Those findings are crazy. I’ve never been social media addicted, been into luxury or general show-off brands (I pay extra to not look like I’m an advertisement… for anything but metal bands), so I don’t really know much about those issues.
Those findings are crazy. I’ve never been social media addicted, been into luxury or general show-off brands (I pay extra to not look like I’m an advertisement… for anything but metal bands), so I don’t really know much about those issues.
But is that really the majority of people?
Why is that important? It is a significant amount of people. Add up children (who are prone to be peer pressured), the neurodivergent (who are in need of alternative ways to socialize) and those who are not strong of will.
Additionally, it does not have to be a strong tide. Like with dark patterns, it just needs to make it „sufficiently hard“ to switch the vendor and you constitute a lock in (which we are discussing rn).
Edit: imagine we would ask this question when assessing a wheelchair ramp at a mall? It is not important if it’s the majority but if people suffer under this when it is (easily) preventable.
Because if it’s not, there’s a significant amount, a majority even, of people who can and should vote with their wallets. But don’t.
You were faster to answer than my edit.
I can only asssume why the technique hasn’t worked for a long time. But taking the example from social media where it would be voting with your feet (leaving), the product markets for games are defined. And in these markets, I recon the majority is vulnerable, so yes. It is most likely the majority.
Your edit doesn’t change my reply, though. I see your argument closer to “a victim of a beating can’t defend themselves, so none of the bystanders should help them either”.
Now this is where we’ll have to disagree (as I doubt there is any useful data), you think it might be the majority, I think people simply don’t care enough once it’s about more than talking about it, just like with most things in life.
I don’t understand this. Telling someone to vote with their wallet is not helping. The equivalent would be that a victim was „told“ to defend themselves. I am saying we shouldn’t put the responsibility on the victim but the aggressor.
That I can agree to. Taking action is hard. But I would say that it is easy to broadly judge „most people“ while this very article says that in the case of social media, the boomers‘ blame for example seems to be ill aligned. Not the people are to blame but the mechanics.
It tells them to do something. Yes, it sucks that there are assholes. Be they companies, or people beating others. But if everyone just shrugs their shoulder, they’ll never go away. Some can’t “vote with their wallet”, or defend themselves, as you say. But many can. And they should.
Yes, that is correct. People „should“. As they „should drive more carefully“, „smoke less“, „eat healthy“, „consume thoughtfully“ and so on.
We both know this is why we have the rule of law. People are not and will never be fully self governing as long as we have the system we do. We are much too stressed to make the right decisions every time. We used to be able to drive without a seatbelt on, to take cocaine whenever we wanted. Didn’t work very well. It’s simple psychology. Some of us govern themselves mostly well, others dont. That doesn’t mean they can be held responsible for their inability to do so. They need to helped with measures to keep harm away.
Not once have I said anything like that.
Yes, for example, by getting helped by those people not challenged like that. Which is exactly what I’m saying.
These are who I’m talking about. People I think are a majority.