[danorama]

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]

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

[danorama]

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]

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]

Evidence that anti-social behavior is rational can be seen in all the successful anti-social people, like Elon, Donald, Jeffrey and William.

[JohnFen]

Only if your definition of "success" consists solely of accumulating wealth. Many people use a different definition.

[yoyohello13]

Maybe rational is the wrong word. I think I mean aspirational.

[trumpdong]

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.