
88% of Americans use a second screen while watching TV - elsewhen
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/12/88-of-americans-use-a-second-screen-while-watching-tv-why/
======
foxfired
We have redefined boredom [1].

> The more I consume, the more I need to consume, the more bored I feel. I
> often turn to video games to release the tension. I can spend two solid
> hours shooting at virtual objects until I start to feel less entertained. I
> then find myself pulling up my phone closer to consume more scrollable
> content while still playing the game. Only when all my sense are stimulated
> at the same time, I feel relieved.

> This becomes the new norm. Anything less will result in that acute sense of
> boredom. Have a conversation with a friend, you'll feel bored. They can't
> possibly compete with a video game, a political rant and a funny video at
> the same time. Right in the middle of a conversation you hear that familiar
> beep from your phone and you have to pick it up. It's not that you ignore
> your friends, or the dinner conversation, it's that you need to have them
> all occur at the same time to feel normal.

[1]: [https://idiallo.com/blog/im-bored-what-do-i-
do](https://idiallo.com/blog/im-bored-what-do-i-do)

~~~
asdfasgasdgasdg
That quote presents a good story, but I don't think it is true. I could hardly
be more engaged than I was this evening sitting at my brother's kitchen table,
drinking wine while he cooked and talking about the endeavor of providing food
for the family. That I watch two screens sometimes when the TV is on has
hardly changed that. If anything it has made my enjoyment of in person
conversation more acute.

~~~
stevenhuang
That's fair but it also doesn't mean much to be able to provide an exception
to his general statement, since we still don't know if it's not the case for
the majority.

~~~
asdfasgasdgasdg
True, but I'm implying by my provision of an anecdote that I disbelieve the
(also unsupported) assertions in the quote.

------
sandworm101
>>According to data from Nielsen, the TV metrics company, 88 percent of
Americans "use a second digital device while watching TV." Seventy-one percent
of Americans "look up content related to content they are watching," while 41
percent of Americans are busy messaging "friends/family about content they are
watching."

Has anyone here actually watched Nielsen TV recently? This is the oldschool
stuff. Comcast. Not netflix/hulu/Disney. The commercials are INSANE. I stopped
watching sitcoms a few years ago when they switched to 21 minute shows. A
third of primetime content is now ads. For reruns, thanks to compression
tech/editing, ads are on the screen almost half the time. And those ads are
ALL for old people. Diabetic testing supplies. Laxatives. Investment
consulting. Erectile dysfunction. Medicare part B. Incontinence products.
That's what the second screen is for: To distract one's self until the
animated colon commercial goes away.

~~~
CoolGuySteve
The content itself took a nosedive after the writer's strike too. It feels
like 2/3 of broadcast television these days is some kind of low effort
singing/dancing contest.

Considering it's basically a live music video, there's no reason why you
wouldn't browse the internet at the same time.

~~~
celticmusic
I feel this way about everything.

GoT took a nose dive when they stopped having source material to work off of.
It became stupid, mindless drama. People talk about the ending as if that's
where the problems started. No, the writing was crap for the last several
seasons.

The latest season of The Expanse was disappointing. It went from a slow
burning, character driven series to an action packed run-of-the-mill drama
laden mess, like most of the television shows you see nowadays. I'm happy
Amazon picked it up, but they basically butchered the show, it will never live
up to its potential.

Everything just kind of becomes samey because they're all learning how to do
it from the same sources, and the lessons they're learning is unnecessary
drama pulls people in and keeps them there. Except it drives me nuts when an
entire season's worth of plot points could literally evaporate if character A
articulated why they were angry at character B, who would then explain it was
a misunderstanding.

~~~
hinkley
The source material for Season 4 was not really a Space Opera anymore. There's
a bit of similar material in book 5, and then it's back to Space Opera for the
remainder of the series.

Season 4 was always gonna be trouble, and I suspect that contributed to SyFy
cancelling it.

~~~
celticmusic
fair enough, I haven't read the books. I purchased them as ebooks, but for
whatever reason I can't seem to get into the first book. Love the series
though.

------
userbinator
I suspect a lot of the time spent looking at the "second screen" is while the
first one is showing adverts.

~~~
reaperducer
That's kinda old-fashioned thinking. It's true that people who only watch one
screen will find something else to do during a commercial, but people who
habitually use two screens will use both regardless of what's on the TV.

Source: A company I used to work for did a metric buttload of research on this
subject.

~~~
oarabbus_
> It's true that people who only watch one screen will find something else to
> do during a commercial, but people who habitually use two screens will use
> both regardless of what's on the TV.

Then they are only using the handheld (or laptop) screen, and they are not
watching the TV

------
gaukes
Sometimes, the TV is just background noise. But, I also catch myself doing
this when I watch more serious TV shows for the first time.

I feel like a junkie saying this but maybe TV alone isn’t enough stimulation.

~~~
falcolas
The pacing of TV shows is, in my opinion, not that great. There’s a lot of
story or visual lulls where if I don’t have a second screen, I’ll just end up
wandering away from the TV and won’t finish the show.

Before we had screens, we had newspapers, magazines and coffee table books. I
remember this happening quite a bit when watching TVs prior to second screens
even existing.

~~~
bardan
> There’s a lot of story or visual lulls where if I don’t have a second
> screen, I’ll just end up wandering away from the TV and won’t finish the
> show.

I think a lot of people feel this way, and not to place too much faith in TV
show writers but this seems like a shame as it limits what experiences can be
delivered by the medium.

This is exactly what has happened with movies, as well. At some point in the
2010's I noticed that in many movies I watched almost every shot was in
motion. No moment of stillness or quieter reflection, just constant noise and
motion, even in movies I thought were particularly good like the new Mad Max
movie.

I think it's essentially a battle being fought between screens: the movie
can't let the modern audience's attention waver for even a second, otherwise
they might look down at their "second screen", lose track of the plot and
consequently believe the movie wasn't that great.

This sucks because restful or reflective moments can give you a sense of
sheltering, or the calm before a storm (for example), but you just can't get
that feeling without moments where the camera calms down and people stop
shouting.

~~~
aspaceman
Marvel movies are a good example. They even use cutting of food and sandwiches
as a very common transition to slow things down but keep them “tight”.

~~~
EncryptEntropy
Marvel movies are all a prime example of the “all filler” garbage remake
movies with sequel after sequel, advertising to you and fulfilling the lowest
common denominator. Marvel movies are trash. All the phony superhero movies
are made distractions for grown men to act like kids with superhero figures.
They all are getting political, I can’t believe how duped they have “critical
thinking” “hackers.”

------
yellow_lead
I think our brains have gotten so dopamine-wired that our attention span has
suffered. I am reading Digital Minimalism which touches on this a bit, but I'd
be interested to know if there are any rigorous studies relating to this
topic.

~~~
Aaronstotle
I can feel my brain being caught in a fog as my attention span has dropped
drastically due to the over-stimulation. I'm going to start leaving my phone
at home a few days a week and meditate in the mornings to improve on myself.

------
vonseel
I do sometimes look up details about a show I’m watching, but I’m with the
author on this, I can’t fully keep track of what’s going on if I’m not
watching.

Moreover, I prefer to watch with subtitles because I feel like I absorb
information drastically better if I read it. On that point, I pretty much hate
watching YouTube videos to learn anything - I’d rather read the docs and my
favorite sources tend to be things like a programming language’s official
documentation or the manual for whatever software I’m using (Logic Pro X comes
to mind - I’d much rather read factual, authoritative text on a feature than
watch some random YouTuber talk for 10 minutes and try to get me to subscribe
to his or her channel while I could have easily read the docs in half the
time). I think a big part of this “text vs video/audio” learning dilemma is
that you can’t easily skim a videos contents and intuitively know what to skip
and what parts are interesting. Text will always have its place.

~~~
filoleg
I feel you so much on this one. Visuals certainly help me, but i would take a
purely written source over a purely video one any day of the week (talking
only about learning material throughout this whole comment btw). For one, with
readable sources i can go at my own pace, set pauses, skip over parts that i
already know or find to be fluff, etc. The source and the structure of a
written source are one and the same, which allows me to consume the material
in the way that is personally the most efficient for me. With videos, i have
zero control of the flow and zero knowledge of the structure of the material,
let alone being able to traverse the structure and control it. This alone
makes videos way less efficient for me.

The only scenario where i would prefer videos for learning something are when
the material is very short in length and very single-minded, like “explaining
how that one specific formula works and how it is used for that one specific
application and why” or when i need to fill a small gap in my knowledge of
something. And even then, there is some potential for the creator of such
video to misuse the video and pad it with fluff and poor narration, though
this is not unique to video as a medium and can be done in a text-based
material as well.

~~~
vonseel
Yep. I wonder if there’s been a bunch of research on the topic and it really
boils down to us just being written versus visual learners, or if it has to do
with something like age-bias - maybe because YouTube wasn’t really a thing yet
when I was a teen I never caught the bug. I’ve noticed it seems like kids
these days love watching YouTube videos to learn stuff I would never watch
videos on, like programming.

~~~
filoleg
I had the same hypothesis as you about the generational preferences kind of
thing, but personal anecdata seems to run against it. I am in my mid twenties,
have plenty of friends spanning from early twenties to early thirties (with a
few in their late 30s/early 40s), and have noticed zero correlation between
the age and their willingness and preference to learn things from youtube
videos vs. written sources.

Not accounting for some specific types of things (e.g., I cannot for the life
of me learn intricate details of operating physical things like fixing
something on a motorcycle without a video, despite heavily preferring written
sources for learning otherwise), the general preference for learning through
youtube vs. reading seems to come down (at least from what I've observed)
purely to the individual's own preference.

------
dajohnson89
Because TV is absolute trash. low quality, full of filler, 25% commercials
(!!)[0].

[0][https://www.marketplace.org/2018/04/30/television-too-
many-c...](https://www.marketplace.org/2018/04/30/television-too-many-
commercials/)

~~~
samstave
Exactly.

Take late night talk show hosts' shows for example.

Ill watch the monologue of the shows and thats it. Most times - I will just
watch the clip on youtube. I dont give a shit about which actor is promoting
their crap, or what musician is going to perform a song.

I get the same jokes told in a slightly different angle from Colbert, Kimmel,
Meyers, Noah, etc... and I get all their propaganda angles from both sides in
short order.

Whats worse is that people like Bill Meyer are so freaking smug about their
"unique" perspective....

Its all garbage.

The news is even worse than the "comedy" \-- reality is a freaking joke.

~~~
moduspol
I assume you're meaning Bill "Maher," right?

And I'm sure you're probably aware of it, but you're not getting "both sides"
from the hosts you've listed.

~~~
samstave
I am aware... and Yes I forgot how to spell his name.

Just that the late night shows dont usually have a bunch of pro-trump
comedy...

Regardless, its all garbage.

~~~
dajohnson89
throw into the mix fallon and oliver

~~~
crooked-v
Jimmy Fallon is usually really annoying to me. It's something about the
constant laughing and him being pretty bad at 'getting it' when it comes to
the flow with guests, even though on a shallow level he's quite likeable.

The weird part is that when he gets into bantering with the other cast members
(miming stuff at the desk, exchanging dumb jokes, etc), he's really, really
entertaining to me in a way that the rest of the show doesn't manage at all,
and yet he barely does it.

------
oneeyedpigeon
Noone seems to have mentioned the potential for a second screen to _augment_
what's being watched on TV. I'm frequently reaching for phone or tablet to
look up details about actors, or references I don't get, or just other related
info.

~~~
oh_sigh
This is what amazon x-ray does, but it would be nice if you could connect a
phone app with the streaming app so you could look up xray data on the second
screen.

~~~
angott
I love the Amazon X-Ray feature. I wonder if they patented it, because I’m
surprised other players like Netflix or cable providers are not offering
something similar. I personally find it adds a lot to my viewing experience
without being too intrusive.

~~~
judge2020
I wonder how they get the "actors in this scene" data. I suspect mechanical
turk but maybe they have the movie scripts.

~~~
whoisjuan
Amazon owns IMDb. They have been gathering data about actors for literally
decades. They probably have well-trained machine learning models to identify
actors on screen. It's really not that hard since they can run it against a
narrowed down dataset with the names of the cast.

------
ggggtez
>can it possibly be any good for us ?!?!

Oh sorry, let's get back to the "correct" behavior of sitting still watching a
screen with no interaction.

The author seems aware that this opinion is elitist. But the idea that putting
on a TV as background noise is somehow wasting the planets resources... I
mean, but why not compare it to other things you can be doing? Driving a
car... Or traveling to a far off country... Using a phone while a TV is on has
got to be one of the least pollutant activities a person can spend their time
doing.

~~~
Consultant32452
Martin Scorcese recently publicly lamented his excellent Netflix project The
Irishman because he didn't like the way people were watching it, on the small
screen. I guess he'd be doubly upset that 88% of those small screen viewers
had another even smaller screen holding their attention.

I think this is an interesting transition period for the art and artists.

------
is0tope
I've caught myself doing this as well and also questioned why this was
happening. My initial guess is that it is just manifestation of phone
addiction, but perhaps it is also selective boredom. For instance the majority
of the time when I look at my phone is when the show I am watching switches to
a scene that is showing some plot line I don't care about. As an example, when
I am watching a Sci fi show, and there is some romantic sub plot. I simply
don't care, and will look at hacker news while it plays out.

~~~
shantly
My mom used to record all her soap operas (on VHS) so she could FF through the
~1/2 of storylines she didn't care about at all. I think this is, or at least
used to be, fairly common.

~~~
benibela
I watch boring parts at 1.5x speed, especially speeches.

Then you still get all plot information, but do not become bored

Actually, now I have trouble listening to speeches or tutorials at normal
speeds.

------
zw123456
I work from home generally 4 / 5 days per week for a lot of reasons (commute,
environment etc.). I am one of those people who cannot code in absolute
silence, whatever, maybe from years of coding in a loud environment... who
knows. But I am most productive with mindless yammering in the background.
Which generally is things like, NPR, TV News, CSPAN etc. Music is no good, it
has to be just blabbing in the background. So I generally have the TV on in
the background on some dumb channel, I am not listening but just talking in
the background that I am not interested in at all, in some weird way helps me
concentrate. I dunno if I am weird but I am guessing a lot of people have it
on in the background as just sort of comfort while they do other things.

~~~
pier25
My father does this too. He codes with the radio on and has been doing it for
decades.

~~~
zw123456
Ha, good to know I am not the only one. Most guys I know need either total
silence, noise cancelling headphones and/or music.

------
ggregoire
Probably unpopular idea on HN, but my company synchronize digital ads with TV
commercials for this exact reason.

When we detect a commercial on the TV for a brand, we run instantly ads on
Facebook for the same brand.

~~~
klingonopera
> _When we detect a commercial on the TV_

How exactly? Is the app always listening?

~~~
tinus_hn
You could do this without targeting that narrowly using the ads that are
broadcast on popular channels.

------
pacomerh
In my case, (and I assume this is common) is using the TV as a second screen
and my laptop as a first when watching normal entertainment stuff like a
comedy, talk shows, etc. And just the TV when I'm watching an interesting
movie or tv show.

------
ummonk
It's no different from interacting with people while watching tv together.
Only now much of that interaction is via electronic devices.

------
ncmncm
Because American TV is deadly dull most of the time, but people like
background noise.

~~~
ethbro
Maybe it's when I was born, or the fact that we lived in a somewhat rural
area, but I categorically don't get the "background noise" desire.

I live in the city now, and city background certainly doesn't bother me. But I
don't feel a desire to artificially adding more.

Is silence that bad?

~~~
shantly
It's a cultural/socialization thing. Lots of people grow up with the TV always
on in the background at home, going to sleep to the TV, and so on, so they
keep doing that when they're on their own. Some who don't do it when they're
alone will turn it on when someone's over, as it's just "what you do". I doubt
they even think about it, they just do it.

As to why people started doing that to begin with: dunno. Sports being on
often, so having the TV on just becomes normal? Not sure.

Like many social behaviors, you could map it pretty well to one or more
Fussellian class, in the US at least.

~~~
ethbro
I am an only child, which likely has something to do with my preferences...

At the risk of sounding bougie, it seems kind of trashy to me to just
constantly keep the TV on. Echoes of 1984's mandatory viewing, coupled with
ignorance of advertising's effect on your brain.

But I've certainly observed that people fall fairly heavily into one category
or the other. Either they can't stand it not being on, or they can't stand it
being on.

~~~
derefr
I play music through my TV, often by finding a recorded musical performance on
an app like YouTube. Does that count as “having TV on in the background?”

~~~
ethbro
Point. I guess the more 1:1 analogy would be having the radio on in the
background. _muses_

The closest I can come to explaining where my distaste seems to come from is
wasted opportunity.

In the modern era, we have unrivaled access to the thing (e.g. the musical
piece, specific performance, news report, piece of information, best show or
movie of all time) itself. And yet we're so in need of filler that we're
willing to put any damn thing on?

That seems close to it, as I don't have nearly the adverse gut reaction to
music as I do to television. Or even to television-sans-ads to television-
with-ads.

------
DaveInTucson
The only time I ever watch broadcast TV anymore is for (NFL) football. And in
that case, I'm usually also , participating in chats and discussion forums,
following box scores, and the like.

On the other hand, I've also noticed when watching movies on my computer
(which is pretty much how I do it anymore), it can be _really_ easy to get
distracted.

On the gripping hand, when I watch shows on Amazon Prime, I generally don't
have any difficulty watching through an entire episode without getting
distracted. Possibly because I usually watch Prime on my tablet, where it's (a
little) harder to switch between apps.

------
McDev
This is why I love the cinema. I'm forced to watch the actual movie. Even if
it's not great, it's 2 hours where I will be focused on something and not
mindlessly scrolling. Sometimes I even enjoy the movie!

~~~
rakejake
Agreed.

Recently I watched The Irishman (3.5 hours) at the theatre. Since the reviews
mentioned the sombre mood of the film (unlike Scorcese's other gangter films),
I was fully expecting to fidget around after some time.

I had no trouble with my attention span throughout the film so full credits to
Scorcese and Thelma Schoonmaker for superb pacing. The audience was quite
sparse and mostly film fans so I was able to watch it in a quiet atmosphere
with occasional applause. In other words, the perfect movie watching
experience.

If not at the theatre, I would have caught this at home. I would have taken
more than 5 hours to complete the film. Numerous pauses throughout the film
for bathroom breaks, googling names and trivia, simply getting distracted etc.

Now sometimes, you watch a movie that has a mind blowing twist, or something
happens in the film that makes you go WTF and pause. Even then, you have to
admit that watching the same film in the theatre (where you cannot just pause
and take it in), with an audience who are going through the same thing, will
probably be a better experience.

------
wlesieutre
It’s more that I have the TV on while I use my first screen

------
zeta0134
What else am I supposed to do when 30% of the content is ads? The second
screen is for me to look at while the ads are muted and I'm waiting for them
to go away.

Once I caught myself doing this enough times, of course I just canceled the
cable subscription, but a lot of my family members still seem to do this. At
my parent's house, Law and Order marathons are essentially their choice of
background noise. They rarely seem to sit down to watch a show on purpose.

------
jborichevskiy
I don't watch much TV but occasionally I'll have the Reddit thread for the
current/previous episode up for background information. But I definitely can't
multitask if it's an engaging show.

~~~
ethbro
What does the Reddit thread typically provide?

~~~
jborichevskiy
Most recent case being Mr Robot it was primarily references and connections
that went over my head from seasons back. But it's also fascinating to see
people's reactions to the same reveals I'm watching. And of course, the
predictions. Similar thoughts on Westworld.

~~~
ethbro
The last show I did that with was Lost, albeit not in realtime. So I get what
you're saying.

If you don't mind me prying (I'm honestly fascinated), does it feel different
watching while not having that simultaneous feed? If so, how?

~~~
jborichevskiy
Not prying at all! I suppose without the feed it's like watching a typical
movie in a theater: I'm limited to what I notice/pick up/deduce on my own; and
if I miss something I might go the rest of the movie without noticing more
things. End result is I might miss fascinating angles I would've otherwise
noticed, but still enjoyable.

------
kevinconaway
Because I have allowed my phone to absolutely ruin my attention span. If a
show isn’t immediately engaging enough, I find myself reflexively reaching for
my phone to fritter away time.

In the same vein, I have to consciously avoid taking my phone out while
sitting at a stop light or going to the bathroom

It didn’t used to be this way and I hate it

~~~
shantly
I can't wait until I can get rid of home Internet. And just have a dumbphone
as the only way to contact me. Or mail. I'll just hit up a coffee shop or the
library every week or two to pay bills and see family photos or whatever.
Savings on Internet and related bills would let me buy more physical media
than I'd have time to consume anyway, while still saving money, even if I just
threw away everything after reading/watching/listening once.

------
ehnto
I am amazed at how many of my friends watch movies while playing video games.
It's like they need to make sure something is ready to stimulate them the
moment the game fails to.

A particular friend will have the game, youtube playing, and also be betting
on online poker on his phone.

------
standardUser
I watch new/good things like I'm watching a movie. Dark, silent,
uninterrupted. I spend maybe 2-4 hours every week watching shows like this.
Things like Game of Thrones or Rick and Morty come to mind.

Then there's background watching, which usually means re-watching something
I've already watched. I'm almost always using a second screen during this
time. This is probably more like 15-25 hours every week, maybe even more when
I work from home. I get a significant amount of my work/chores/tasks done
during this time.

------
chrisseaton
What percentage of Americans use a screen while also listening to the radio?
Doesn't seem much different to me. Especially for things like rolling news,
political coverage, documentaries.

~~~
npo9
How much of American radio consumption is done in the car?

~~~
chrisseaton
I don't know? Is that a rhetorical question? I almost always have the radio on
while working - music or talk.

------
jonplackett
Because most TV isn't that good?

~~~
Barrin92
in recent years I have seen more and more people using phones during content
they actively sought out including their favourite tv shows. I have seen Game
of Thrones fans staring at their phone while the newest episode was running,
only to ask everyone else in the room what just happened five seconds later.

This is definitely not just boredom or background noise TV. It seems that more
and more frequently people are unable to maintain singular uninterrupted focus
or attention on something without staring at phones or laptops.

I actually started to pay attention to this because it started to get on my
nerves when people in cinemas were doing it, and it even seems to happen more
and more in actual in-person conversations. The next time you go to a coffee
shop or a bar pay attention to how often people in discussions with each other
go for their phone and interrupt each other. It's pretty sobering.

Personally I had an epiphany about this years ago when I started checking mail
and Reddit when I was sitting down to read fiction and I was so embarrassed
because I was less able to read than my teenage self when I could sit down and
read for a whole day, and I just felt like the fat people in Wall-E.

~~~
klyrs
> in recent years I have seen more and more people using phones during content
> they actively sought out including their favourite tv shows

This. The internet (and thus phones) has matured into a platform for
behavioral addiction. Even if we want what's on the main screen, our brains
_need_ to interface with the second screen with an alarming degree of
regularity.

------
derekp7
Is this only for regular (broadcast / commercial) TV, or does it include other
things that you would watch in front of the TV (movies, or streaming episodic
content)? Because for broadcast, I can see using a phone during commercial
breaks.

------
wayanon
I use my phone to find out more about a place, person or topic mentioned in a
tv show. Maybe a coffee shop where Larry David’s is in Curb - or it could be
something a bit more cerebral.

------
nitwit005
Aside from being about a quarter commercials, TV shows often feature quite a
bit of filler/padding content. It'd be odd if people didn't pick up on some of
it and play with their phone when they have the option.

I always think to this Mitchell and Webb gift shop sketch that parodies the
worst of this:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MFtl2XXnUc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MFtl2XXnUc)

------
dannyw
Is this just TV? How many of you second screen while watching Netflix? I’m
talking about watching a show for the first time, not reruns just as
background noise.

------
throwawaymath
How does Nielsen know 88% of Americans are using a second device while
watching TV? How is that data gathered, and how is the research conducted?

~~~
throwaway55554
Smart TVs know what you're watching and when. Smartphones know what you're
doing on it and when. It's simply connecting the two at this point.

~~~
throwawaymath
That still seems a little too simple. How are they controlling for multiple
people in a household from the same IP address? How are they capable of
telling the same person watching TV is performing the activity on the
smartphone?

~~~
try567y56
You can get RAEL people to examine that ;)

Don't worry, we, unlike machines are still capable of doing that

------
EA
Because our friends aren’t on TV.

Just wait until AI puts likenesses of ourselves and our social circles into
the stories.

------
deevolution
Who wants to watch commercials? With your phone or tablet you can have an
uninterrupted dopamine flow.

------
donatj
I feel like this is the death of tightly written television. Getting my wife
to pay attention to things well enough to pick up clever nuances has proven
nearly impossible. Kids these days.

~~~
lotsofpulp
It's the opposite for me. I can't watch anything but tightly written media.
The second I pickup an inconsistent plot point made to fill time or product
placement, I zone out.

------
werber
I feel like TV now just means Muzak with visuals in the home, tenth time
watching an episode of the Simpsons I have my phone out and a movie I’ve never
seen, it’s silent and charging.

------
LinuxBender
If I can manage to find something on netflix (this is rare), I will watch it
on my old TV using xbox360. I don't subscribe to cable TV.

My primary focus is on several other computer screens.

------
notadoc
Well the vast majority of TV is horrible and/or very boring, so I'm not too
surprised.

There have never been more terrible shows to watch than there are today.

------
sabujp
what does "watching tv" mean nowadays? I only watch videos through a phone,
laptop, or desktop, and when I watch I'm not fidgeting on a 2nd screen unless
it's related to what I'm watching on my first screen. I guess I don't watch
things that don't require some form of actual thought (e.g. sports). Don't get
me wrong I love soccer, but I only watch highlights!

------
dfee
> I suspect a lot of the time spent looking at the "second screen" is while
> the first one is showing adverts.

Inverted: excessively slow software builds. :)

------
mensetmanusman
For the same reason 50% of Americans will be obese within 10 years and why
similar numbers also use a second screen while someone is trying to talk to
them.

New England Journal of Medicine:
[https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1909301?query=fe...](https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1909301?query=featured_home)

------
scarface74
It’s a thing in our social circle that during an awards show, we all get on
Facebook for live commentary.

------
r00fus
I've gone so far I don't even watch the TV anymore. Just the 2nd screen (only
screen?).

------
avelis
I definitely agree with the comments here. For me, TVs have the screen size I
want but not the software/hardware or content I prefer. Smartphones have great
access to software and content but at a screen-size that is limited. Casting
works but needs dedicated hardware or else it feels slow and clunky.

------
marcosdumay
So, the habit of sleeping or reading a book got replaced?

------
gandalfian
Unless subtitles. Then it's hard to even eat to.

------
droidist2
How many consider the TV as being the second screen?

------
commandlinefan
I do when my wife picks the show (most of the time).

------
pier25
By TV they mean the device or open/cable TV?

------
buboard
for the same reason why you work better at a cafe than alone at home. the tv
keeps others occupied but also maintains background noise

------
alaskamiller
Multi screens is the same as multi cores.

------
haecceity
Can't get enough of them telescreens.

------
einpoklum
What is it you were saying? Sorry, I wasn't listening, I was glancing at my
smartphone.

------
ykevinator
Only during commercials

------
wmichelin
TL;DR: "Screens bad"

