Concur. And,
I think a lot of it is simply "other people do it, so I have subconsciously justified it"
Similar to how easy it is for our society to eat meat from factory farming.
I think a lot of it is simply "other people do it, so I have subconsciously justified it"
Similar to how easy it is for our society to eat meat from factory farming.
If the premise is to determine how many alerts the user will tolerate before taking action to silence them, it's known up front the alerts are unwanted and harm the user. The alerts are intended to drive product addiction. By definition, that's unhelpful to the user.
The user is tricked by their phone, using the same noise and vibrations a direct message from friends or family that requires immediate attention causes, to force the offending product's brand into the forefront of their mind and make them decide to ignore the notification, investigate the notification, or silence the app's notifications.
They want to maximize the number they can send, because they are studying the individual recipient to learn what they're more likely to respond to. Once they know that, they can barrage the person with those things they can't resist until product addiction is achieved, and yet another smartphone zombie is created. Yet another person who will not put down their phone to drive their car, have dinner with their families or tend to their own needs.
The author must know the damage their work has done to people's lives, and this "be helpful and engaging" nonsense must be how they rationalize it.