
How Your Phone Is Designed to Control Your Life [video] - submeta
https://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/515355/google-employee-says-your-phone-is-controlling-your-life/?single_page=true
======
dheera
I actually am very far from addicted to my smartphone. I spend very little
time trying to digest information on a 6" screen when I can wait till I get
home and digest it on a 4K display and able to concentrate on my work.

For me the most annoying thing is that _other people_ expect me to be glued to
my smartphone like them. They expect that I can be reachable at any hour, any
minute, and always checking my messages. People expect that they can change
venues last minute and I'll be checking my messages. People expect that they
can be late 45 minutes and that I'll be okay with it because I can check my
messages.

No. That's not the life I want to live. When I leave the house, I have a plan
and I execute it according to schedule, giving full attention to the world
around me, not the world inside a stupid 6" screen.

~~~
glibgil
> I have a plan and I execute it according to schedule

This makes no sense. The single best thing about a phone is removing friction
from the last mile and last fifteen minutes of meeting friends. Checking in
and fine tuning last minute details is great for friendships. If someone
changes venues on you, consider that maybe it accommodated the needs of other
members of the group. If someone is late, it's not a problem unless it is a
pattern. If it's a pattern, then you know how to plan around it or avoid that
friend

~~~
dheera
As another replier said, everyone has different needs.

> Checking in and fine tuning last minute details is great for friendships.

I hate this culture of "checking in". If we agree to meet at place X and time
T, is it so difficult to just ... actually be there? I remember the life in
the pre-smartphone days when things were just that simple.

Also, when arranging to meet at a place, I am usually specific. Like, "meet me
at the train station in front of the inside entrance to Starbucks at 8:20a".
That completely eliminates the need for the stupid rounds of "where are you?
can you hear me?" at the actual meeting time.

> If someone changes venues on you, consider that maybe it accommodated the
> needs of other members of the group.

What about _my_ needs, which are to concentrate on what I'm doing for the day
instead of being glued to my smartphone worrying if the time and place has
changed? What if I planned a hike for the day and am without reception? What
if I'm on the way, biking or driving, and don't want to look at my phone for
safety reasons? What if I'm out of battery but still running according to
schedule?

In general I consider it disrespectful to change venues last minute, unless
someone physically present at the old venue, or a sign is posted is there to
inform people who did not see the change of venue. If it's a group of friends
meeting at a restaurant that closed, is dietary-wise unsuitable, or something
like that, I'd rather just gather everyone at the pre-specified venue first,
and then find an alternate venue together.

~~~
grogenaut
I've had friends call off a meeting because "I wasn't responding on the
phone." Moron I'm driving or riding my bike of course I'm not responding. And
you didn't call me so I couldn't tell you that, since you're afraid of talking
to people over the phone.

My motorcycle is set up for hands free operation but phones still generally
assume you have a screen active and shift into screen mode and then accept
touches in my pocket which makes me pull over and fix the phone. Or simple
shit like google not knowing how to "read hangouts" or "send hangout" but able
to text. You can tell it's definitely an afterthought feature. I've spent some
time getting that all configured but it's not ideal and doens't really survive
new phones.

------
twald
I'm really happy this topic is getting some traction. Human well-being should
be the non-negotiable constraint within the design process.

I understand the argument that people should be able to manage themselves but
human nature is not that simple. People are never told that they are about to
use a drug that has been proven to have addictive effects.

Receiving a like on facebook releases dopamine the same way smoking, drinking
alcohol or gambling do. All fine in the right amount but dangerous when taken
beyond a certain point. One of the problems for example is that people tend to
use these substances more under stressful situation like studying for exams,
dealing with a problem in your relationship, etc.

~~~
FullMtlAlcoholc
> I understand the argument that people should be able to manage themselves

I think that argument is made because people arent aware of the degree to
which external factors can influence not only our behaviors, but our thoughts.
Im sure the HN crowd is aware of things like framing and anchoring, but there
are dozens of cognitive biases we are all susceptible to

------
TimJYoung
This was covered in a comment already re: Netflix, but it can't be stressed
enough: much of this is a consequence of _free_ software services that need
users to spend as much time as possible on the service in order to maximize ad
revenue. If the software service required a subscription, then none of these
issues are present. In fact, the provider company would have a fairly neutral
position on usage, as long as costs are in line and the desired amount of
profit is made.

It should give us pause when free software/services have a significant amount
of design in common with the lottery and slot machines.

~~~
devoply
We have the example of services like cable tv where people pay for a service
to be inundated with ads. So not necessarily the case. We have a pretty
diseased relationship with the corporations which are suppose to serve us but
instead prey upon us.

~~~
TimJYoung
True. But in that case my point still stands: the cable company itself isn't
particularly interested in usage as a profit center because it charges for a
subscription. It's the _networks_ that want more usage.

------
arca_vorago
First step is to gplv3 the entire stack as much as possible, and in the
meantime while that seems impossible or improbable, the thing to do is to not
use proprietary systems. LineageOS seems like the best comprimise for the time
being.

Stallman was right. Either the program controls the user or the user controls
the program.

------
runeks
How is this different from any other medium?

A newspaper prints articles most likely to consume your time (that's why you
buy them). TV channels produce programs you're most likely to watch, and
arrange them in such a way that your most likely to continue watching (damn
HBO producing quality content so I'm more likely to watch it).

Don't pretend companies are forcing you to look at your phone all the time.
Take responsibility for your own actions, and choose not to stare at your
phone if you don't want to.

Should we praise the most boring magazine on the stand for not wanting to grab
our attention? All hail Drying Paint Weekly, for they are the true guardians
of my attention -- producing content so boring that's there's no chance of me
getting suckered in!

~~~
joestr87
You're right, other mediums employ whatever tactics they can to keep our
attention. I think the key differences here are that we have our phones with
us all of the time, and the phones have the ability to interrupt whatever
we're doing. The point being highlighted in this video, whether you think it's
a good thing or a bad thing, is that those two things are being exploited to
make us addicted to looking at our phones.

I think everybody is in favour of interesting articles and engaging content -
I think what this guy is against is the cheap tactics being used at the moment
to make you check your phone regardless of the quality of the content you're
checking.

------
swayvil
Cell phones were lurking in our subconscious long before they became real.
Look at instances of magic books in old fantasy literature. For example in
that wizard's house in CS Lewis's "Voyage of the Dawn Treader". And magic
mirrors too.

Given that, it's like we hungered for them all along. They click into us like
a lego brick.

Also, I see "employers" demanding that their "employees" be accessible via
cellphone basically all reasonable waking hours. So it has us by the wallet
now.

------
corv
He's absolutely right but how do you change the incentive from maximizing time
spent to improving lives?

I find it unlikely that ads are the only problem, after all Netflix wants
people to binge just as much as Spotify does and the customers have already
paid.

~~~
ShannonAlther
Netflix's incentive structure is slightly different: they want their clients
to _enjoy the service_ , so that they will be inclined to subscribe to them in
the future. Spotify, on the other hand, wants to _maximize time spent using
the service_ , which in turn maximizes exposure to advertisements and thus
inflates their ad revenue.

For Spotify, binge use is the end goal, whereas for Netflix it is merely a
consequence of producing an enjoyable service.

You're right though, it would be difficult to directly incentivize something
as nebulous as 'improving lives' beyond providing services that do just that,
since corporate incentives generally follow the money.

~~~
corv
Maybe companies could offer healthier versions of their products for a price
if customer awareness rises.

~~~
ShannonAlther
Well, grocery stores already do that. And it's hard to imagine what a
'healthier version' of an app, say Spotify, would look like. Unless you're
suggesting they move to Netflix's business model, but that's a market niche
that's already filled.

~~~
corv
I'd imagine the spectrum of software healthiness is something along the lines
of:

Snapchat -> Facebook -> Reddit -> Hacker News -> BBS (Bulletin Board Systems)

~~~
ShannonAlther
I confess that I can't see what gradient this ranking follows. It looks like
the users get progressively more anonymous, except Reddit has the most
anonymous users and it's in the middle; it also looks like the average use
time per day goes down, except I have no idea whether that's the case.

~~~
corv
BBS, Usenet and Email don't have ratings, likes or follower counts. I think
the gradient follows less 'dopaminergic' services that don't offer rewards
beyond the intrinsic content people send.

~~~
ShannonAlther
Ah, makes sense. But ratings and likes serve another purpose: determining
which content is worth looking at. Snapchat aside, those services have the
following they do because the content is tailored to the user: Facebook has
their algorithms, r/all is filtered by 10M users, and so on.

But HN has an advantage in that it has a specific audience (the sort of people
who know that Ycombinator is a thing). So the content is already probably
relevant. Maybe that model has advantages we haven't fully explored yet.

------
alexkavon
Wow, such a negative view.

> Never before in history have 50, mostly male, 20-35 year old designers,
> living in California, working at 3 tech companies, influenced how a billion
> people spend their time.

This is an incredibly specific statement that wouldn't be true if scaled back
a bit. The result of this seems to be pure FUD. I have to say what an
incredibly biased piece. The attention economy did not start with the
internet. This a cultural issue not the fault of the companies in Sili Valley.
Take responsibility for yourself people.

~~~
imhoguy
Exactly. Religions have better track of lifes control.

~~~
alexkavon
Scaling back that statement would include more than religion. How about the
disruption the automobile industry caused way back when?

------
dontreact
I just wish there was a better way to measure "positive impact" on people's
lives. Often the amount of time spent is used as a proxy for this, because it
is much easier to measure.

In order to truly accurately measure such a thing, you would need to know (or
infer/predict) someone's personal goals, and their progress towards their
goals. This raises concerns with privacy, but perhaps it is a level of trust
that more people will be able to give technology at some point.

~~~
devmunchies
The phone must have a direct link to our brain and measure our dopamine and
serotonin levels. Thats the only way. As long as our hormone data is
anonymized then there's no problem.

~~~
dontreact
That seems crazy to me. If you want to maximize dopamine release you will
optimize your product to be more and more like cocaine.

------
corv
A tool I've found eye-opening is
[https://www.rescuetime.com](https://www.rescuetime.com) which measures and
graphs where you spend your time at the computer.

The Battery Usage statistics on iOS are also helpful, if not as granular.

Once people have awareness of how they spend their time it becomes easier to
make an informed decision.

------
ilanco
Really? Twitter inserts a deliberate delay before updating the number of
notifications you have?

------
edpichler
As I think and wonder sometimes: human race have some kind of "bug", we are
not prepared for phones and notifications.

~~~
nradov
Sure in the same way that many people have an exploitable "bug" for slot
machines, opioids, calorie-dense foods, etc. It will take a long time if ever
for evolution to catch up.

~~~
edpichler
Yes, other bug shows when you combine sugar + fat. E.g.: ice cream.

------
profalseidol
I use a basic phone. Not charging it all the time is very convenient. But best
of all, me and my friend don't know each other's numbers; and if we do, it
gets invalid fast since we change SIM cards fast.

I think the best way is to get rich via trading Cryptocurrency and then be
free from wage-slavery. Read physical books and eventually do something
worthwhile like teaching in remote areas.

