With every day that passes it seems that another example of corporate malfeasance emerges, executive pay, data misuse- the list is endless.
As a strong proponent of business, I typically ignore such complaints. Too often such criticism is thrust into the somewhat tedious (and entirely myopic) frame of ‘business is bad and greedy’.
However, we must also avoid the other platitude: that ‘all markets should be free, and all free markets good’.
Indeed, the crisis I see emerging relating to addictive content is one where policy makers must step into the fray.
It is simple, we must open up a new front against the psychologists, engineers and businesses that are knowingly and unapologetically operating the levers of our subconscious; and, in many ways, fuelling the disconnect that so many of us have from reality.
It is worth defining what I mean by ‘addictive content ’. Here, I refer to the games, posts, videos and articles that pass through our various online platforms. Perhaps the biggest culprits here are the social media platforms, given that most of these problems emerge from the way they shape and direct this content at us.
So, it this a crisis?
Addictive content has reaped havoc on the mental health of successive generations of young people. Social media is such an intense force in our lives that the body now releases a dopamine hit when we receive a response on social media; a denial of this has been soundly linked to depression and anxiety by a number of studies.
Indeed, this anxiety has now started to manifest itself physically in people. Numerous studies have linked changes in body language, especially in the falling levels of eye contact between people, to the impulse we feel to constantly check our phones.
In fact, the mental health crisis amongst our youth has now been so clearly, inextricably and scientifically linked to social media usage that this point need not be laboured further. For those interested, more information can be found in our previous articles on this issue.
Then there is the ‘time factor’. Screen time is without doubt our number 1 activity in the day- even above sleeping! The average 16-year-old will have spent 4 whole years of their life in front of a screen. It is impossible to justify this strange new blueprint for childhood, especially when we consider the violent, sexual or just plain banal nature of the content they engage with. More normatively, it is a tragedy that one of the few truly honest and pure experiences we enjoy has been so profoundly altered.
Turning to our economy, there are also productivity implications. UK workers will spend over two hours a day on social media alone, this doesn’t even include other activities like checking the news. Social media alone amounts to over 10 million wasted work hours a day!
But perhaps the most concerning and infuriating element of this issue is that this behaviour does not emerge authentically. If it did than perhaps we could justify this through the notion that people would be rationally and consciously deciding to engage with this content; in essence this behaviour coming as an extension of their free will.
No, what makes this so egregious is that this behaviour emerges from the deliberate, clinical actions of a few operatives of big tech, crassly employing the latest insights from behavioural science to exploit a number of subconscious biases and coerce us into the actions outlined above.
Pulling back the curtain it is easy to understand the human biases and behavioural traits these firms exploit to real us in.
Building in opportunities for constant validation is a key addiction tactic. Either through personal content creation (profile picture, stories, live streaming), or even just sharing the online endeavours of another. Day by day, platforms increase the number of channels we can receive validation through. Indeed, they have even added greater nuance to the way we can receive online reactions; love hearts, surprised faces, smiles, all only increase this insatiable appetite for approval.
Another tool in these firm’s expansive arsenals is ‘variable reward’. It was the experiments of B.F. Skinner that demonstrated how randomly rewarding actions strengthens our incentive to commit an action. Hence the few gems buried amid the drivel on our newsfeed, the capricious returns of ‘the hunt’ compelling us to come back for more.
These sites also exploit and feed off FOMO. The addition of stories, live locations, tagging friends, all trigger a desire to monitor or transmit. In either case, as noted by John Grohol, these impulses, driven by our innate fear of social exclusion, keep us returning to their sites.
Then there are the physical hooks: sound and vibration. The ping from a message, it conditions us, releasing a dopamine hit that further sucks us in. Turn it off, the vibration you get is an equally effective substitute, delivering the same impulse.
I could continue in this manner, from the research these firms have conducted on how the spacing between posts impacts usage, to the intentional cultivation of echo chambers that mimic our need for connection and community. However, perhaps the most compelling evidence, is that of casual empiricism. In the snap of the neck from a ping, the fumbling hand desperately groping around a pocket, the quivering finger hovering over the home button, we all know from our own experience, deep down, that the battle has been lost. Bound and shackled, the husks of personal control and autonomy look on, dismayed.
And this phenomena will only increase. As numerous ex-employees of Facebook, Instagram and Twitter have revealed, these sites business models are centred on making social media usage habitual. As well known app developer Peter Mezyk notes "The success of an app is often measured by the extent to which it introduces a new habit". After all, revenue emerges from ad views, ad views emerge from usage, and usage emerges from creating an urge to open an app.
It is, at this point, impossible to deny addiction is the end result; and, that this has been intentionally fermented by big tech through the means outlined above.
It is thus not a question of whether these sites are doing this, nor is it a question of is this highly addictive content harmful. The question is what should be done?
Tobacco, alcohol, drugs, all addictive, harmful products, yet all have to varying degrees sustained the levelling influence of the regulator. And, whilst it might seem unthinkable that a mere state could sanction these vast, enthroned firms, brimming with genius and sitting astride national boundaries, it is possible.
Recent proposals by the UK government will allow the government to fine firms for hosting violent, erroneous or inappropriate content on their platforms. Policy debates are bubbling away in the U.S. democratic primaries, including Andrew Yang’s proposed creation of a ‘Department of the Attention Economy’ which will focus specifically on how to responsibly design and use smartphones, social media, gaming, and chat apps.
Our nation states have allowed tech to flourish, yielding fruits for us all. However, on this matter they must enter into the fray. From New Zealand to Norway, the once muttered protestations of policy makers grow louder. The era of self-regulation is coming to an end, and, these firms will be called to heel.
The will is there, the line is drawn, it is time for our elected officials to step up to the mark.
Comments