> How many times are people subjecting themselves to social media they don't really want to view because they habitually unlock their phone and check their notifications?
> Telling people to 'use less' and 'monitor' are [easily overwhelmed by] addictive platforms.
Yes! It is foolish to rely on individual willpower in the context of systems that were designed to be (or evolved to be) addictive.
We need some combination of:
- a broad cultural mindset shift whereby people recognize the current reality and realistic ways to improve it
- political will for policy changes that reduce the addictive dark patterns used by our online ecosystem so it can be a “fair fight” at least
- technology that serves humans core values, instead of preying on their weakness
- business models to adapt; they always do
Business models will adapt, even if some particular businesses do not.
So many so-called ‘business’ people tend to use their wealth and influence to sway politics and policy so they don’t have to do the hard work of adapting their business to the scenarios of the future.
It is selfishly preferable to make your own future, indeed. This is good work if you can get it. In other words, this is rational and expected behavior. So, public policy is wise to be a step ahead of business entanglements and entrenchment.
It makes one question the line between functioning in a market versus defining that market. Many business people conflate the two ideas, as evidenced by their actions and their mindsets.
Some make the claim that fiduciary responsibility demands such action by corporations. Perhaps in the short run.
But I would argue that fiduciary responsibility writ large demands a longer-term eye towards not “poisoning the well”.
By this I mean: if social media platforms act in ways that lead to public outrage and backlash, they would fail their shareholders very miserably. Defining the time horizon is key.
Additionally, it is possible for organizations to clarify their missions; namely, who they are serving. It does not have to be shareholders at the exclusion of everything else. Broader and more balanced charters can give more leeway for a chief executive to act in ways that play better with the ecosystem as a whole.
Have I got this right, more or less? Maybe. But there might be unintended consequences. In particular, “playing nice with the ecosystem” might be hard to distinguish from “anti-competitive behavior”. It sounds tricky, but we should give it a lot of thought and try out the best ideas.