[FollowingTheDao]

> The challenge is to think of another model for creating apps and content — one that retains most of the innovation without the harm

This is impossible! You missed the whole point of the article! Like sugar is addictive because it is extracted from the fruit that carries all the nutrients, the apps are addictive because they are extracted from the challenge of imagination and boredom.

The last line of that essay: "You don’t win by keeping up. You win by stepping out."

[A_Duck]

I disagree with the conclusion of the article

An invention comes as the solution to a problem. The qualities of the solution depend on the parameters of the problem.

Many/most technologies have not scaled to the point where their negative externalities outgrow their benefits: GPS, Cordless power tools, OLED TVs, Contactless payments. Of course all have some negatives.

We're learning that if the problem is 'make as much ad revenue as possible for the inventor', the solution is going scale harmfully

[FollowingTheDao]

> An invention comes as the solution to a problem.

What is the problem that the invention of email solved? And what problems did the invention of email create?

Inventions do not solve problems. An invention is a mental fabrication, nothing more.

[freeone3000]

It solved piles of papers and faxes for inter-office memoranda. It solved a 2-week delay for communications with customers (everything from “your order has been placed” to “you still owe us money” to “here’s our christmas catalog”). Email solved the problem of the physical post being (comparatively) expensive and slow.

[FollowingTheDao]

All of thosethings were not problems at the time, they’re only problems in retrospect.

[keybored]

You read what you wanted from the article. Think about what the article is saying. A technologist saying that the technology that they ostensibly co-created is so toxic that it has to be opted out of, the whole game and all. That is rank shirking of responsibility, a self-centered and anti-social non-remedy.