
Great technology should improve life, not distract from it - panarky
https://wellbeing.google/
======
whitepoplar
My beef with this type of technology is threefold:

1) Most of it is just not very useful.

2) I like opinionated software built by obsessive people. This isn't that. You
can smell it.

3) Most importantly, these AI/chatbot/nudge/assistant/automation tools have a
critical flaw--they're not predictable. Trying to manage them is like keeping
a bunch of state in your head at the same time and it hurts. Which device is
going to remind me? When? When will it remind me exactly? An hour before? 5
minutes before? Are my notification preferences saved from my last device that
I recently replaced? Are my notifications turned on? Do I have sound turned on
or only badge icons?

I think software works best when it has a bounded utility, not popping into
your life unexpectedly 24x7, but being lightweight, simple, useful, and
predictable for the 30 seconds you need it and that's it.

~~~
AnIdiotOnTheNet
I'll second that. A tool being simple and easy to reason about will beat one
that tries to be fancy and do things for me any day.

Sadly, the tendency in tech people seems to be to make things as god-awful
complicated as possible.

DOS: Install applications by copying a folder of files to your disk. They
include their dependencies, and they can't really conflict. Can be "installed"
to removable media.

Modern OSs: Install applications using a package manager that will
automatically detect conflicts and grab dependencies for you, except when it
screws up and hoses itself then it is time for a reinstall. Can only install
applications from managed repositories. Can only install applications to
hardcoded paths. Has no concept of installing applications to removable media
so you can use them from any computer. Most don't even have the concept of
downloading packages and their dependencies for installation on a different
computer.

The modern tech solution to the problems caused by package managers?
Containerization.

Sometimes I feel like it's a sport to see who can come up with the most
convoluted pile of abstractions to solve the simplest problems.

~~~
slededit
.app on the Mac and .appx on windows implements self contained apps you can
copy around as necessary. Appx is a bit newer on the windows side you see them
called "universal", or "store apps" depending on the marketing era they were
made in. On the mac .app is the universal way to distribute apps since Mac OS
X took over (and before that on NextStep).

~~~
AnIdiotOnTheNet
While App Bundles of NextStep/OSX fame are pretty much precisely the kind of
simplicity I'm talking about, Appx on Windows is a clusterfuck. I've never
seen them used outside of the package manager, you need crap like Move-
AppxPackage to change their location, and from what I can tell you can't run
them at all unless they're registered with the system.

Technically it is totally possible to make portable Windows applications and
people do it all the time, but it isn't the way applications are typically
built and that causes a bunch of problems. Linux has the same issue, really.
Linux users will talk about how silly the registry is, but the file hierarchy
full of hardcoded paths is pretty much the same damn thing. It is also
technically possible to make portable Linux applications, it's just slightly
harder than Windows due to a few factors caused by everyone always working
within the distro+package manager paradigm. Where they do have some form of
"portable" application, they've over-engineered the hell out of it and use
containerization to make it happen. AppImage is ok, it's only slightly over-
engineered, but sadly even that doesn't work everywhere because of how much of
a mess Linux is.

~~~
slededit
Appx does have mini registries which makes them moveable at a technical level.
The main restrictions come from registration with the sandbox - which I admit
completely defeats that aspect of the design.

That's a common problem with Microsoft. One team makes an elegant design but
another team doesn't fully understand it and thwarts the improvements made.

------
spuz
I can't tell you how excited I am about this announcement. The fact that
Google are finally acknowledging that they have a role to play to help their
users use their technology in a healthy rather than unhealthy way is extremely
promising.

Take for example, the feature that allows you to set a limit on the time you
spend on YouTube per day and the fact that it works across both mobile and
desktop. This would seem to be in conflict with all the efforts they have made
up until now with the auto-play and related videos features to keep you on
YouTube. Some how, someone at Google has finally recognised that perhaps the
person who spends their entire day watching one video after another is
actually not as valuable a user to them as the one that watches a healthier
1-2 hours per day is amazing to me.

Edit: I should add that while my hope is that ultimately Google's 'wellbeing'
algorithm will align with my own internal one, I can see that the initial
implementation doesn't quite go far enough. For example, I have a cronjob on
my laptop that shuts it down every day at midnight. Google's equivalent is
that the screen simply goes greyscale. I would prefer that my phone simply
turns off no questions asked (I know that you can schedule your phone to turn
off at a particular time but it gives a 30 second warning which is too easy to
dismiss - and when you do dismiss it, no more shut down attempts are made).
Hopefully, Google will open enough access to these features to developers so
that users can have the kind of control over their own technology that they
need.

~~~
thankthunk
>I can't tell you how excited I am about this announcement.

You are excited that google is going to continue to monitor and spy on their
users?

> Edit: I should add that while my hope is that ultimately Google's
> 'wellbeing' algorithm will align with my own internal one

Why should everyone adhere to your "wellbeing"?

> For example, I have a cronjob on my laptop that shuts it down every day at
> midnight.

Are you incapable of just going to sleep? Do you really need a cronjob to
shutdown your laptop? Why do you assume that your lack of self control
projects to everyone else?

Instead of looking to google or tech companies, why don't you develop self-
control? Do you leave your TV on and then complain that broadcasters aren't
coming to your home and turning it off for you? People like you scare me
because you have a tyrannical mindset. The "everyone must be like me or they
should all be forced to be like me" mindset.

~~~
spuz
> You are excited that google is going to continue to monitor and spy on their
> users?

No of course not. I'd rather they didn't spy on anyone.

> Why should everyone adhere to your "wellbeing"?

I don't want everyone to adhere to my definition of wellbeing. I am simply
happy that Google are developing tools that I believe will help me personally.
This has nothing to do with my expectations for everyone else.

> Are you incapable of just going to sleep? Do you really need a cronjob to
> shutdown your laptop?

Yes.

> Why do you assume that your lack of self control projects to everyone else?

I don't.

> Instead of looking to google or tech companies, why don't you develop self-
> control? Do you leave your TV on and then complain that broadcasters aren't
> coming to your home and turning it off for you?

Believe me I've tried. I meditate, I see a therapist, I get help from my
social group, I have hobbies and relationships to occupy me. That doesn't mean
I am not also addicted technology.

> People like you scare me because you have a tyrannical mindset. The
> "everyone must be like me or they should all be forced to be like me"
> mindset.

This is such a bizarre conclusion to me. Firstly, I don't really care what
Google provide for anyone but me. I think this is exciting because I think I
will find it useful. I haven't said anything about how I think it will cure
societies ills or anything regarding how it will affect anyone but myself.
Secondly, you realise that up until now Google's algorithms are tuned very
specifically to increase the time you spend using their products. They use all
kinds of psychological tricks to bypass your normal self control. The best
thing Google could do for me is to stop using these tricks but unfortunately,
that would probably cost them a lot of money. Instead, here they are providing
help for people like me who need it while not changing the experience of their
services for the rest. I don't see why it's tyrannical to want the services I
choose to use to have the features I want in them.

------
goodroot
This is off-side. This is akin to a cigarette dealer being proud of the
grotesqueries on the side of the cartons that warn you of their side-effects.
Culture is in shambles and recovery from the magnificent impact of the
Internet will need more than widgets, doo-dads, and yet more Google products.

I feel a sort of embarrassment on account of this marketing angle. The concept
of digital wellbeing is a paradox. Yuck.

~~~
spuz
> The concept of digital wellbeing is a paradox.

No not really. Physical and mental wellbeing is linked to financial wellbeing.
It makes sense for Google to want their customers to feel happier and
healthier because they can be more productive, earn more money and ultimately
spend that money on products that Google advertises.

~~~
scottie_m
Emphasis on _feel_ happier and healthier; it’s enough for the perception to
exist without the reality for Google’s purposes.

~~~
cjhopman
You're making no sense. What does it mean to "feel happier" but not be
happier?

~~~
V-eHGsd_
> What does it mean to "feel happier" but not be happier?

is this an honest question?

an alcoholic while drunk might "feel happier" while not being happier. a drug
addict might "feel happier" while high, but not be happier.

~~~
c22
I don't understand this, are you defining feelings of happiness based on some
sort of average over time? If so, what is the period and how is it determined?

I think great great gp is using "feel[ing] happier" in the sense of achieving
higher baseline happiness, not maximizing the "happiness level" of an instant.

~~~
V-eHGsd_
> I think great great gp is using "feel[ing] happier" in the sense of
> achieving higher baseline happiness, not maximizing the "happiness level" of
> an instant.

I might be misreading who you mean by "great great gp", but I don't think
scottie_m thinks that google is raising the happiness baseline. At least
that's not how I interpret

> it’s enough for the perception to exist without the reality for Google’s
> purposes.

Anyway, that's enough speculation about speculation for me for one day.

~~~
c22
I was referring to my post's great great grandparent which was authored by
spuz and contained the first use of the phrase whose meaning we're trying to
nail down here:

> It makes sense for Google to want their customers to _feel happier_ and
> healthier because they can be more productive, earn more money and
> ultimately spend that money on products that Google advertises.

( _emphasis added_ )

------
madamelic
"Make sure to consume technology responsibly but make sure to make sure your
tech is Google. ;)"

I agree with other posters saying this is akin to a cigarette manufacturer
branding a "smoke responsibly" ad with their logo.

The problem isn't tech. The problem is the industry's rampant need to take
over our lives with their own silos.

~~~
lapnitnelav
"Drink responsibly" kind of disclaimers are quite prevalent in Europe.

Wouldn't look out of place. Not that it isn't hypocritical but that's a start.

~~~
dbasedweeb
A start of what? Those same alcohol purveyors still make a majority of income
from a minority who drink irresponsibly. It’s like the army having, “killing
is wrong” as a slogan, it’s just mouth noises and a start to nothing.

~~~
lapnitnelav
It's an acknowledgement of the issue in itself.

Sure, I don't think it's actually effective but that paves the road to
improvements, rather than flat out denial / don't ask don't tell.

------
panarky
This is smart strategic positioning for Google because it feels like
technology is creating dystopias.

Facebook depresses and alienates people, spreads disinformation and amplifies
hate. Uber and Tesla self-driving cars kill drivers and pedestrians. Personal
data gets stolen by criminals and hostile nations every day.

We're not going to unplug, and few people will roll their own alternatives.

So Google positions themselves as the safe, secure, trusted and healthy island
in a sea of chaos, danger and distress.

~~~
BookmarkSaver
>Uber and Tesla self-driving cars kill drivers and pedestrians

As opposed to the hundreds a day dying from conventional drivers? There are
what, like 2 deaths attributable to self-driving cars so far? Some dystopia.

IMO the real dystopia is being unable to contextualize statistics and news
reports, which have become a pervasive part of people's leisure consumption.

~~~
buvanshak
>As opposed to the hundreds a day dying from conventional drivers?

That does not justify putting half baked tech in a position where it could
kill people.

------
rashkov
This is fantastic, and Apple should follow suit. I hope this is just the
beginning. These features are ones that I would use today:

* Disconnect at night. Wind Down gets your phone ready for bed by letting you schedule changes to the display. Activating Night Light reduces blue light and Grayscale gets rid of all color, reminding you to switch off for the night.

* Quiet your phone with a simple gesture. Easily turn on Do Not Disturb by flipping your phone face down.

* Manage your time spent in apps. The app timer lets you set limits for how much you use your apps. When you’ve reached that limit, the app icon is grayed out for the rest of the day.

~~~
spuz
My hope is that eventually they will build in app limits into an AI system
that will learn what kind of prompts work on the user and which don't. For
example, is "Hey, you used YouTube 3 hours, 5 minutes already today, would you
like to take a break for a while?" more or less effective than "You used
YouTube more than 99.9% other people today. Maybe time to take a break?".
There is so much potential here for smart behaviour nudges here that actually
work. Hopefully Apple and Google will compete in this area to be the most
effective.

~~~
Yetanfou
No, I hope they don't do this. I hope the concept of personal responsibility
gets cleaned up a bit and served in a new, cool jacket which makes it the
thing to do for those who want to be part of the new wave. Not just as a fad
but for real, the idea that the individual is responsible for his or her
approach to all those life & love & happiness-sucking lures out there on the
wild, wild net.

Most people will be able to learn, some will not and they'll get hooked, just
like most people learn to handle alcohol or marijuana or exercise or food
or... well, all those other things which - when taken to extremes - can ruin
lives.

The scenario of the AI-equipped device which tells you it is time for bed
reminds me of the space ship in the WALL-E movie where humanoid slugs zipped
around on powered chairs from entertainment to entertainment. This is not a
future I want to be part of.

~~~
rashkov
I suspect that the more we learn about self control, the more it will come to
resemble what we know about intelligence. It's heritable environmentally,
genetically, and it's a learned habit. It's not evenly distributed among the
population.

So with that said, we already use technology to enhance our intelligence --
reading and writing, for example, or more recently things like wikipedia and
google maps. Why not use intelligence to enhance our self control as well, if
it leads to more fulfilling lives?

~~~
Yetanfou
Because it won't be _self_ -control anymore if someone else - be it a sentient
algorithm or a person - is at the controls. Mankind also used intelligence to
create self-propelled carriages which most certainly enhance our mobility.
That does not mean we need to give up on walking or cycling under our own
power as that is proven to be disastrous for our well-being. I think - no, I
am convinced - that the same goes for giving up control over (ab)use of
technology to that same technology.

It might work for that part of the population which lacks sufficient self
control just like insulin pumps work for that part of the population which
lacks functional thyroid glands.

~~~
civilitty
We haven't given up on walking or cycling but what about horseback riding? A
tiny fraction of the population even interact with horses on an annual basis,
let alone use them for anything but entertainment.

In this case, walking and cycling are like the basic functions of self
discipline that almost everyone does like eating and going to the restroom.
However, there are a significant number of people who need technological and
human assistance with both of those things - whether it be because of age or
genetics or poor life choices. All of those people are massively helped by
technology.

Just because most people can walk on their own doesn't mean that we should
force paraplegic to do so.

------
leggomylibro
This page is just a list of ads for Google's products; I was expecting
something more like a discussion about the design intents behind good tech
products, from a site like this.

------
siempohn
The biggest impact of this announcement will be in the consumer education
about digital wellbeing and the pressure on Apple to compete on it.

The app dashboard is the only major new feature, which will likely be helpful
for some but is only a small part of the equation, which Google acknowledges
("The first step toward digital wellbeing is often understanding more about
how you interact with technology in the first place").

Siempo launcher ([http://www.getsiempo.com](http://www.getsiempo.com))
believes the design of the home screen is the root cause of the smartphone
addiction problem. Stock and third party launchers have no protections against
the persuasive techniques of engaging apps. Wind Down is a step in the right
direction here.

------
ken
The aspect of this which feels tone-deaf is that Google recognizes that too
much technology is a real problem, and their proposed solution is ... more
technology. It feels like they've created a disease, and also the medicine for
it.

YouTube has a "time to take a break?" feature now, but autoplay is still on by
default. Android has fancy voice recognition so you can say "Turn on do not
disturb mode", but "disturb me mode" is still the default. We wouldn't need
these bandaids if the technology wasn't designed from the start to be
addictive and distracting.

They're treating the symptoms, but it's not clear they even understand the
root cause.

~~~
TeMPOraL
The problem isn't even with the amount of technology. It's that the technology
is being designed to _abuse_ people. And then Google comes out and says that
the solution to the problem of _shitty, abusive_ technology is _more shitty
and abusive_ technology.

The solution should be technology focused on empowering users. But that
doesn't make as much money as abusive tech.

------
Rjevski
Says Google, who’s entire business model is based on stalking everyone and
wasting their time with ads.

~~~
smileysteve
Google's business model is to charge more for ads because they target in a way
to minimize waste.

~~~
vertexFarm
And what exactly does minimizing waste entail? I'm sure it's great for their
inventory I mean users

------
onyva
Social media has become a social health problem and should be treated as such.
YouTube still has the annoying auto play next set to on, and in my suggested
viewing, I still see tones of shitty click-bait videos, for some reason.

They’re creating distraction, not helping to solve it. They’re driven by
profit, why would they vaulanterly make they’re products less addictive or
vaunarable people?

Regadles, “Social Corporate Responsibility” has already proven itself to be a
sham.

~~~
vertexFarm
It's rapidly becoming a problem of nations, too. Democracy isn't designed with
such powerful persuasion tools in mind.

A democratic system in today's world honestly just hands the keys of state to
whoever controls these marketing nukes. Of course it's not nearly as bad now
as it'll get later. We're about to be treated to a front-row viewing of just
how easy it is to mess up every future election.

~~~
alexashka
This has always been the case. No presidential candidate can win without
millions of dollars in campaign 'contributions'.

Trump had a smaller budget than Hillary - so if anything, it proves the
opposite of what you're claiming.

I understand that it's upsetting that the candidate you don't like is running
the country - it is not helpful to throw reason out the window and cherry pick
data that suit your emotions.

~~~
vertexFarm
You're presuming a whole lot about my political views. We've seen for a long
time that the size of a political campaign in dollar amounts doesn't really
correlate with who wins. We're not talking about official campaigns here.
We're not talking about Hillary vs. Trump, although I see that you're getting
all offended because you mistakenly thought I was slighting your boy. Calm
down, this has nothing to do with him.

This is about the future. Social media moguls will arguably have immense power
to choose which candidates can win or even compete in elections by selectively
limiting or pushing coverage and managing incredibly insular social circles of
people online. Forget superPACs or whatever. People who control a system this
powerful don't need to campaign through the old-timey official political
advertising system, they just push their agenda on their own network with no
rules whatsoever.

And it's not national. It's global. Tons of actors are seeing just how
effective it can be, and you better believe that people will be grinding that
axe like mad in elections from here on. It's going to be very difficult to
even quantify how broad an effect it has. As these algorithms get even more
effective than they already are, we're going to essentially see the end of
legitimate elections. PAC advertising has absolutely nothing on this new
tactic.

------
Hoasi
> Great technology should improve life, not distract from it

(Almost) everyone agrees.

> Great technology should improve life, not distract from it

 _Google then goes on to offer something superficial._

> Learn more about your time spent in apps.

What about going outside or spending time with your family and people you
love? What about inventing something new? What about offering something that
will actually save some of your time, by the way?

Nope. This is an ad about a stupid mobile phone app.

> Learn more about your time spent in apps.

No negativity intended here. Sure, it could help to know you are wasting your
time with apps—as if you didn't know that. Some apps are indeed useful and
improving lives. But offering people to waste their time tracking their own
habits on Android comes off as rather patronizing.

> Learn more about your time spent in apps.

I can't help but picture this ad with the missing clock ticking icon or with
the inevitable skeleton in a hoodie carrying a scythe...

~~~
spuz
I don't really understand your complaint. "What about going outside or
spending time with your family and people you love?" \- that is exactly how
they pitch this initiative. They want you to feel that their technology is
going to allow you to do exactly that.

> offering people to waste their time tracking their own habits on Android
> comes off as rather patronizing.

I agree it is pretty weird to offer a product that is so good that users are
literally addicted to it, and then offering tools to help users limit that
addiction. You might imagine it would be pretty stupid for a a slot machine
designer to include prompts every 30 minutes asking you to stop playing.

However, the difference is that a person when prompted to stop watching
YouTube might decide to spend their time and money building a website on
Google's cloud platform, or even realise they need to buy that thing they just
saw an advert for and hence the prompts might actually help Google's profits,
not hurt them.

~~~
Hoasi
> I don't really understand your complaint. "What about going outside or
> spending time with your family and people you love?" \- that is exactly how
> they pitch this initiative. They want you to feel that their technology is
> going to allow you to do exactly that.

Well maybe because the pitch is different from what they actually offer. In
effect you are going to spend ages monitoring shiny graphs that will not tell
you anything of substance, as opposed to free more time for you to do
something more interesting.

For example, suppose said Google app shows that you have spent 3 hours
watching Youtube that day. Well that's pretty bad for your productivity,
right? Except if you were writing a novel or working on something while
quietly listening to Vivaldi. You didn't even watch it—many Youtube "videos"
are just sound recording, with static images or slideshows that you wouldn't
bother to even look at.

Again, we can (almost) all agree that

> technology should improve life, not distract from it

This is a very good pitch, great copy.

------
fabatka
Can you substitute self control with shiny apps like this? I don't mean that
there isn't anything that can help avoiding distractions, but (from my own
experiences) I have doubts about the effectiveness of soft measures like this.
Dismissing a notification about going to sleep or taking a break in the middle
of a youtube-binge doesn't require much effort, and investigating what takes
all your free time takes significant energy. A commenter mentioned a cron job
that shuts down his/her laptop at midnight - this measure can be more
effective, because it requires effort to continue what you were doing, not to
stop it.

Not to mention the irony of using apps to make you spend less time using apps.

------
chiefofgxbxl
I would be interested to see a (opt-in) social experiment by YouTube where
they enforce a hard 1.5 hour limit of watching per day.

This would encourage users to ration their time, making the decision of which
videos to watch far more conscious and deliberate. Given a small enough
ration, users will demand higher quality videos from content creators (whether
directly or indirectly). Just take a look at all the click-baity content-farms
out there pumping out listicles and "you won't believe...!", not to mention
the new phenomenon of "YouTube Face".

If I'm watching a video of yours and you don't cut to the chase, fluffing up
the video length in hopes of more favorable ad-revenue treatment, it's going
to waste my ration and I'll switch to someone else.

Economics teaches us that value comes from scarcity. Life is short, so you
better spend your time wisely. Money is valuable because you don't have
unlimited wealth -- instead each purchase is an opportunity cost. We should
bake that concept into modern social media and content platforms.

It may play out well for YouTube if users in this experiment end up more happy
and more engaged with the content they're watching, and therefore ads are more
effective. I question whether ads are as effective as they could be when
people are just droning on through hours and hours of clickbait and low-
quality content-farm material.

In this age of information over-abundance, maybe artificial scarcity can help.

------
tkjef
the notifications aspect of this mimics a lot of the functionality of my
Ultimate Alerts app:
[https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.org.imsono...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.org.imsono.emailnew)

been out for 7 years! :)

------
navalsaini
I think this is going in a good direction (in contrast with many commenters).
I love the idea of an assistant - remind me about stuff, help me become more
productive, etc. :-p

I see these apps becoming more and more useful as we build more and more
distractions for ourselves - from KFC, to Social media apps, etc.

------
lifeisstillgood
All [#] technology improves life, but the problem is _cognitive load_. My
electricity supply has almost zero cognitive load, and when i have to change a
fuse, a actual freaking law made the electrician write which fuse controls
which circuit (upstairs lights, downstairs mains)

But this only works for _commoditised, well understood tech_

For everything else - where we are still getting to grips with the right
metaphor for the tool, the right approach is not configuration - it's API and
openness.

All of the Facebook privacy issues go away if there's is an ecosystem of API
providers and scripts to manage the problems - look at how eu banking is
expecting the Payments directive 2 to go

[#] handwave on nuclear weapons technology etc

------
cromwellian
Much of the distraction started with the mobile smart phone. Prior to 2007,
although you could get addicted to desktop activities, most people out and
about were not constantly glued to a shitty feature phone screen.

I wonder how many of the people claiming this is a PR stunt by Google will say
the same thing when Apple introduces their version. Apple also benefits from
addiction to their devices, even if they don’t run the addictive mobile
services (exception iMessage) that create the constant demand to use them.

I view showing people where their time is spent as the same as showing them
calories consumed. Whether for PR or not, it is useful information to have.

------
slx26
Well, I don't think there's a need to judge so fast. This is a first step. If
we see more steps, we will be able to tell if they are going in the direction
they say they want to go. I would just encourage them to do it right.

------
zerostar07
This is the one part of google that i find outright creepy. It sounds like an
authoritarian party leader defining how long you should watch videos, when to
sleep etc. It's big brother stuff 'for your own good'.

It would be less dishonest if they just used health data to notify the user
about things like missing sleep etc, and letting him choose what to do. The
way it's presented as a digital nanny is kind of infantilizing.

------
agumonkey
I didn't realize the URL was related to Android P (just above
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17024245](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17024245))

That release seems to add some late but useful ideas (launcher with useful
action for the selection, really worthy in real life). The timers, the shush
or fade out feature. Technically simple, but really valuable as a user IMO

------
darkkindness
If you're just trying to see how much time you're spending on things, and you
don't want to be locked to Google/Android, I highly recommend RescueTime. It
tracks how long you are active (i.e. not idle) on apps or websites. You can
see how much time you spend on Hacker News by month, week, day, or hour.

[https://www.rescuetime.com/](https://www.rescuetime.com/)

------
tw1010
I can't wait to open this app and be faced with shame as I stoop lower into my
depression induced by attention-maximizing technology. I want to change,
google throwing low key shade on me via specific details about my habits isn't
going to change that. The problem isn't to what extent I am wasting my time –
that much is obvious.

------
kentt
I want this to not suck. I have my doubts since gmail is ridiculously buggy
with automatic syncing turned off. Only notifying for 'urgent' notifications
reeks of just not getting it. That's just to pick on one of many examples of
how their services are meant to be disruptive and are defective otherwise.

------
hajderr
Oh look devil in disguise does it again. So unhelpful to people already in
trouble. Is like throwing a medical kit at a somebody and let them figure out
how to treat themselves. You may start by not selling people's lives.

------
remir
I went to the city the other day and it was surreal to see the amount of
people glued to their phones and this is just 2018. I can't imagine when we
will have sleek and compact AR glasses available.

~~~
zerostar07
Well, it's all about attention. People choose to divert their attention to a
tablet because they don't want to attend the people around them. So, i don't
think AR will make a difference here, it distracts you with the real world,
when all you want is the digital one. The real world is finished already, it
can't compete with the digital one in addictiveness.

------
jfv
People that are excited by this are being way too naive here.

~~~
spuz
Please elaborate.

~~~
jfv
This is clearly not a good-faith effort for Google to have you stop wasting
time. Youtube has been around for over a decade and they're just getting to
this now? I think this is clearly a minimum amount of effort to prevent
backlash, and it is against their interests to invest in technology that helps
you use their technology responsibly.

------
jacksmith21006
Watched the key note yesterday and clearly two messages. AI and tech social
responsibility.

Might be marketing or reality but clearly the messages.

------
GogoAkira
[https://youtu.be/BOksW_NabEk](https://youtu.be/BOksW_NabEk)

------
peterbraden
This is great news.

Relatedly, does anyone know a way to block websites on android? It seems
impossible without a rooted phone.

~~~
CannisterFlux
It depends on the type of blocking you want. Firefox + ublock origin is an
easy way but mostly for adverts. Or if you want a bit more hardcore without
root install blokada from [http://blokada.org](http://blokada.org) You'll have
to "allow external APK sources" though from device settings, as it is not in
the Play store. It routes your traffic through a local VPN, so works in all
applications, and has black and white listing of hosts. By default it uses a
blacklist that blocks advertising hosts.

------
GogoAkira
haha, if I used all of these google apps I wouldn't have time to take a poop,
much less eat, but then I wouldn't have to poop cuz I wouldn't have time to
eat or have a life from all of the google apps I would be using trying to
improve my life, if you do not see this open your eyes.

------
kirykl
Weirdly app stores taking a cut of every in app purchase incentives curators
in the opposite direction

------
baxtr
I’m not sure, but somehow I don’t trust them. All the slogans sound so cheesy,
maybe that’s why.

------
balls187
Google is a corporation; why does it care about the well being of it's users?

Google is putting in place this claptrap, but yet hasn't done anything to curb
it's illegal advertising to children.

I'm sorry, I don't trust google to have my well being in it's best interest.
There must be some hidden angle.

~~~
spuz
There is another angle - healthier user's are more productive and spend more
of their money on google's and its advertiser's products. Why would they NOT
care about the well being of their users?

~~~
balls187
That feels like the public line. I understand google isn't the illuminati
looking to dominate the world from behind the scenes, but I am highly
skeptical about their motives behind this.

In the US, other than YouTube, google has very little in the way of dopamine
as a service, like Facebook, Twitter, Snap, IG, etc. This feels like an
attempt to get in on the technology addiction by feigning to be anti-
addiction.

------
k__
Maybe it's a filter?

The people who get distracted too easy won't reproduce, so only the rest
remains ;)

~~~
horsecaptin
I'd like to see you put your data where your mouth is.

~~~
k__
I did.

The only thing I found was about how broadband internet affects fertility.

And the effect was positive, because at least the better educated women could
work from home now which makes having a career and kids simpler.

------
thankthunk
I love the cognitive dissonance here. The same people attacking google for
monitoring/storing private information and manipulating users are celebrating
google for monitoring/storing private information and manipulating users.

They don't want "daddy google" but yet they want "daddy google" to tell them
how much youtube to watch, what to search, when to go to bed, etc.

When google starts talking in a paternalistic manner, I worry. And my
skeptical side just sees this as google's ploy to justify monitoring people.
"Hey, we keep your private information and monitor you for your benefit.".
Yeah right.

~~~
spuz
We're well past the point of Google storing private information and
manipulating their users. If you're going to assume we have already lost those
two battles, wouldn't you prefer your adversary to concede you a little bit of
freedom to sleep better and feel healthier? The only alternative is to drop
our technology all together, or develop a kind of self-control that most
people have demonstrated they don't have.

------
borncrusader
Well played, Google! Well played!

------
mhb
Hmm. Maybe a good step would be not implementing policies which make people
worse off:

 _Google Bans Bail Bond Ads, Invites Regulation_
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17020444](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17020444)

