Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by danorama 6 days 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.

2 comments

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.
Evidence that anti-social behavior is rational can be seen in all the successful anti-social people, like Elon, Donald, Jeffrey and William.
Only if your definition of "success" consists solely of accumulating wealth. Many people use a different definition.
Maybe rational is the wrong word. I think I mean aspirational.
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.