Data-driven optimization in general, and not just when it comes to things like "online content".

Like, it certainly benefits us to a certain point, but after a while it starts to create fragile systems and we're getting deep into the fragile systems phase.

See: the complete breakdown of the supply chains of just about everything, algorithmic price discovery contributing to out of control inflation, etc. This is beginning to impact nearly every aspect of our lives and IMO rarely in a good way.

> or do we want companies that get feedback from users on whether new changes are helping or hurting.

You don't get that feedback. The feedback you get is whether some telemetry KPI goes up or down. That's not the same as actual utility for the user.

When I have two free hours to turn on the XBOX for the first time in half a year, I want it to turn on right away and play my game. I don't want the box I paid for and have been looking at to figure that it needs an OS update, and a game update, and that the game should now be slower and glitchier than it was the last time I played it.

When I play music on my phone in my car, I don't want to find out that the "Start Mix" button moved, or that showing the upcoming playlist now takes one more swipe, or that the UI won't load because YouTube Music doesn't cache it's UI anymore and when you have a cell network reporting 1 bar but it's actually zero bars, you get a spinner for ten minutes.

The six CD changer in my dashboard has worked exactly the same way since 2006, the discs play when the key turns on, and nothing moves. There's no engagement to be had other than "my music plays when I turn on the car in my driveway which also has spotty cell service". There isn't a KPI to be measured, a PM to be promoted, or anything. It's just a car radio.

Most consumer goods are solved problems. Nothing's changed since 2015. Even tech from 2015 is just a convergence of 2005 tech, like MP3 players, digital cameras, and Blackberries. People don't have radically different problems to solve in their day to day lives. People take pictures, share them, do email and group chat, voice calls, read the news, watch TV, pay for parking, do some banking. Watch a 90s TV show and all of those activites required different physical places and tactile goods. (Hell, that's why screens in Android are called *Activities*.).

When I pay for a product, I expect to be paying for a finished product, not some psychological experiment that's someone else's promo packet.

I constantly experiment on users in my work. It’s all around extracting the most money you possibly can. Meanwhile we have mountains of UX interview material where people tell us exactly what’s wrong with our site, and we don’t implement any of it lol.

Profits are up though! In a big way! And our users continue to hate us more and more.

Are you not aware how unpopular practically all recent changes on YT are among its users? Almost none of the changes done on YT in the last 5+ years would have happened if they took into account what users & creators want. So how exactly does telemetry and A/B testing help when it either tells them the opposite of reality or they simply interpret the data however they like anyway?

I paid YT Premium once. It unlocked a playback queue in the app. That queue had 5 separate bugs I found within an hour. It's literally a simple playlist and yet not a single feature (adding, removing, reordering etc) worked reliably. The playback queue also randomly emptied itself sometimes. Meanwhile I get a superior version of this in the browser by simply opening a video in another tab, for free.

Why should I pay for that while they only have AI support designed to never solve any issues, do nothing against bots, and then warn you that you may get banned when you report too many bots?

Updates are one thing, changes made specifically targeted towards manipulating users into spending more time on the site in ways they can’t opt out of (youtube shorts is a good example) are different. No one is bothered if YouTube updates to allow 8k streams. I am extremely bothered that YouTube does not allow me to disable shorts in the app. I don’t want shorts, they are a distraction and one more thing i have to guard against getting sucked into. Let me use the app how I want to use it, not how you want me to use it.

In my experience working in software, empiricism is the only thing valued anymore. Intuition and thoughtfulness is out the window because it's not scientific enough. I would say most software now reflects that - it's almost all bland and statistically optimized to maximize engagement or revenue.

> If this was something more high stakes like a medial trial I’d get it, but for stuff like filling out a document or watching a piece of media. The stakes for most SASS app are really low.

There are plenty of subtle patterns used in SaaS form filling things too. For example notice that the "primary button" is always chosen as the one that will make the company the most money or collect the most data.

Likewise, popups are annoying, but they result in more conversions. Forced logins are the same (how many form filling apps now force you to sign up with an account that you'll never use again, so that you can become a potential lead in future).

Google recently started doing all of these on anonymous searches with a modal overlay and a big bright blue "Continue" primary button that takes you to a login screen, while a "don't sign in" button appears as far less noticeable text above it.

It's at the point now where I'm surprised when any software gives you an option without blatantly telling you which one they want you to pick for their own benefit.

A lot of it seems innocuous but I feel we're at the stage of death-by-a-thousand-cuts at this point.

Alternatively, it's there in my RSS reader app, where I can see new stuff showing up without even visiting or interacting with YT.