7 ms·

I don't think that's actually true. Heck, from my own experience, I can definitively say it's not actually true. I've worked in several organizations where I he

I don't think that's actually true. Heck, from my own experience, I can definitively say it's not actually true. I've worked in several organizations where I helped create and sell products whose job was to provide value, then let people get on with their day. I wouldn't have worked at those places otherwise. Not saying that intended addictiveness is not common, but let's not normalize corporate sociopathy.

trumpdong 3mo ago
That's because your employer doesn't think they can ever be addictive.
- danorama 3mo ago
  No, it was because they weren't supposed to be. They were fulfilling an actual need and creating value in a way that wasn't intended to be addictive. And I was a co-founder of some of those orgs and products, so it wasn't about my employer. I know it's hard to believe that not every organization is sociopathic, because many are (the larger, the more likely to be). But not every one is.
  - yoyohello13 3mo ago
    I think the most disturbing aspect of HN is how so many people seem to believe that anti-social behavior is rational. There is this weird dichotomy that you are either a money hungry behemoth or destitute out on the street. My company is a not-for-profit, we put our revenue back into the local community, our employees make a great living and we still have year over year growth.
    - trumpdong 3mo ago
      Evidence that anti-social behavior is rational can be seen in all the successful anti-social people, like Elon, Donald, Jeffrey and William.
      - yoyohello13 3mo ago
        Maybe rational is the wrong word. I think I mean aspirational.
      - JohnFen 3mo ago
        Only if your definition of "success" consists solely of accumulating wealth. Many people use a different definition.
  - trumpdong 3mo ago
    If your boss could quadruple sales by making the product addictive and that was easy, I guarantee he would. So would you if you weren't paid a fixed salary.

trumpdong 3mo ago

That's because your employer doesn't think they can ever be addictive.

danorama 3mo ago
No, it was because they weren't supposed to be. They were fulfilling an actual need and creating value in a way that wasn't intended to be addictive. And I was a co-founder of some of those orgs and products, so it wasn't about my employer. I know it's hard to believe that not every organization is sociopathic, because many are (the larger, the more likely to be). But not every one is.
- yoyohello13 3mo ago
  I think the most disturbing aspect of HN is how so many people seem to believe that anti-social behavior is rational. There is this weird dichotomy that you are either a money hungry behemoth or destitute out on the street. My company is a not-for-profit, we put our revenue back into the local community, our employees make a great living and we still have year over year growth.
  - trumpdong 3mo ago
    Evidence that anti-social behavior is rational can be seen in all the successful anti-social people, like Elon, Donald, Jeffrey and William.
    - yoyohello13 3mo ago
      Maybe rational is the wrong word. I think I mean aspirational.
    - JohnFen 3mo ago
      Only if your definition of "success" consists solely of accumulating wealth. Many people use a different definition.
- trumpdong 3mo ago
  If your boss could quadruple sales by making the product addictive and that was easy, I guarantee he would. So would you if you weren't paid a fixed salary.