  Online platforms have a wealth of data, run countless experiments and use
industrial-scale algorithms to optimize user experience. Despite this, many
users seem to regret the time they spend on these platforms. One possible
explanation is misaligned incentives: platforms are not optimizing for user
happiness. We suggest the problem runs deeper, transcending the specific
incentives of any particular platform, and instead stems from a mistaken
foundational assumption: To understand what users want, platforms look at what
users do. Yet research has demonstrated, and personal experience affirms, that
we often make choices in the moment that are inconsistent with what we actually
want. In this work, we develop a model of media consumption where users have
inconsistent preferences. We consider a platform which simply wants to maximize
user utility, but only observes user engagement. We show how our model of
users' preference inconsistencies produces phenomena that are familiar from
everyday experience, but difficult to capture in traditional user interaction
models. A key ingredient in our model is a formulation for how platforms
determine what to show users: they optimize over a large set of potential
content (the content manifold) parametrized by underlying features of the
content. Whether improving engagement improves user welfare depends on the
direction of movement in the content manifold: for certain directions of
change, increasing engagement makes users less happy, while in other
directions, increasing engagement makes users happier. We characterize the
structure of content manifolds for which increasing engagement fails to
increase user utility. By linking these effects to abstractions of platform
design choices, our model thus creates a theoretical framework and vocabulary
in which to explore interactions between design, behavioral science, and social
media.
