And companies writing the software that average people use are motivated solely by "what the average Joe wants," where "what the average Joe wants" is defined by business metrics like "how much is Joe clicking" and "how much is Joe spending."
This is not a "bad" thing, but it's not what the Average Joe wants, it's more what the Average Joe is incited to do. More clicking (on ads directly, or on "engaging content" that shows more ads) is what the business owners want from an Average Joe.
But "people do it == people directly desire it" is a manifestly wrong metric. When something is in short supply in a store, people will line up to secure the chance to buy it. But Apple would be insane to think that people lining up to buy a newest Macbook on the day or release want lining up, and that more lining up is what they'd enjoy. People tolerate lining up to get what they desire. Equally, people tolerate more clicking in order to get what they desire, and what they'd likely prefer to obtain with one click.
> This is not a "bad" thing, but it's not what the Average Joe wants, it's more what the Average Joe is incited to do. More clicking (on ads directly, or on "engaging content" that shows more ads) is what the business owners want from an Average Joe.
This is a bit of a philosophical question.
Are there things we want that weren't somehow influenced by society (e.g. family, peers, advertisements, culture, etc.)? I'd argue very few things, aside from the basic biological needs. By corollary, almost everything we want is the result of external influence.
> But "people do it == people directly desire it" is a manifestly wrong metric. When something is in short supply in a store, people will line up to secure the chance to buy it. But Apple would be insane to think that people lining up to buy a newest Macbook on the day or release want lining up, and that more lining up is what they'd enjoy. People tolerate lining up to get what they desire. Equally, people tolerate more clicking in order to get what they desire, and what they'd likely prefer to obtain with one click.
If you measured line up times at Apple stores, you would almost certainly find out that its effect (of longer line ups) is a decrease in revenue (and therefore not something people want). If your point was that metrics can be misinterpreted and misused, I absolutely agree with you.
My question was specifically about the revenue/engagement metrics commonly used for software. To me they seem like reasonable proxies that you are building software people want.
Maybe he clicked 5x more because he wanted even more information.... or maybe the basic info that he was looking for is now hidden in a very shitty location that was intentionally made hard to find in order to generate more clicks and the user was super mad the entire time. Either way, the manager gets a bonus for extra engagement that quarter.
Went to McDonald for the first time in a year and used the touchscreen to order. I had to dismiss over 7 popups, including a few that look like they were internally trying to get drunk people to accidentally order more (eg. cancel bottom from the previous popup is aligned with an extra order on the next one). It made the process a lot more panful than the minimalist interface they had before, but I'm sure a group of people got praised for it internally.
You ask them. And when they tell you that your product sucks, you listen, and don't tell them that they're holding it wrong, or that they just need to give it some time and they'll love it, or that everybody else loves it so clearly they aren't average, or that telemetry shows otherwise etc.
Well, if you look at i.e. Meta, which specifically optimised for getting people to 'click' more, it is clear that they did so by building a product with disastrous impacts on mental health.
So there is at least one example where it isn't a good thing.
You can build something people want and which is bad for health, they're not mutually exclusive.
People commonly want things that are linked to negative health outcomes: alcohol, sugar, fast food, lack of physical activity, working a high stress job, living in a city, watching the news, etc.
Personally, I take the position that people best know what's good for them because I don't see good alternatives to that.
I don't assume it can be measured, and I think large organizations are stupid and morally shallow enough without letting them loose with the mandate to maximize a handful of simple metrics.
I'm inclined to make the comment that the "average Joe" doesn't actually know what he wants, in respect to what's actually good for him in the long term.
