events, but my newsfeed is totally blank. I now never go on Facebook unless I have something to do there. After a month or so the stimulus-reward loop was removed from my brain.
I use browser extensions to block the tracking side of things, uninstalled the apps from my phone, and I'm now pretty happy with my relationship with Facebook and the impact it has on my life (~0).
The emotions that most drive engagement with social media are all negative ones: gloating, FOMO, jealousy, outrage, schadenfreude. Even if the humans running didn’t know this perfectly well, their ML would have independently discovered it. Social media by its very nature CANNOT be good for anyone so long as engagement or time on the site is used as a success metric. Which means, at all.
Thank you for this insight. These problems are reflected in modern media which push stories often source from social media (i.e. any sort of "outrage" on twitter is headlines these days). Such news stories are then also consumed via social media, creating a perverse sort of feedback loop that amplifies all the ugliest aspects of humanity. I find it insulting, and it astonishes me the number of people who sheepishly just go along with it.
> “In general, when people spend a lot of time passively consuming information – reading, but not interacting with people – they report feeling worse afterward,” two Facebook researchers said in a review of the existing literature. On the other hand, “actively interacting with people – especially sharing messages, posts and comments with close friends and reminiscing about past interactions – is linked to improvements in wellbeing”.
Its rather unsettling how easy it is to replace some of these words with 'mdma' and make it sound like a drug dealer encouraging you to go to raves with other people on mdma and not do mdma by yourself at home because you won't enjoy it as much.
This is an absurd argument. Humans are social. Take two activities at random, one social and one not, and you'll probably find people feel better on average after doing the social one. (Obviously, there are counterexamples, but I'm talking about averages here).
I think that's false. Humans are social, but that means social activity is rewarding. You can build a Skinner box out of "social" rewards just like you can build one out of money rewards (e.g. slot machines).
Success for a social network is not "people feeling better on average" it's people coming back more often on average. Their actual level of enjoyment or well-being is irrelevant to the platform.
I would argue that feelings of well-being are not just irrelevant, they are actually directly contrary to the goals of our current advertising-driven social networks. Happy contented people aren't as influenced by advertising intended to capitalize on insecurities, which is really most of it.
A social network's ideal audience would be a group of people who are relatively discontent with their lives and provide a series of small improvements to that state of being, but ones that quickly fade, and then encourage them to repeat that cycle as often as possible. That way the susceptibility to advertising remains high and boosts advertiser ROI, which raises the social network's value as a platform.
> Come to think of it, that sounds pretty familiar.
I've never used Instagram much, but that sounds like one aspect of that network I've read about. Everyone curates their profile to make their lives seem more fun and more interesting than they really are, often with a materialist angle. The real you looks inadequate compared to these false lives, leaving many feeling insecure about themselves. Then you have professional "influencers" with hyper-curated profiles that depict a fantastically fun and fashionable life. They make money by shilling products that subtly promise to let you join in on that lifestyle, if you only buy.
Insecurity has always been a strong undercurrent in advertising. Anytime you see a picture of someone looking happy or having fun with a product, that's a tiny dig at your insecurities that maybe you aren't having as much fun as you could with that product.
Its just that, Instagram especially because of the power of an image, its like not only did they set out to create a platform to maximize your insecurity, they recruited thousands of people and gave them a special title ("influencer") and pay them to amplify that message as loudly as possible, then bake in the same addictive interactions as Facebook, and then monetized the whole thing.
Its not to say that its always bad and should be shut down, just be aware of the effects it can have and be honest about how you react to them.
I dunno. I get where your coming from but this seems completely different. If you take two activities at random, one social and one not, I would not expect the people organizing either of those activities being super incentivized to get you addicted to them and to do more and more of it as often as possible. That's more of a drug dealer thing.
I mean they might really want you to, but they don't put apps on your phone and reset your privacy settings to let them reach out to you and spam you with notifications through multiple channels (email/text/sms) multiple times per day trying to get you to engage that are endlessly optimized by very smart people to trigger that engagement, not a lot, but just a hit to get you coming back for more.
And then grow into one of the largest companies in America lead by one of richest men in America by leveraging the addicting and repetitive nature of that activity to literally and intentionally monetize _their_ influence how _you_ think (advertising).
Sorry, but what is going on right now @ Facebook can't be hand waved away by saying that humans are social animals.
I mostly agree with you. Although, social media has some benefits. I used to not use it very frequently and had thought about deactivating FB for a while, but then I moved to a new city and found it useful for both showing my old friends what I was doing on the weekends and for finding fun things to do like mountain biking and rock climbing through various groups.
But I see your point in that FB's management isn't really pushing to make those sort of interactions happen more frequently, they're just trying to get people to spend as much time on it as possible to extract ad money from them.
Hey, I'll be the first one to acknowledge that social media can be totally fine, even have positive effects, in moderation and when used responsibly. I would say that about most drugs, for that matter. (maybe not meth: you don't hear about many responsible meth users).
You seem to be using it in a responsible way, don't let anyone judge you for that.
Just be aware of the forces arrayed against you and be honest about how it effects you. If you find yourself not enjoying it or see it have a negative effect on your loved ones, try to cut back. If you have no problem doing so, then there's nothing to worry about, but if you do find it difficult then you know you may have a problem.
Honestly, I expect within the year we'll see the first nationwide support groups for social media addiction a.l.a Alcoholics Anonymous. If no one has done a startup yet for an app that is designed to help, that would be a great opportunity.
sharing messages, posts and comments with close friends and reminiscing about past interactions
But that’s a false dilemma. Those aren’t the ONLY two things you can do on FB. And you don’t need FB for your “close” friends, you can do that it person, via email, FaceTime, whatever.
Where does it say that they don't though? Some Twitter execs tweet more than once a day, Facebook's exec profiles are private so you can't see their activity. Am I missing something? Quotes like this:
> Facebook’s locked-down nature means mere mortals can’t see the private posts on Zuckerberg’s timeline, but it is hard to imagine him getting into arguments about a racist relative’s post of an anti-immigration meme.
Make it sound like the article is just about bashing social medias, without having an answer to the question in the title.
I think the author may just be unfamiliar with the different social media sites and assumes that everyone uses them as he does.
I don’t use Facebook much, but I’ve never made a public post and my friends aren’t visible. But you wouldn’t know this without asking me. My goal is to never be the subject of an article, but if I was, it would be lazy on the part of the author to assume that I don’t use Facebook because I have no posts visible to the author.
> Make it sound like the article is just about bashing social medias
Every day the media releases propaganda against social media. On HN, we get a "social media/facebook" is responsible for all the ills of the world nonsense routinely followed by the same suspicious "I quick facebook and I won the lottery" style comments.
If you feel like, check HN on the waybackmachine or any other archive site and you'll see.
The obvious reason social media execs don't use social media as much is because they are too busy. It's the same reason that movie execs don't watch many movies, it's why football execs don't' watch too much football games, it's why newspaper execs don't read much newspapers, etc.
Most top execs are busy running a company to be doing anything else. But theguardian along with the rest of the media has to spin everything for their own agenda.
I suppose this is the same reason TV executives didn't spend all day watching "As the world turns" and "the $64,000 question" back in the day.
They're the merchants, not the product. The people who watch all day are the product. The people who obsessively check their instagram feeds for uplikes (or whatever they're called this week) are the product.
I too am a social media conscientous objector.
Partly because FB said they won't always offer information I create to my "friends." So why should I create it?
Partly because I've really come to dislike getting sucked down a rabbit hole of stuff the social media companies machine learning knows will snag my attention.
Partly because fake nuz is worthy of protest and boycott.
Mostly because the charge humans get from accumulating "uplikes" is a soul-corrupting addiction. I could rant on about professor René Girard's mimetic theory and human yearning to think we're better than the next guy, and how one Peter Thiel helped FB corrupt Girard's work. But, bah. Back to work.
Aren't Reddit and in general forums much better at that?
With Facebook, you are using your true identity resulting in the pressure of having to post perfect content, you often have to post photos which are extremely time consuming to get right, the number of people who can "upvote" is very limited and the lack of a "downvote" button makes trolling for downvotes impossible.
On the other hand, a short but effective text post on Reddit or a forum can be done in a minute and potentially generate a huge flamewar and thousands of people upvoting or downvoting, and it doesn't matter if it turns out to be dumb or ineffective or otherwise bad.
And all you need is to just express the most controversial and hyperbolic take possible on a given existing subject, while on Facebook you'd need to come up with original content.
Finally, while Reddit might be accused of doing it intentionally for traffic, the web forums and newsgroups where this behavior started most definitely did not, so it's more of an intrinsic property of public one-to-many communication systems than something evil that Facebook came up with.
Here's my wild guess as to 'why social media bosses dont use social media': they're too busy running biggest companies in tech industry to have time to spend on twitter/facebook.
Isn't there a danger here of blaming social media for the fact that the rest of your life apparently sucks? I remember I used to get annoyed at people who were noisy when I was trying to study. Then I realised I was blaming them for my own sense of inadequacy.
Yet neither was it my fault: it's simply that the material was boring. Lack of focus really implied that I needed something harder, more important (and thus more exciting) to do.
It could be related. But human psyche is always there and systems must accomodate it. Building systems that hurt you mentally is not unlike trying to hurt you physically. Say the library was designed to be noisy - would that be acceptable?
Good point -- but then, is it acceptable for winemakers to choose the best and most alluring grapes? And for there to be a distribution point within easy distance of my house, supported by local government planners and so on?
Winemakers can use any grapes and set up shop anywhere they like. Alcohol is of course problematic and reasonable restrictions may be put into place. Pretty straightforward, really.
(Your hypothetical argument based on false moral absolutisms is familiar around the internet, usually used to excuse unethical behaviour. Don't fall for it)
I found Taleb's perspective on things terribly refreshing. "Each one should eat his own turtles" - seems to be a terrific heuristic for everything consumption related, even if it errs sometimes on the precautionary side. Zuckerberg doesn't seem to eat his own turtles, Dorsey doesn't, Spiegel most likely does the same. I don't need anymore examples.
Take this principle elsewhere, it works the same. Safe to assume, the casino owner doesn't gamble, or the gambling site owner doesn't as well. Does any tobacco exec smoke regularly? I'm not even going to look for a factually accurate answer. It seems this principle seems extremly robust.
Like figuring out all possible ways to make billions of people spend more time and concentration on their website so that they can get richer and richer by generating money through ads? God only knows what social media is doing to our children's brains.
It sounds fairly reasonable to me. You design a cool app but it evolves into something much more than what you envisioned. You are still passionate about it but it doesn't mean that you have to be a compulsive user. Same story with several employees / key executives. There are there to perform a role, maybe manage engineering, run finance etc. They really don't need to be immersed in the app to do that, neither should they be expected to.
I post this in every related thread but can't help myself as I really believe it's important. Delete your facebook/instagram/whatever account. Get off of Google services. If and when a distrubuted, encrypted, open source social network gains traction that cares about privacy as much as duckduckgo, then maybe consider using it. This will almost certainly never happen because joe interweb clicker doesn't give a shit.
Isn't texting and social apps where kids "hang out" and make friendships today? It might be noble to keep your kids off of the platforms but if you're the only one your kids are going to be lonely.
Why doesn't theguardian bosses read newspapers so much? Because they are too busy running the company and trying to make money? Do I get to write an article for the guardian now?
The obvious reason social media execs don't use social media as much is because they are too busy. It's the same reason that movie execs don't watch many movies, it's why football execs don't' watch too much football games, it's why newspaper execs don't read much newspapers, etc.
Most top execs are busy running a company to be doing anything else. But theguardian along with the rest of the media has to spin everything for their own agenda.
Would be great if we went a few days without the standard "I hate social media" from the toxic "traditional media".
> these people know exactly what this tech is designed to do.
I think that's a little stilted in this case. I read voraciously as a kid. My parents often took my book away and kicked me outside. By the same rule, they knew exactly what books are designed to do.
I don't think it's so nefarious as that when it comes to [this]technology. They weren't designed to rake in ad dollars from childrens' misinformed taps.
I think they thought kids just need moderation. And kids are horrific at moderation. So until they learn, they get told what to do, or no cookies at all.
Hell, before tablets and user-friendly computers, it was video games are the devil, before that TV was the devil, before that the radio and the talkies are the devil.
Social media is a different animal. It's making use of the technology to a certain end. Sort of like how some TV talk shows and old kids radio adventures were really just disguised advertising that profited the most from bringing you back every episode.
Uploaded her first video 3 months ago (following the monetization outcry). Seems very hard to me to really understand the platform and its problems/opportunities without fully embracing it from a creator and viewer perspective.
You don't know if she's a viewer. And to be a creator you need time which she won't have. Just uploading a few videos won't help her understand the creator's perspective. But I'd be surprised if she didn't use Youtube regularly.
I wish it was possible to disable showing points in HN for this exact same reason. Both in stories and my comments. I'm sure Greasemonkey could help but I'd like this embraced by HN, if possible.