[uhhhhhhh]

They addressed it by waving their hands and insisting its different, that doesn't equate to a valid argument. That also doesn't change that the methods and impacts are all the same, the only difference is scale, which is my point.

If you want to get into details, the article addresses it by saying "Unlike TVs and desktop computers, which are typically relegated to a den or home office".

That is disingenuous and naive at best, outright misleading and wrong at worse.

Laptops have been around a long time, TV's are making their way into more rooms in the house, waiting rooms, restaurants, even many businesses are putting tv's in lobbies and other places. Walk through any major city's shopping district and tell me there isn't a deluge of televisions in every direction/in every window, if you do you're either blind or being dishonest.

And every single technique used by smartphones to capture your attention applies to laptops, desktops, tablets, television, to pretend otherwise is to ignore the past.

[gerbilly]

> They addressed it by waving their hands and insisting its different, that doesn't equate to a valid argument.

While they may not have formulated a valid argument, I think there is a valid argument to be made, so I will try.

Television was a broadcast medium, the only way you could interact with it was to switch channels.

Apps on a smartphone are more interactive (they can take user input) and include a mechanism for personalized push notifications which makes them into a much more potent tool for capturing and retaining attention, how?

They are like a skinner box with a button that gives out rewards (the rewards are likes, or text messages, or push notifications) when you interact with the app.

What makes apps even worse than TV is that the makers of the apps have, either through blind experimentation (a/b testing) or by applying lessons learned from behavioural psychology, fine tuned them to make them as addictive as possible.

Basically, a the facebook app on your phone is like a skinner box, where you are the pigeon, and the app gives on rewards on a variable ratio, partial reinforcement schedule (the type of reinforcement schedule that has been found the best at eliciting a strong rate of response the subject.)

Also what makes phones addictive is what isn't on the phone. Phones typically don't have productivity apps, like word or a programming environment like you might have on a laptop. They have limited uses beyond communication, which narrows our choices when using them to those very apps that were designed to be addictive.

[1] https://www.verywell.com/what-is-a-variable-ratio-schedule-2...

[uhhhhhhh]

>While they may not have formulated a valid argument, I think there is a valid argument to be made, so I will try.

Excellent.

Television was a broadcast medium, its increasingly becoming an on-demand medium with streaming services. You make valid points about it being less interactive, but by the same token, the interruption driven forced marketing/forced viewing of content X (advertisements) in order to consume content Y is a staple of the entire advertising industry. Targeting advertisements based on demographics, location and other admittedly wider and less specific metrics happens in television, even in print media. The difference with smartphones is the metrics are more specific, as is the ability to target individuals rather than groups.

But that difference doesn't hold up to laptops. The entire argument about mobility, reward based gaming (see DLC and online gaming, as well as the huge number of people that play basic games on facebook not using mobile), feedback loops, highly specific metrics and targeted advertising exists there, as well as on tablets, yet were sitting here trying to blame smartphones as the issue.

Personally, I have office on my phone, as well as google docs, regularly edit/collaborate on documentation, and have even used a keyboard and mouse with my smartphone to connect to work through vpn's and do sysadmin and scripting work. Admittedly I'm the minority there, but a large number of laptops and desktops are dedicated gaming/fun machines, not everyone is an office/word/programming monkey every time they sit in front of a computer.

My argument is smart phones are NOT the issue, the internet, with its highly specific individual metrics and targeting abilities, applying the same marketing tactics used in print and television media as well as used in interactive tasks, is the issue. Exposure to that through desktops, laptops, tablets, smartphones etc... is the problem (scale). To focus on just smartphones ignores that a significant portion of people interact with these same highly targeted, manipulative and distracting applications through multiple devices, I don't know anyone who uses facebook solely on their smartphone, but I know a number of people who only use it on laptops/desktops and refuse to use it on smartphones due to security/privacy/battery life and other reasons.

Variable ratio scheduling and all other methods in question apply to every device you use to access the product using those methods. Smartphones amplify this to a degree by portability/access, but we shouldn't pretend that smartphones themselves are the issue, or the sole source of the issue.