
The tech industry's use of persuasive techniques on children - seanhandley
https://medium.com/@richardnfreed/the-tech-industrys-psychological-war-on-kids-c452870464ce
======
allcentury
> I also see far too many boys whose gaming obsessions lead them to forgo
> interest in school, extracurricular activities, and anything else
> productive. Some of these boys, as they reach their later teens, use their
> large bodies to terrorize parents who attempt to set gaming limits. A common
> thread running through many of these cases is parent guilt, as so many are
> certain they did something to put their kids on a destructive path.

This was me. I was 14, my parents just divorced and I got hooked on Starcraft
in 1999. I would play until the sun came up, go to school and sleep through
class. I did it for 3 years straight, with varying levels of addiction.

At some point, my mom wanted me to see a pyschologist but I tried to show her
I wasn't addicted. I took the cd out of the computer, cut it up and glued it
to a piece of paper. I hung that paper on the corkboard for all to see, then,
not 5 days later I bought another cd and started the cycle again.

I don't know if I was reeling with teenager angst or overloaded emotions
because of the divorce but I needed help and my parents didn't know what to
do. I nearly didn't finish high school because of it.

Now, with a son of my own - I am constantly thinking about how in the world do
I expose my son to technology but also teach him moderation. I don't want to
have a fight about how much time is too much, I simply want the technology to
be useful to solve a problem and not something my son feels compelled to use
all day long.

~~~
imgabe
In my experience addiction is less about the thing you're addicted to, and
more about some negative experience / emotions that you're using the addiction
to escape.

~~~
fibbery
What about cigarettes?

~~~
imgabe
Escape from not looking really freakin' cool.

Joking, but kind of not. Of course, there's a physical aspect that takes over.
But most people start smoking as a teenager, to rebel against, you know,
everything like teenagers do, because they're trying to figure themselves out.
And the act of going out for a smoke gives you a pleasant little break from
whatever you were doing before, which was probably not as much fun as smoking.

------
zackmorris
One thing to consider is that a larger percentage of data normally stored in
our brains is now being stored digitally than ever before. In a very real
sense, part of the child's "self" in this article is only accessible via
technology. Not just her memories and the deep thinking part of our brains we
would call the "zone", but her senses as well - new stimuli like being pinged
by someone or having a constant data feed that works a bit like hearing,
alerting us to new developments.

I grew up playing Atari at a family friend's house, and saw my first real
computer (a Mac Plus) around age 8 or 9 which I feel was maybe my first
transcendental experience with technology (drawing with the mouse in
MacPaint). I can't even imagine what effect a fully-connected smart tablet
would have had on my intellectual and emotional development.

I'm just going to throw this out there, that we shouldn't be thinking of this
as internet addiction, but more like, I dunno, asking a kid who grew up in
space to live with gravity. Old folks like me (gen x) see kids on tablets and
feel this understandable sense of concern, but forget that they are dabbling
in their own little infinite universes just like we did. That doesn't release
companies from their ethical responsibility of treating children with utmost
concern though.

~~~
soared
I was an assistant for a study that tested people's memory and 'digital
memory'. We showed people info on a computer and said they'd need to recall
it. Half of those people were told they'd have access to the computer to
reference it. Sometimes we changed the location of the data so they'd look
where it is but it was gone.

I don't remember the exact set up, but the result was effectively that people
remembered where the info was stored, rather than the info itself. So like you
explained, the computer is just external memory. It would make sense that its
also external inputs, outputs, etc.

~~~
nrhk
We store information all over the place, on paper, in other people's brains
and now on our digital devices. When we need to handle more information about
the world the last thing I want to store in my brain is someone's cell phone
number. I'm sure you ask your family members, roomates, work peers similar
questions over and over because you know they are the keeper of that answer,
they essentially act as off site storage for your brain. Now we're just taking
that concept and strapping it onto a rocket but it's probably the only thing
keeping us from information overload.

------
lsmarigo
One of the most pervasive problems of modern tech - discouraging but at this
point not surprising to see people dismissively brushing this off in this
thread. This is the kind of community end up with when you phantom delete and
'ninja bury' any posts or comments that dare question the ethical and societal
implications of the shit going on in SV.

~~~
jstarfish
I get where you're coming from but understand that with any such topic, you're
going to find a lot of people responsible for contributing to the headlining
problem participating in the thread itself.

It's not a "this community" issue-- dismissal of consequences is the
Schroedinger's Cat of psychological support animals, to help engineers cope
with their lack of a conscience. If you refuse to believe there are
consequences for your actions, then there simply are none, and you can go back
to your job developing child-exploiting apps and self-driving Zyklon-
dispensing deathwagons without having to question your impact on the world.

~~~
lsmarigo
> It's not a "this community" issue

I disagree, by actively censoring and ninja burying important issues that
don't reflect well on Silicon Valley the admins of Hn have cultivated an echo
chamber of SV Brotopia, these are the fruits of that labor.

------
robotracers
my little brother and ex also went through an addiction phase of video games
but I would like to say it had a positive impact for both of them and heres
why:

1\. When my parents (mom and stepdad) went through an almost and very rough
divorce, my mom was an alcoholic and my stepdad traveled all of the time. My
mom couldn't be bothered to pay much attention to my little brother and I was
taking all AP classes buried in homework, but I did what I could. With all of
the fighting and lack of attention my little brother got, he turned to video
games instead of getting involved with bad kids at school or staying
out/getting into trouble with girls etc.

2\. My ex was as only child with a widowed mother who worked all the item. He
played MMOs has is to this day over a decade later still friends with many of
the friends he made from these games and sees them in person now.

Alot of these discussions center around the assumption there is this loving
supportive family there, or a rich social life these kids would have to engage
in, but video games is destroying their life. Many times is precisely the
opposite, and kids turn to video games because their parents arent there, they
don't have friends at school, and in many cases before video games they might
turn to other alternatives that are objectively more dangerous.

Furthermore, video games can develop good habits, and some of the smartest
people I know spent as children an immense amount of time playing video games,
and still do from time to time. I think for smart people who like to be
constantly engaged in interesting work, video games provides that level of
intense focus while also allowing the mind to relax during "down" time. That
is a bit of a tangent, but I would argue in some cases video games can be
therapeutic for children, and perhaps parents should take ownership of the
fact that perhaps the "terror" in the childs life is coming from them, and
video games are an escape.

Of course no parent wants to admit or acknowledge that, but plenty of them
passively do by not being around and having video games be the best
alternative babysitter that they arent buying for their kids anyways.

~~~
bittercynic
>the "terror" in the childs life is coming from them, and video games are an
escape.

I think this kind of story may be present near the beginning of many
addictions, painful as it is to consider. On the other hand, there is plenty
of additional harm due to the effectiveness of manipulative techniques on the
part of tech companies and advertisers.

------
acd
The touch interfaces of smart phones enhance the dopamine feed back loop from
a sense of touch. Touching something releases Oxycontin which is a bonding
hormone. Couple that with slot machine random push notifications triggering
dopamine that are there to capture ones attention. I think smart phones are
strongly addictive.

Peoples attention span is the new currency. Big data analytics are used to
maximize user retention and user attention.

I personally found that if I use "smart phone" too much it is shortening my
attention span, I could no longer read long text like manual pages without
getting distracted. Why is it called "smart phone" when it is addictive and
makes people who use social media to much more depressed?

Ponder if one is addicted to likes on Hacker News?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dopamine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dopamine)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin)
[https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/hands_on_resea...](https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/hands_on_research)

Smart phone addiction the slot machine in your pocket
[https://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/smartphone-addiction-
slo...](https://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/smartphone-addiction-slot-machine-
your-pocket)

~~~
soared
By that logic everything you physically touch has potential for addiction? So
like.. using a hand rail on the stairs releases more oxycontin than not using
the hand rail? I'll be happier if I touch more stuff?

~~~
onemoresoop
The hand rail doesn't give you bonus points (with sounds) when you touch it.
Games are designed to get your attention and excite you

------
jayjayok
I don't get it. Why did Kelly's parents not just stop paying her phone bills
and change the Wifi password? Heck, why not just take the phone away and
replace it with a flip-phone? How hard can it be to nip these kinds of issues
in the butt with simple pragmatic solutions? This is not a rhetorical
question. I will be parent soon and stories like these, terrify me.

~~~
bradford
Parent dealing with this question myself. The two main challenges that we
face:

1) A smartphone is increasingly required for getting by in society. My kid
doesn't _really_ need it, but I worry about him navigating the transit system
to/from school and extra curricular activities. A smartphone takes some of the
parental anxiety away here.

2) Sadly, a flip-phone is a sign of poor status and it invites bullying at
school.

I feel there is a genuine need for parental controls on smartphones, but
getting it right is, from an engineering standpoint, not as trivial as we
might think. It's also probably not as profitable either (we have a lot of
battles over the phone in our house, but a lot of parents just don't care
about setting similar boundaries).

~~~
gnicholas
> _2) Sadly, a flip-phone is a sign of poor status and it invites bullying at
> school._

It would be great if there were a way to flip this, so that having a flip-
phone were seen as a sign of having super high-tech parents who could afford
any phone but chose to get this instead.

I live in Silicon Valley and am curious to see what happens when my daughter
starts school. I'm sure there are other parents who will want to keep their
kids off devices, and many of them would be very wealthy. I'm terrible at
branding, but this seems like a branding challenge. Like if you're the kind of
parent who would enroll your kid in an SAT class or after-school tutoring,
this is a thing that will have more impact on their eventual growth.

~~~
soared
Purely a marketing problem then. If someone makes apple 2.0, sells high-end
flip phones for $2,000 each, the goal would be achieved.

~~~
gnicholas
I did wonder if the "answer" is a diamond-encrusted dumbphone.

Maybe a less socially-wasteful solution would be to create an OLPC-like model,
where you give your kid a phone and simultaneously signal that you have enough
wealth to donate a phone to a kid in need elsewhere.

If I weren't already running a couple early-stage startups, I would seriously
pursue this — for the good of kids in the US, and kids elsewhere.

------
40acres
I was born in 91, so for the first half of childhood (0 - 9) there were no
tablets or smartphones or smart TVs around. During the latter part of my
childhood (10 - 17) these things started to propagate but we were still in the
initial phases of smartphones and social networks. We had game consoles
growing up but they were not as networked as they are now.

Watching my goddaughter (age 3) is pretty terrifying, she knows how to operate
Netflix and has seen some movies dozens of times, she spends a lot of time on
tablets and smartphones and is already conditioned to them.

It's difficult for me to see parents capitulate to their younger kids
outbursts and simply hand them a phone to placate them, I'm not a parent yet
but given everything I know about the companies behind big tech I don't feel
comfortable giving my child access to a phone until high school. If I was able
to survive w/o one I'm sure they can too.

~~~
jstarfish
Some things are subjectively "better" than they used to be though.

My kids may spend too much time watching Netflix, but at least for every 30
minutes of screen time, they're getting 30 minutes of pure edu/entertainment
and not dividing their attention 50% between filler content and commercials.
For better or worse, they have no patience for ads.

> I don't feel comfortable giving my child access to a phone until high
> school.

Good luck with that. I said the same, and by the time my oldest hit middle
school all her friends already had iPhones themselves, which led to teasing
and exclusion for those in the clique that didn't.

The worst part is the lack of visibility. Everything happens in private, on
encrypted devices wielded by immature humans you are legally and morally
responsible for. If someone's grooming or harassing your kid, this pattern of
circumstances ensures you may never know until it's too late.

------
bcheung
Playing video games as a kid is what got me started programming at a very
early age. Of course there was no social media and heaven for bid you
communicated with someone through a computer you were ridiculed in school as a
nerd. Times have certainly changed.

------
pnathan
the addiction design is the aspect to highlight.

most of us here were, I think, fascinated by this new toy and we loved to
program it and "play" with the code or hardware. very similar to gearheads and
cars, or other hobbyist types.

but the design for "persuasion" or addiction is really a big deal.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _but the design for "persuasion" or addiction is really a big deal._

And remember, the actual term of the art here is "engagement". Every time you
see it, think of "getting people hooked on your dope".

~~~
pnathan
engagement is slightly weaselly and covers both addictive behaviors and useful
behaviors.

if your app provides a service that is useful frequently throughout the day -
say, a local news app for the sake of argument, high engagement should suggest
that your app is useful. no one wants to build a useless app, and often we
like knowing what's happening around us.

but addiction is ... overuse. pushing people to use it, although there's no
real benefit to be gained by the user.

I liken it to alcohol. One glass a night isn't generally a problem (0.1 is
actually more or less better). It's when you have, say, 6+ drinks (using the
usual units) per night that it's a problem.

and when you design for addiction in your engagement strategy, and target
children... well... I would frankly suggest that there should be criminal
liability involved.

------
excalibur
> “Never before in history have basically 50 mostly men, mostly 20–35, mostly
> white engineer designer types within 50 miles of where we are right now
> [Silicon Valley], had control of what a billion people think and do.”

Hey, is this right place to contact those 50 guys? We're having this little
problem where society is becoming increasingly polarized and fractured into
camps, which are attacking one another with greater and greater ferocity.
Like, I know you like money, but could you maybe use your influence to prevent
societal collapse and/or nuclear war? Survival is actually in your interest
too.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _We 're having this little problem where society is becoming increasingly
> polarized and fractured into camps, which are attacking one another with
> greater and greater ferocity._

Like, e.g.: “Never before in history have basically 50 mostly men, mostly
20–35, mostly white engineer designer types within 50 miles of where we are
right now [Silicon Valley], had control of what a billion people think and
do.”?

So sure, some people mostly from SV control the company that sort-of makes the
OS used on the phones. Phones made by (and having their OS further altered by)
companies predominantly in Asia. Sold with extra crap from companies all over
the world. All to facilitate dysfunctional behaviours engineered by ad-tech
industry that's, again, everywhere from SV to Tel Aviv to Berlin.

I'm all for criticizing SV for what it does wrong, but let's not overdo this.

~~~
excalibur
> I'm all for criticizing SV for what it does wrong, but let's not overdo
> this.

I'm actually less interesed in criticism than it may have appeared. I'm far
more interested in finding ways to harness the machinery built for generating
revenue and refocus it to discourage the type of angry tribalism that's
putting us all in danger. Sure, there are parts of it that are highly
decentralized and difficult to influence in this way, but there are other
parts that are more easily manipulated, eg. the content of a user's news feed.
I'm trying to make the argument that it makes sense for Facebook et al to show
users content that's less divisive even if it means less profit in the short
term, as it helps to ensure that there will still be people around to use
their platforms in 10 years.

~~~
TeMPOraL
I'm sorry, I misread your comment as "how about you do X" kind of criticism.
Now I see the point you were trying to make; it's interesting to think about,
but I fear very hard to implement. Social media are pretty much a direct pipe
to Moloch Himself[0]. The content that causes problems is made by a countless
number of people, each deciding to get a _little_ more for themselves by
screwing up other people _just a tiny bit_ ("just so little, it couldn't
really hurt").

> _I 'm trying to make the argument that it makes sense for Facebook et al to
> show users content that's less divisive even if it means less profit in the
> short term, as it helps to ensure that there will still be people around to
> use their platforms in 10 years._

I was going to write a long comment about how the divisive content is not
Facebook's fault and they can't control it directly, but I guess all both know
that. Facebook's contribution is the detailed mechanics of feeds, filtering,
timelines, liking, sharing. They _could_ tweak it a bit without immediately
getting accused of censorship or not being a fair platform, but it's hard.

But it dawned on me - there's one simple trick to unbreak social media, both
Twitter and Facebook. One simple trick that's so obvious, that its absence
seems to me very purposeful. The trick is: _display content in chronological
order_. It would immediately make both platforms more useful _and_ less
addicting at the same time.

(I can already hear the screams, "But this is hard! Think of the scale!
Eventual consistency and all!". Well, so _now_ you have a hard technical
problem that's _actually worth to be solved_.)

I'm not having much hope, though. If there's one thing proven about humanity
it's that companies don't self-regulate themselves out of profits. It's a
ratchet, there's no going back without a hard reset.

\--

[0] - [http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-
moloch/](http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/)

------
rndmize
I saw a headline a few weeks ago that American fast food had spread to
<location> half a decade or a decade ago, and now obesity rates were way up in
the past few years. There shouldn't be anything surprising about this - fast
food is engineered and optimized to be as appealing/addictive as possible so
that people come back for more, and likely breaks natural systems of
recognizing fullness in the process. (Further side effects - zero optimization
for human health; likely leads to pickier eaters, etc.)

In much the same way, tech optimizes for eyeballs and attention. Kids learning
how to interact socially in person? Irrelevant. Constant advertising and
status comparison driving users to depression? Doesn't matter, or can even be
a positive if it drives engagement. There was an article on here just
yesterday (
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17745630](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17745630)
) about how people spend so much time trying to one-up each other on social
media, endlessly trying to make it look like their life is better or more fun
than it actually is. And of course, even if it sucks a lot of the joy out of
doing things, this is exactly what social media companies want.

This isn't a problem with psychology or tech, phones or apps. It'd a core
feature of the capitalistic system we operate in, and it warps everything
within it.

~~~
Animats
Yes, and the industry fought opposition by making "fat shaming" a form of
oppression.

In 1960, fat-shaming was national policy.[1]

US annual deaths from obesity: 300,000.

US annual deaths from anorexia: 10-1000, depending on source.

[1] [https://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-
Viewer/9s-yJbLYuUyLS7_xlNTu...](https://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-
Viewer/9s-yJbLYuUyLS7_xlNTuLw.aspx)

~~~
dbatten
Source for industry making fat shaming bad? I'm willing to listen if there's
evidence, but this doesn't pass the sniff test for me...

~~~
Animats
Brochure on corporate sponsorship for a pro-fat group.[1]

CBS documentary.[2]

[1]
[https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gikpfrH9MPPNZs_fD6ZT9i-cb4T...](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gikpfrH9MPPNZs_fD6ZT9i-cb4Tr4fwJ/view)

[2] [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/documentary-fed-up-with-
rising-...](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/documentary-fed-up-with-rising-
childhood-obesity/)

~~~
fibbery
Where does it show links to the fast food industry in that brochure?

------
jriot
My daughters keep asking me for a phone (smart phone as I have a flip phone).
I informed them, they can have a phone when they are able to read a physical
copy of the Wall Street Journal understand everything. This provides an
assurance to my wife and I that they are able to understand real information,
before handing them a device with a constant stream of information.

------
MrStonedOne
It boils down to a war on attention.

These companies want your attention, they use abusive notifications,
gamification, and the like to try and get that initial eyeball, than
everything from there is about minimizing boredom, and maximizing interest and
attention.

"Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit"
([https://xkcd.com/915/](https://xkcd.com/915/))

Everything about the modern app is designed from the ground up to be
interesting in some way or another, to avoid becoming boring after long use.
But overuse is messing up how we frame what is really boring, kinda boring,
sorta interesting, etc.

The sad truth is the answer is very likely regular periodical boredom, keep
the brains auto scale system in check.

I wonder how effective just explaining this concept to kids or young adults
would be at minimizing this.

------
WalterBright
I worked for a while in college as a tester for video games. That cured me of
interest in video games, and it never returned.

------
yehosef
And adults are safe?

~~~
izzydata
But think of the children.

~~~
uRreading2slow
If you have issues with protecting children from harm by predators, apart from
that kind of being a red flag, I would rest assured that any kids ideally will
be adults one day, with their potential heavily influenced by what they went
through as "mere kids". Think of it as a really cheap way of helping adults.

------
guessthejuice
As opposed to Disney's or Coca Cola's or Mattel's psychological war on kids?
Hollywood's psychological war on kids? Is it only a war on kids if tech does
it or is it just another clickbait ( medium's psychological war on parents'
for ad money )? It's ironic that an entity dependent on ad money would create
such a title.

~~~
zenbob
Perhaps there is disproportionate negative attention placed on the tech
industry these days, but it is still reasonable to write an in-depth article
like this that only focuses on one specific offending industry.

~~~
duskhen
The trouble with this article is that’s not an “in-depth”. It is not based on
scientific rigor, but rather on a certain assumption backed by the boasting of
a certain B.J.Fogg.

Moreover, the observed behavior is certainly not something new to our present
time.

If anecdotal evidences are of any use, then I can relate my own childhood
experience. I was truly obsessed with computers in my teens, and avoided
talking to my parents. The only difference is that this happened 25 years ago
in post-Soviet Russia.

------
malvosenior
People have been saying this about video games, heavy metal, tv, rock-n-
roll... for 70+ years. Older generations fear new technology/social change.
That's well documented.

It's interesting to hear about phone obsession and compare it with video
footage of The Beatles landing in the US for the first time with hundreds of
fans screaming to the point of delerium. Is there even anything that powerful
that exists in our culture today?

EDIT: Could someone please explain why this is flagged? If you disagree with
my statement, I'd love to hear why.

~~~
matt_s
I think the big difference is you didn't hear of heavy metal or rock bands
hiring psychologists to engineer their product.

There was an element of TV and advertising to sell you a physical product.
What is different with tech is the stimulation of the brain that it
accomplished something or makes you feel good about something (likes on a
social media pic).

Game and social media companies aren't just grabbing your attention to show
you a cool new toy. They are grabbing your attention by hiring psychologists
to help engineer their product (game, social media) so you don't want to put
it down. Many mobile games are engineered like a heroin dealer - first one's
free, you get to a certain level/time played and you have to pay to get ahead.

That is much different than seeing a commercial for a new Star Wars toy. And
much more different than an older person not relating to new technology.

~~~
malvosenior
I would argue that psychological manipulation is at the heart of all 20th
century media and advertising. If you haven't seen it, check out The Century
Of Self. It covers the roots of 20th century marketing and individualism
(psychology).

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self)

Bands may not have hired psychologists but record labels were definitely
manipulative to fans and artists alike.

~~~
imron
> I would argue that psychological manipulation is at the heart of all 20th
> century media and advertising.

The difference here is the incredibly tight feedback loop and a unique,
detailed psychologial profile of each user to work with.

------
r00fus
Is it me or does this rant sound like "bad stuff happened but a phone was
involved so it's the phone manufacturer's problem".

Our kids get into an agitated state when their devices have to be taken away
but why is the fault of "tech industry"? IN the past it wouldve been "video
games" or "TV" or "D&D"... just whatever the scapegoat du jour.

~~~
allcentury
Somewhat - parents want to act and help but it's hard when the technology
geared towards kids is creating problems parents don't yet know how to face.

This is new grounds so I wouldn't dismiss the problem as simple scapegoating
but rather parents need to understand why and how this technology is affecting
their kids.

