The conception of a conventional product is intrinsically tied to a kind of benevolence toward the user. After all, a product that does not benefit but instead harms the user would be ostracized in the market, consequently affecting everyone involved in its development. Right after the democratization of the internet, we managed, with some effort, to create a sort of mental model of vigilance, for instance, knowing where or where not to click so that the outcome would not be harmful. Still, sometimes we failed. Realizing that an error had occurred was, in certain cases, immediate: noticing that the computer now displayed a series of “health problems” in its usual functioning; seeing that in a certain spot of the layout there was suddenly a suspicious element completely against the visual standard of the program or site; or even, more drastically, having one’s files hijacked.
With the maturing of usability and an interesting exchange, even when compared to industrial design, inevitable particularities of digital products emerge, along with branches of interface heuristics and user experience that bring greater fluidity to use.
Fluidity is the result of a system that knows how to converse with itself and, consequently, with its user, although we may argue that in most developments there exists a natural learning curve. There is, therefore, importance in patterns that are internal to the product as well as those shared with the digital ecosystem. After all, learning something new, while exciting, can easily become a barrier depending on the context, given the importance of the bridge between the mental model and the conceptual model. Nobody likes bureaucracy, and if it is unavoidable, narratives are created to soften and frame the entire process.
This brings the concept that good design is invisible and supports fluidity. Yet it also permeates the panorama that blends virtual and physical reality in aspects that go beyond usability. The functions of a platform take shape through the context in which the user is inserted, a living usability of freer interpretation. Self-service kiosks do not say much about you; their goal is to guide you so that you find what you want. The designer who created them accounts for a limited range of reactions and behaviors you might have after use, in a hypothetical and controlled journey scenario. Now, products are able to say who we are or even act as active agents in sustaining the user’s reality, and this is without even mentioning apps beyond the social sphere.
When this happens, a curious phenomenon takes shape that escapes the binary concept of character we often attach to developing something useful, expecting no return beyond the outcome of our work. It becomes a matter of actively providing a dialogue, or an attempt at dialectics regarding use, turning the user into something obsolete, merely a careless mediator of the developer’s objectives.
Anesthesia of Use
Active apathy works in a state that numbs the user and trivializes behaviors ranging between indifference and emotions of great psychological impact. The human brain is excellent at saving energy; we create heuristics precisely with this focus. But tension arises when we face with positivity certain dubious mechanisms that exploit intermittent reinforcement and trap users in the hope of exception. These products now gain a façade, once again through design and socioeconomic factors, that favors indifference toward the moral character of the very existence of this product or function, capable of moving, almost paradoxically, between a hopeful boredom and the joy of occasional victory.
One of the clearest manifestations of the anesthesia of use can be seen in the rising popularity of online gambling in Brazil. The aesthetics and mechanics of these platforms exploit active apathy by making users indifferent to consequences.
Regarding the fever of online casinos and sports betting in Brazil, which in 2022 led global rankings for gambling website traffic: the combined aesthetics and mechanics of some of these platforms create a near transposition of the traditional casino environment, but virtually, delivering a load of visual and auditory stimuli in an accessible layout. And by accessible I mean there is no friction in handling the platform, which facilitates continuous use and, later, indifference toward consequences.
If we analyze the section of a common interface in popular games and how it is presented, we see elements arranged left to right: on the left, the bank, signaling the accumulated balance as the player wins; in the center, the stake value; and on the right, the amount won per round. Its mechanics appeal to simplicity, yet paradoxically this becomes a problem, as it deceives the player, creating a false sense of positive reinforcement. This occurs through the concealment of losses and exclusive focus on winnings. There is no visual element that communicates loss clearly, only the opposite. At the bottom, two tools epitomize the apathy at hand: turbo mode, which accelerates animations and enables an endless flow of rounds, and auto-play, which further reduces opportunities for pause and reflection during play. There is no negative feedback, only exaggerated positivity.
There is no message that communicates any kind of loss.
Banners maintain positivity, keeping the user in the flow or within the product’s ecosystem.
The comparison between balance and stake generates a false sense of advantage. If the user compares the initial bet with the balance, even after a streak of losses, as long as the balance is higher than the stake, positive reinforcement drives continued play.
Gambling is not new to much of the world. However, the context in which the product is placed changes drastically when considering the socioeconomic factors and digital literacy of its main users. The culture of betting differs if we compare the United Kingdom, where gambling regulation mitigates adversities related to addiction (Gambling Act 2005), to Brazil, where in 2024 gambling consumed up to 20% of the poorest population’s budget. The fact that there was no education, preparation, or even notable mitigation measures before these products were abruptly released in the Brazilian market speaks volumes about the veiled opportunism in product conception in such a dire scenario.
From the early stages of development, rational decisions were already intertwined with market strategy, with user experience as a tangible central focus. Layouts, sounds, flows, and feedback are all deployed to live at the edge of what is ethical and what is alienating. The environment the user inhabits becomes fundamental in fostering certain behaviors, often with the expected result being the hope of escaping a fragile economic situation. The user ceases to be the central figure of a beneficial usability perspective and is reduced to a completely numbed lever.
This is not the only example that goes beyond what we recognize as harmful and sometimes detectable dark patterns. We can extend this concept by pointing to elements of social networks and the relationship between the virtual self, the image, attention-retention mechanisms, algorithms, and how these raise ethical and technological concerns. The danger of some of these products lies in the assumption of trustworthiness, contrasting with the past when the greatest sign that something was harmful was acquiring it in a “dark alley” of the browser. It resides in the ambiguity of communication and in the misguided exploitation of behavioral design.
The Active User
In this troubling landscape, where alienating design emerges, also comes the need to envision another path: products focused on the genuine benefit of the user, what we call the “Active User.”
We are at a crucial point in human learning, where feedback can serve as the bridge between user, platform, and material reality. New technologies are increasingly capable of integrating into everyday systems, but a major obstacle today is the viability of hardware and investment costs, which hinder implementation in current systems. Yet, if we envision an ecosystem of products focused on authentic user benefit, we have the potential to create the antithesis of the anesthesia of use, if we allow ourselves optimism.
Imagine one day being able to tell a user how to make the best decision, not only through content generated by a pre-established flow but by intimately tailoring it to the unique context of each user.
Even with today’s tools and resources, it is possible to provoke a change that directly reaches the core of the user in the present moment, where metrics take shape across past, present, and future timeframes within the macro and micro contexts of each user segment. The designer, in their daily practice, must recognize opportunities to make the user think as they themselves are forced to think. It is an exchange that, though seemingly contrary to the idea of imperceptible use, makes thought itself a usability resource.
Once again, by sticking to simplicity and conventional means, it is possible to intervene in flows with potentially harmful outcomes. Speaking strictly in terms of responsible design and how it can be applied, we can cite, in 2025 and still within the betting fever, Nubank’s stance, ranging from brand reputation to addressing a real and current social-economic phenomenon. It was not necessary to be at the core of user interaction to recognize social movement and, from there, design a living product that responds to real issues.
Specifically: at a certain point in the user journey, if a user made bank transfers to betting houses, they were shown a screen that read: “How about saving this money? Some of these games are legalized in Brazil, but there are no guarantees of winning. By saving this money instead of betting, you ensure it grows worry-free.”
With discreet yet clever wording, the message added: “Invest this money in a savings box.” By creating friction through questioning a particular behavior, the design prompts user reflection while still keeping them within the product ecosystem, so the cycle becomes more fruitful, benefiting both user and platform. This is not altruism, but symbiosis.
The Empathy Dilemma
Although empathy is often popularized as the foundation of symbiosis between user, product, and developer, its legitimacy is questionable: is it genuine or merely part of a broader commercial strategy?
It is not necessary to employ a complex apparatus that meticulously examines every aspect of individual use. What is needed is responsible and prudent observation of social and cultural phenomena during design conception, without manipulating the evaluation process of those making decisions. If the end goal of our product is indeed guided by good relationships with consumers, we can focus on clear strategic improvements and exceptional communication.
When ethics in design is discussed, it should not come from a monopolizing and condescending perspective, such as posing as a moral defender, since morality has unique aspects across contexts. Instead, it should present itself as adaptable beyond tools that are quickly updated, opening space for a practical empathy that goes beyond profitable parameters.
The question lies in comparing an essential pillar of experience design and its reach in a reality that moves between corporate metrics and the concept of alterity, and with that, empathy that, while idealized at times, remains under tension.
Studies, even those exploring humanity’s tragic contexts, highlight elements of social psychology, such as the phenomenon of psychic numbing, questioning whether our capacity for empathy is scalable and whether it diminishes as the number of people in adverse situations increases.
How, then, do we address the gap between a user’s real problem, their social context, and their raw reality, when, even with access to their circumstances through interviews, surveys, or visits, we never truly access what is real? This is why I bring examples from Brazilian reality. They are close, tangible, and demonstrate how living design can confront aspects beyond what is visible, countering the apathy that permeates our notions of the future.
It is not necessary to treat the user condescendingly, as someone who “knows nothing” and is merely the recipient of knowledge. What is needed is reflection on how far we can adapt to a balance that escapes idealism and moves toward an optimistic realism: that it is indeed possible to design through prudent humanism, one that recognizes the limitations of understanding oneself and the other, and that is truly responsible toward the social context in which it operates.
If the future runs the risk of becoming obsolete, we must try to escape fatalism and embrace design’s responsibility as a multidisciplinary tool for projecting the right to think, elevating praxis.
References
The Design of Everyday Things – Don Norman
Designing for Behavior Change: Applying Psychology and Behavioral Economics – Stephen Wendel
The Burnout Society – Byung-Chul Han
Pedagogy of the Oppressed – Paulo Freire
“If I look at the mass I will never act”: Psychic numbing and genocide – Paul Slovic
XP Investimentos via CNN Brasil (2024)
Gambling Act 2005 (UK Gambling Commission)