I ghostwrote this for a high-ranking executive of a leading tech firm, though I didn’t recognize who he was at that time. I am not sure what he might have used this for, and I have not been able to find it published anywhere. Given that his company was rapidly expanding its business with the very companies he calls out in this article, perhaps he reconsidered releasing it.
Time Not Well Spent—How Facebook, Digital Media, and Other Online-Based Apps Are Stealing Your Valuable Time
“I wasted time, and now doth time waste me.”
—William Shakespeare
Television has long been considered one of the biggest time wasters. Consider that the term “Idiot Box” was coined for the TV as early as the mid-1950s, both in reference to what by many was considered “idiotic” programming and to express disdain for its propensity to capture so many hours of an average person’s day. Even when only three networks dominated television in the 1960s and 1970s, most people spent more time watching TV than just about any other daily activity except for sleep and work. The rise of cable TV in the 1980s brought on the popular refrain of “180 channels (or similar high number), but nothing on,” and yet TV retained its top billing as a leisure-time activity—and as a major consumer of people’s time. And today, with myriad television options, from wide-screen, hi-def and other sensory options, to video on demand and a host of other programming options, television retains its role as a leading consumer of people’s time.
Not that all television programming is bad, as numerous shows, movies, documentaries, and other assorted programming have been produced over the years that include redeeming features that educate or otherwise enhance the viewers’ lives. Of course, the intrinsic value of what is seen on television is often highly subjective. Few people alive in 1969 who watched the live broadcast of man’s first steps on the moon would say that watching this historic event was a waste of time. However, can the estimated 95 million people who saw the live 1994 coverage of the L.A. Police Department’s slo-mo chase of O.J. Simpson honestly express a similar sentiment?
The Rise of TV’s Competition
Such considerations may be necessary in assessing the time-sapping component of social media like Facebook and related 21st Century Internet-related media technologies, all of which have experienced a meteoric rise in usage over the past decade, and, combined together in all their forms, are catching up to television’s top ranking as a time consumer. As with television, social media and its Internet-connected cousins are being called time wasters and increasingly tagged with disdainful nicknames that suggest mind-numbing qualities and a propensity to waste people’s time.
Likewise, these new media platforms often provide intrinsic benefits—education, global interconnectivity, and horizon expansion, to name just three—that offset the perceived negatives. Some would say that these benefits far surpass those provided by old-school media such as television, and a thorough cost-benefit analysis might well support this supposition.
That is, unless that analysis factors in that some of these benefits are essentially contrivances introduced across the various platforms solely to grab your attention and then hold it hostage for as long as possible. Grabbing your attention and keeping it to the extent that you feel the need to do it again, and again, and again, even though the original attention grabber and any of its intrinsic benefits may have long since passed.
Biggest Seekers of Your Attention
Facebook (and subsidiary Instagram)
Snapchat
YouTube
Netflix
Apple[1]
Recognize these trademarked company names? If not, then you have likely been living on Gilligan’s Island for the past decade or so (don’t know what “Gilligan’s Island” is?—OK, then you’re likely a Millennial or member of Generation Z). Other than Apple, these trademarked companies did not even exist 20 years ago, yet they are now among the most recognized company names on earth.
In fact, I’d lay odds on the likelihood that you interact with at least one—if not all—daily (with the odds in favor substantially rising according to your youth). Perhaps you even spend more time interacting with these companies’ social media platforms than you do with television (and/or use your TV to utilize these platforms).
The question, though, is whether your interaction with any or all of these companies’ social media platforms is driven by your own desires or by the desires of any (and all) of these companies to hold your attention?
Naturally, you believe in free will and ascribe your social/digital media practices and preferences to your specific predilections and mindshare focus.
However, any number of several thousand software design engineers working for Facebook, Snapchat, YouTube or other social media platforms might (anonymously) suggest in rebuttal that you are a “fool and his time soon parted….”
How Much Time Parted?
Numerous studies, surveys, and news articles suggest that the use of social media and related Internet technologies is skyrocketing. While the numbers in these reports vary, they all point to exceptionally high and expanding rates of use.
A recent study by marketing agency Mediakix found that the average person will spend more than 5 years of their lives on social media, with an average daily time spent of 40 minutes on YouTube, 35 on Facebook, 25 on Snapchat, 15 on Instagram, and 1 minute on Twitter. Only television currently consumes more of an average person’s lifetime at seven years and eight months, according to the marketer.
A recent New York Times story points to average daily Facebook usage of 50 minutes, far above Mediakix’s 35-minute-per-day estimate. Based on Facebook’s own analysis, the article argues that the company should use this metric in the opening slide of its presentations “because time has become the holy grail of digital media.”
Common Sense Media, which has been surveying children’s and teenage digital media usage trends since 2010, reported in 2015 that average teenage digital media usage (which includes watching TV and listening to music) in the U.S. had reached nine hours per day, while children between ages 8-12 had reached six hours of usage per day. A follow-up survey of parents in 2016 determined that a majority of parents were worried about their children’s excessive digital media time spend; however, the survey also determined that these same parents spent over nine hours per day on digital media themselves (though work-related usage accounted for about one hour and 40 minutes of this usage on average).
Perhaps worth noting in relation to this last survey is that the higher the education level, the less time is spent on personal digital media (though with an increase in work usage). Similar observations have long been noticed in surveys and research regarding Idiot Box viewing habits.
Was that Parting of Your Time Worth It?
How many times do you check your cell phone for messages, texts, and notifications?
How many times per day do you find yourself clicking on a link while online that has no relevance whatsoever to the task at hand?
How often do you keep watching Netflix, YouTube or a Facebook video because they automatically start uploading the next video?
At the end of any random day, can you honestly say that most of your digital media usage proved valuable either personally, professionally, financially, or spiritually?
Those Software Engineers Think So
Regardless of your answer, those aforementioned software design engineers think that your time spent on their digital offerings is worth it. And these engineers who are working so hard to part you from your time are legion.
OK, so calling them “legion” might be a stretch, but given that this relatively small number of software engineers “influence how billions of people think every day,[2]” their impact can be considered legion-like.
And no one knows this better than those very engineers, though few are willing to talk about it. Tristan Harris, a former design engineer with Apple, Wikia, Apture and Google, is an exception. He was the design ethicist at Google, before leaving the company to start up his own enterprise, Time Well Spent, a non-profit organization devoted to “reclaim[ing] our minds from being hijacked by technology.”
Tristan is willing to discuss how these digital media companies influence people’s behavior and strive to capture ever more of everyone’s precious time, and is willing to do so until the proverbial cows come home—or, perhaps, until these companies take pause in their social persuasion engineering efforts to consider the negative impacts their products are having on people. Called the “closest thing Silicon Valley has to a conscious” by The Atlantic Magazine, Tristan most recently waxed poetic on the issue during a podcast—“What is Technology Doing to Us? A Conversation with Tristan Harris”—broadcast by Sam Harris (no relation).
The Persuasion Game (Crackbook, anyone?)
Tristan notes that there is a common perception that “technology is neutral,” and it is “up to the individual to choose how to use it.” But this perception overlooks that digital media operates within an “attention economy,” in which businesses compete for people’s attention. The winners are the programs and apps that hold the most people’s attention for the longest. And the best way to get and keep people’s attention, says Tristan, is by “knowing how people’s minds work so that you can push their mental buttons to get them to come, and then persuade them to stay as long as possible.”
Thus, all of the major players (and smaller ones) have teams of software design engineers working on manipulative design techniques tailored to get you onto their sites and keep you there for as long as possible. And this is causing an “arms race for attention,” in which as soon as one company mutates a design element that captures more people’s time, the other players have to steer their offerings in a similar direction.
Among the more widely utilized design technique schemes currently used in the persuasion game are:
- The slot machine
- Controlling the menu, and
- Fear of missing something important
- Automatic uploads
The “slot machine” works by making the digital product or offering distribute “intermittent variable rewards.” Psychologists have long known that gambling’s addictiveness is maximized when the rate of reward is most variable, thus making slot machines among the most addictive gambling habits and the most profitable for casinos. Tech designers insert a variety of virtual variable reward structures into their apps and websites. Think about it: how many times do you click on a link that you don’t really need to see because you might be rewarded with something fun or interesting?
Controlling the menu is an easy psychological trick because most people will not even think about what might be missing from it or why particular options are presented, but not others. In this manner, the designers provide the “illusion of free choice” while subtly steering users toward paths that keep them on a site or app.
Similar to slot machines, apps and websites use numerous psychological tricks and techniques to convince users that they “might miss something important” if they leave or don’t return soon. This fear of missing something important also helps explain why people check their cell phones and social media accounts so often.
Automatic uploads have become especially prevalent with videos. No doubt you’ve noticed that just about all major websites with video feeds automatically start running them when you land on a page. And there’s the previously referenced on-to-the-next video trick pulled by Netflix, YouTube, and Facebook.
It’s not “Clicks,” but “Time on Site”
Most people are under the impression that the advertising business model for apps and websites is primarily driven by the rate of ad click-throughs. However, “time on site” is more important because the companies “make money by simply showing you the [product],” and the more eyes and time spent seeing that product, the more advertising revenue they generate.
And this business model, according to Tristan, is driving a “classic race to the bottom” in the value of what people see and interact with on websites and apps. The “time on site” metric is increasingly encouraging companies to use content that may be of little value to users. In short, these companies are successfully encouraging people to waste their time.
This race, says Tristan, is based on getting the most people’s attention for the longest time. While “time on site” is a key measure of success, other metrics are also used to drive content decisions, which can lead to offerings that not only waste time but may also be harmful. Speaking specifically about Facebook Tristan notes that: “Just because something is shared the most does not mean it is true; just because something is clicked the most, doesn’t mean it’s the best; and, just because something gets talked about the most, doesn’t mean it’s real or true.”
He further points out that when Facebook replaced its “Trending” program’s human editorial team with artificial intelligence, the AI quickly picked up a fake news story about Fox News’s Megyn Kelly and trended it as the most popular story of the day. The Megyn Kelly story undoubtedly boosted Facebook’s time-on-site metric that day, but is there any value in giving people fake news? Tristan would argue that this goes beyond wasting people’s time and enters the realm of causing potential harm.
Consider the Television—Redux
Television has long been accused of causing people harm. It has been charged with rotting brains, causing blindness, distorting reality, and, by dint of how it makes people inactive, causing obesity. It has also been accused of scamming people out of their money, but this wasn’t (or isn’t) so much television per se, as it is accountable to false advertising—some of you might remember “Miss Cleo,” a television ad scam that reportedly raked in about $1 billion in three years.
Not to say there aren’t plenty of scams on social media and the Internet, but the persuasive social manipulation games being played by the major social media and Internet players seem more insidious. Most people may not recognize it as such because it is not targeting their money. But if you think about it, isn’t time more valuable than money?
Time Well Spent
Tristan certainly thinks so, and thinks so to the point that he’s warning people that social media and related Internet apps are “time not well spent.” While his “Time Well Spent” website has advice for people who want to resist the time-wasting grip of Facebook and the like, getting the companies to change their thinking and end the competition for capturing everyone’s valuable time appears to be a tall order. Consider that Mark Zuckerberg is purportedly a philanthropist, but would he willingly sacrifice his company’s profits to ensure that all of Facebook’s content serves the overall well-being of people by not wasting their time?
Only Mark can answer that question, but if Tristan had his way, the major players would replace the “time on site” metric with a standard that would determine what every person actually wants or needs while on the site. In short, a “time well spent” metric. Tristan notes that some smaller companies are starting to design with “time well spent” in mind; however, unless the larger companies adopt this nascent movement, it is likely to have limited chances for broad-based success. Tristan has also suggested that there be a “Hippocratic Oath” for software designers, in that, like doctors, they “do no harm;” as well as a “Bill of Rights for Human Attention” that would perhaps grant people inalienable rights against having their time wasted.
The oath and bill of rights may be a stretch. Still, Tristan’s website has several suggestions for how individuals can help prevent these social media platforms and apps from becoming personal time wasters. Among the recommendations[3] are:
“Allow Notifications from people, not machines,” because they keep “our phones vibrating to lure us back into apps we don’t really need to be in.”
“Put Unconscious choices at a distance,” by limiting the number of icons on your devices’ screens to the ones that are truly useful.
“Launch other apps by typing,” because if you take the time to type, it gives you time to ask, “Do I really want to do this?”
“Charge your device outside the bedroom,” so that the phone and its apps don’t suck you in before you even get out of bed.
“Download apps and extensions that can help us live without distraction.” Among the apps recommended are:
- AdBlock Plus
- Flux
- InboxWhenReady
- Freedom
- Moment
- RescueTime
“Time well spent?
Pause to ask yourself that question every time you interact with social media, your cell phone, apps, or anything Internet-related. If it’s not time well spent, then consider what better usage of time you can make. But please don’t turn to the Idiot Box.
_____________________________________
[1] Apple is not a major player, per se, but is definitely a wannabe, and, given its already robust size and resources, should be able to catch up with the others and/or innovate its way into major player status.
[2] As stated by Tristan Harris in his introductory remarks in the April 14, 2017, Sam Harris Podcast.
[3] The recommendations seem to be primarily dedicated to preventing time wastage caused by cell phone usage—not sure why Facebook and other time wasters are not addressed here.