Law in the Internet Society

My Mind is For Sale: The Attention Economy and Necessary Reforms

-- By ShahabPournaghshband - 05 Jan 2022

My cognitive abilities are decaying, and I feel as if I am helplessly watching it happen. As I leave my apartment, I check my phone. As I hop on the train, I check my phone. Before I enter class, I check my phone. Hundreds of times a day. Just to brainlessly scroll through Instagram or Twitter, receiving a hit of dopamine from posts that add no healthy value to my life. I am fortunate enough to be aware of the negative effects social media and mobile devices are having on my brain; so many people, many of them “digital natives” born into this age of technology, will never emerge from this endless absorption. Smartphones have brought on addiction, terrible attention spans, insomnia, and numerous mental health issues. It will be a worthwhile investment to learn how to free ourselves from these chains.

The Degradation of the Human Brain

All of these technology companies are competing for our attention–for our willingness to stare aimlessly and repetitively at their digital products. James Williams, a former Googler and an expert on the digital world’s effects on the human brain, calls this the “attention economy.” When our attention and time create valuable data and advertising revenue, it becomes no surprise that the success of a digital company is measured on its addictiveness. This is no secret; just look at Nir Eyal’s national bestseller, Hooked: How to Build Habit Forming Products, which has been called a “must-read for everyone who cares about driving customer engagement.” Netflix CEO Reed Hastings also stated that in addition to Snapchat, he views sleep as one of his main competitors. This culture has changed the way we think and behave, and it calls for a hard look at how we can regain our freedom of attention.

Twitter and Instagram, however, are not harmful per se. Twitter offers access to independent journalism from any corner of the world, and Instagram allows us to connect with family and friends in a convenient manner. But these digital companies have plagued us with a desire to constantly be behind a screen, occupying ourselves with the petty distractions that steer us away from real-life interests like reading books, having uninterrupted conversations, or, frankly, doing anything else that requires a substantial commitment of attention. If we cannot pay attention, we cannot think and form ideas. We cannot move forward.

Change Needs to Come

What We Can Do as Individuals

Reform is necessary on two fronts: on an individual basis and on a systemic basis. It is feasible to build healthy habits and set appropriate limitations on our technology use. Turning off notifications, for example, is a good place to start. My iPhone tells me that I received an average of 540 notifications per day last week, with a high of 1,000 on one day. Smartphones also allow us to place time limits on our screen time. Placing restrictions on this constant nagging will in turn limit the time we spend on our phones. I have also found that focusing on exercise and a healthier diet improve willpower, cognition, and general well-being, reducing the urge to constantly check my phone. Finally, increasing awareness of the bind that has constricted us helps us understand the ways in which our addictions are formed. Realizing that Instagram “likes” reel us in, or how algorithms on TikTok? show us content elicits strong emotional reactions, allows us to act consciously to avoid falling into these traps. This, of course, requires active steps and dedication to better understand these mechanisms.

Institutional Change

In an ideal world, we are perfect in setting boundaries, accessing our smartphones only for the pursuit of knowledge or for healthy connection. But the belief that every person suffering from a serious screen-time addiction can delete applications from their phone, or merely “leave their phone at home,” and be cured, is impractical. Both Williams and I agree that “individual abstinence” is not “sustainable, and it doesn’t address the systemic issues” that have led us to this point. Abstinence from smartphones and social media will not be adopted en masse, especially not by the generation that was born into this lifestyle. Thus, in addition to the steps we can take as individuals to curb our attention disorders, institutional reform is necessary. Meta, Apple, and Google must better look after the public interest. Or at least be forced to.

We must hold technology companies responsible. This requires greater public awareness of the attention economy and its consequences on the human mind. Pressuring these companies to address the harms they have created requires collective action, which is possible through widespread education. If Chevron has come to announce its commitment to clean energy, technology companies can come to announce their commitments to building healthier products. While widespread education can lead to systemic reform, so can regulation. Business models can be regulated through anti-surveillance statutes that can have the effect of limiting advertisement targeting. Users can also be notified of the time they spend on different applications. Tax law, too, may be useful–if technology companies can no longer deduct their advertising expenses, the business models of many of these companies must adapt to become profitable by other means. Antitrust and privacy regulation that has for so long threatened the Big Tech companies would also be an effective way to decrease the impact these companies have on our everyday lives. These methods can limit the exploitative practices that have led us to the pits of the attention economy.

Conclusion

The attention economy has been a disaster for the human race. Our lives are what we pay attention to, and, unfortunately, we no longer have complete control over where our attention is paid. Turning people into phone-addicted zombies may be unethical, but it is also highly profitable and legal. Reform must therefore come not only from ourselves and by limiting our addictions through awareness and healthier life decisions, but also through widespread education and regulation.

I don't know what the rhetoric gets you. You could put all the substantive content of the draft into four sentences or so: the rest is mere padding. Even your substantive conclusions are as vague as can be: "Antitrust and privacy regulation that has for so long threatened the Big Tech companies would also be an effective way to decrease the impact these companies have on our everyday lives. "

There is one specific claim in the draft: that life without smartphones and platform "social media" is unsustainable. This is asserted on the basis of one newspaper column, and is provably false. I live a pretty sophisticated technical life. I am constantly engaged with the Net; I do all of my teaching, most of my reading and almost all my writing using computers. Aside from the laptops, I build most of those computers from loose parts with my own hands. I install, configure, operate and maintain all the software in all those boxes, not one byte of which is proprietary. I am right this minute monitoring and administering sixteen servers and almost a dozen endpoint devices, none of which are, or ever will be, smartassphones. My devices are not distracting my attention or lowering my cognitive capacity. On the contrary, they are substantially increasing it. They make it possible for me to lead also a reasonably sophisticated intellectual and cultural life, walk a wide professional beat while running a multinational law practice, and in other ways think faster and perform better than I could ever possibly do with my grey matter alone.

When I was 16, in 1975, I said to my father, "I have two brains now, a carbon brain and a silicon brain, and they behave differently." He was more freaked out by that than by anything else I ever said to him, but it was true. Decades of effort and skill went into shaping the relationship between those two parts of my mind. But what took me all that time can now be created for herself by any 12-year-old girl with a $75 Raspberry Pi and a $100 Chromebook. Or by you.

The idea that this is "abstinence" needs to be reconsidered. I am not abstaining from bad tech, I am using good tech. I am not making a sacrifice; I am maximizing the value of my mental resources. The idea that being "born into" bad circumstances cannot be changed with the help of society is the despot's friend. You can find things to do with computers that you like better than Instagram and Twitter, indeed better than the whole snartassphone, engagement-maximizing platform-centric style of technology.

Perhaps it is obvious to you why my life cannot exist even if I think it does, or why FreedomBox isn't real even though I invented it, or at least why another future isn't possible even if we know how to build it and have scalable working prototypes. A clearer statement of the grounds for your conclusion, in touch with the actual technical details, would be a very great improvement in the draft.


You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list.

Navigation

Webs Webs

r3 - 09 Jan 2022 - 20:41:26 - EbenMoglen
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
Syndicate this site RSSATOM