I found some #badges which I would like to question. Their reasonability seems suspicious to me.
New User of the Month If you miss it once, you can never get it.
5 Years of Fairphone 1, 3 Years Fairphone 2 Must have two phones to get it. Really? What happens if FP3 will be sold regularily?
Fairphone First Edition Owner
EFCT[16,17,18] Participant, EFCT[16,18] Golden Camera
Empathetic, Devotee I think these ones just overshoot the mark…
CEO (Chief Excursion Officer) Are we supposed to work for the fairphone company now…? I don’t get the point.
Some badges can only be received passively (e. g. Famous Link - Posted an external link with 1000 clicks, Received 50 likes), which makes it quite hard at a certain point…
What’s sustainable about using your internet-able device for a whole year daily and browsing the internet (or at least, logging in to one specific site)? #Devotee
These are separate badges.
If you have a Fairphone 1 for 5 years, you can get 5 Years of Fairphone 1.
If you have a Fairphone 2 for 3 years, you can get 3 Years of Fairphone 2.
If you want to have both badges, obviously both conditions must be met.
If you click on a badge in the list, you will see a list of users with this badge. Nobody who has the CEO badge works for Fairphone.
Fairphone staff registered in the forum as users are here … Fairphone employees - Fairphone Community Forum
I would suspect a wordplay on Chief Executive Officer, the CEO of a company .
Your point being …?
It’s certainly sustainable if you can sustain it over a long time.
Dictionary?
It’s a dopamine reward, the same the Attention Economy is using for having us engaged with our phones. It’s a scourge for society. I dislike that system.
Gamification for learning how something works at a basic level → Hmmm… meh, ok.
Gamification for getting you engaged → Should be forbidden.
(I’m referring to those that are automatically rewarded)
But that’s not just badges, likes have the same effect. As does people just thanking you. Though for the likes you could argue that they help highlight useful information.
So flirting should be forbidden too?
Smiling at someone, playfully touching them and being nice to them can have the same effect (dopamine release) up to the same end (engagement).
As much as I think the ship of empowering people to consciously navigate the world and make informed choices has sailed for some time to come in general, sadly, as much I still think it would be the better way compared to being quick with forbidding such things.
I see it exactly this way. BTW. other software calls these buttons “thanks”. This is to either show support for a stated opinion or a " thank you " for helping or clarifying something. (Way better than the posts stating “exactly” or “thank you” plus ornaments for 20 character limit…)
Don’t straw-man me, that wasn’t my argument, Paula. Gamify attraction and you have Tinder/etc. That’s the scourge, not attraction as is. Induced engagement as a form of manipulation.
I agree with you about empowering being better than a thousand bans (I didn’t mentioned Law explicitly, though). But I honestly don’t think discussing something like that it’s being quick: roughtly 10 years have passed since the Attention Economy was stablished.
People should be informed and concious while using technology. But we aren’t. We can’t ask us to be without being unfair. Doing so will be not acknowledging that there’s a thousand people on the other side of the screen whose job is to break down whatever responsibility I can maintain. (source)
Why do you care? For me, the badges are worth nothing. Why should they be? I’ve done nothing for them. There are parts of our population, that wear badges for a reason, they earned them. But these things here? Why even bother.
.
