# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
2 Florida kids stole their mother’s car after she took away their electronics, authorities say. They were pulled over 200 miles away. | CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Authorities in north Florida were surprised to discover a 10-year-old behind the wheel when they pulled over a stolen vehicle this week.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Melissa Nilles
Arts & Entertainment Editor

Photo by Andrea Rodriguez

I had a terrible nightmare the other night. Instead of meeting for a quick cup of coffee, my friend and I spent 30 minutes texting back and forth about our day. After that, instead of going in to talk to my professor during his office hours, I emailed him from home with my question. Because of this, he never got to know who I was, even though he would have been a great source for a letter of recommendation if he had. I ignored a cute guy at the bus stop asking me the time because I was busy responding to a text. And I spent far too much time on Facebook trying to catch up with my 1000+ "friends," most of whom I rarely see, and whose meaning sadly seems to dispel even more as the sheer number of "connections" I've made grows.

Oh wait, that wasn't a dream. This technological detachment is becoming today's reality.

Little by little, Internet and mobile technology seems to be subtly destroying the meaningfulness of interactions we have with others, disconnecting us from the world around us, and leading to an imminent sense of isolation in today's society. Instead of spending time in person with friends, we just call, text or instant message them. It may seem simpler, but we ultimately end up seeing our friends face to face a lot less. Ten texts can't even begin to equal an hour spent chatting with a friend over lunch. And a smiley-face emoticon is cute, but it could never replace the ear-splitting grin and smiling eyes of one of your best friends. Face time is important, people. We need to see each other.

This doesn't just apply to our friends; it applies to the world around us. It should come as no surprise that face-to-face interaction is proven by studies to comfort us and provide us with some important sense of well-being, whether it's with friends or friendly cashiers in the checkout line of Albertson's. That's actually the motivation behind Albertson's decision last year to take all of the self-checkout lanes out of its stores: an eerie lack of human contact.

There's something intangibly real and valuable about talking with someone face to face. This is significant for friends, partners, potential employers, and other recurring people that make up your everyday world. That person becomes an important existing human connection, not just someone whose disembodied text voice pops up on your cell phone, iPad or computer screen.

It seems we have more extended connections than ever in this digital world, which can be great for networking, if it's used right. The sad fact of the matter is that most of us don't. It's too hard to keep up with 1000 friends, let alone 200. At that point, do we even remember their names? We need to start prizing the meaning of quality in our connections, not sheer quantity.

One of my best friends from my hometown has 2,241 Facebook friends. Sure, her posts get a ton of feedback, but when I asked her about the quality of those relationships, she said to me that she really has few friends that she can trust and spend time with happily. Using a strange conundrum like this as a constructive example, we should consider pruning our rampant online connections at the very least.

Past evolutionary psychology research by British anthropologist and psychologist Robin Dunbar has revealed that people are actually limited to a certain number of stable, supportive connections with others in their social network: roughly 150. Furthermore, recent follow-up research by Cornell University's Bruno Goncalves used Twitter data to show that despite the current ability to connect with vast amounts of people via the Internet, a person can still only truly maintain a friendship with a maximum of 100 to 200 real friends in their social network.

While technology has allowed us some means of social connection that would have never been possible before, and has allowed us to maintain long-distance friendships that would have otherwise probably fallen by the wayside, the fact remains that it is causing ourselves to spread ourselves too thin, as well as slowly ruining the quality of social interaction that we all need as human beings.

If you are planning on buying or want to learn about Phentermine from UK have a look at this Phentermine website to buy Phentermine online or offline from United Kingdom

So what are we doing with 3000 friends on the Internet? Why are we texting all the time? Seems like a big waste of time to me. Let's spend more time together with our friends. Let's make the relationships that count last, and not rely on technology to do the job for us.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Technology is Destroying the Quality of Human Interaction - The Bottom Line UCSB

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Melissa Nilles Arts & Entertainment Editor Photo by Andrea Rodriguez I had a terrible nightmare the other night. Instead of meeting for a quick cup of coffee, my friend and I spent 30 minutes texting back and forth about our day.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Shoba Sreenivasan, Ph.D., and Linda E. Weinberger, Ph.D.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The digital psychological disconnect (diminished emotional awareness and connections) can emerge when a society interacts increasingly more with devices than directly with people.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Melissa Nilles
Arts & Entertainment Editor

Photo by Andrea Rodriguez

I had a terrible nightmare the other night. Instead of meeting for a quick cup of coffee, my friend and I spent 30 minutes texting back and forth about our day. After that, instead of going in to talk to my professor during his office hours, I emailed him from home with my question. Because of this, he never got to know who I was, even though he would have been a great source for a letter of recommendation if he had. I ignored a cute guy at the bus stop asking me the time because I was busy responding to a text. And I spent far too much time on Facebook trying to catch up with my 1000+ "friends," most of whom I rarely see, and whose meaning sadly seems to dispel even more as the sheer number of "connections" I've made grows.

Oh wait, that wasn't a dream. This technological detachment is becoming today's reality.

Little by little, Internet and mobile technology seems to be subtly destroying the meaningfulness of interactions we have with others, disconnecting us from the world around us, and leading to an imminent sense of isolation in today's society. Instead of spending time in person with friends, we just call, text or instant message them. It may seem simpler, but we ultimately end up seeing our friends face to face a lot less. Ten texts can't even begin to equal an hour spent chatting with a friend over lunch. And a smiley-face emoticon is cute, but it could never replace the ear-splitting grin and smiling eyes of one of your best friends. Face time is important, people. We need to see each other.

This doesn't just apply to our friends; it applies to the world around us. It should come as no surprise that face-to-face interaction is proven by studies to comfort us and provide us with some important sense of well-being, whether it's with friends or friendly cashiers in the checkout line of Albertson's. That's actually the motivation behind Albertson's decision last year to take all of the self-checkout lanes out of its stores: an eerie lack of human contact.

There's something intangibly real and valuable about talking with someone face to face. This is significant for friends, partners, potential employers, and other recurring people that make up your everyday world. That person becomes an important existing human connection, not just someone whose disembodied text voice pops up on your cell phone, iPad or computer screen.

It seems we have more extended connections than ever in this digital world, which can be great for networking, if it's used right. The sad fact of the matter is that most of us don't. It's too hard to keep up with 1000 friends, let alone 200. At that point, do we even remember their names? We need to start prizing the meaning of quality in our connections, not sheer quantity.

One of my best friends from my hometown has 2,241 Facebook friends. Sure, her posts get a ton of feedback, but when I asked her about the quality of those relationships, she said to me that she really has few friends that she can trust and spend time with happily. Using a strange conundrum like this as a constructive example, we should consider pruning our rampant online connections at the very least.

Past evolutionary psychology research by British anthropologist and psychologist Robin Dunbar has revealed that people are actually limited to a certain number of stable, supportive connections with others in their social network: roughly 150. Furthermore, recent follow-up research by Cornell University's Bruno Goncalves used Twitter data to show that despite the current ability to connect with vast amounts of people via the Internet, a person can still only truly maintain a friendship with a maximum of 100 to 200 real friends in their social network.

While technology has allowed us some means of social connection that would have never been possible before, and has allowed us to maintain long-distance friendships that would have otherwise probably fallen by the wayside, the fact remains that it is causing ourselves to spread ourselves too thin, as well as slowly ruining the quality of social interaction that we all need as human beings.

If you are planning on buying or want to learn about Phentermine from UK have a look at this Phentermine website to buy Phentermine online or offline from United Kingdom

So what are we doing with 3000 friends on the Internet? Why are we texting all the time? Seems like a big waste of time to me. Let's spend more time together with our friends. Let's make the relationships that count last, and not rely on technology to do the job for us.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Technology is Destroying the Quality of Human Interaction - The Bottom Line UCSB

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Melissa Nilles Arts & Entertainment Editor Photo by Andrea Rodriguez I had a terrible nightmare the other night. Instead of meeting for a quick cup of coffee, my friend and I spent 30 minutes texting back and forth about our day.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Has Social Media Ruined The Idea Of Friendship?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If we want to understand the relationship between social media and democracy, we need to understand how social media changed the meaning of the word “friend.”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When Steve Jobs introduced the world to the first iPhone at the Macworld Expo in 2007, his voice was suffused with a note of optimism that seems quaint in 2023. "Every once in a while," Jobs said, "a revolutionary product comes along that changes everything." The iPhone was, in Jobs's innocuous description, "an iPod, a phone, and an internet communicator"-three phrases that, sixteen years later, sound like they were uttered by a grandpa ("internet communicator?" Okay, Boomer.). But in the sixteen intervening years, the iPhone and the tech frenzy it unleashed did change everything, from human nature and culture to world politics and economics. Our world became a MacWorld.

It is difficult to say precisely when, but at some point in the last decade, the initial wave of optimism brought about by late aughts' digital technology gave way to a prevailing sense of exhaustion, pessimism, and defeat. Innumerable studies warn about the depressive effects of screen time, the polarizing politics of social media, the economic disparities of the digital economy, and the existential threat posed by artificial intelligence. Like Victor Frankenstein, even the Silicon Valley elites lament the monsters they have created.

Among the many excellent writings on the detriments of digital technology by authors like Jonathan Haidt, Antón Barba-Kay's A Web of Our Own Making (Cambridge University Press, 2023) stands out for its greater philosophic depth, sharper cultural perspicacity, and literary beauty. A professor only by profession, Barba-Kay is at heart a thinker and writer in the classical mold, more a man of letters than an academic or a public intellectual.

A Web of Our Own Making overflows with disquieting observations about the ways digital technology is reshaping human nature. Barba-Kay puts into haunting words the anxiety, exhaustion, and emptiness that most of us feel but cannot put into words because we are too busy scrolling and ogling. The book has the effect of wakefulness. It prods with wit and grace the vital parts of the human soul that digital technology enervates, urging them back to life by revealing the many ways that, rather than our using technology, our technology is using us.
Digital Technology as Natural Technology
By "digital technology," Barba-Kay means standardized electronic information exchanged in a single massive network to which a variety of devices are connected. Digital technology encompasses the internet, smartphones, computers, smartwatches, home speakers, cars, and a myriad of other gadgets and appliances that would seem to have no need for digitization. The thesis of A Web of Our Own Making is that digital technology is "natural technology," or technology so intuitive and effortless to use that it does not feel to humans like they are using something external to themselves. This makes it particularly well suited to infiltrate and alter human nature.

The technological is distinct from the natural because it is produced by art and skill ( technē) instead of nature. Digital technology is unique among other technologies because it blends tool with medium in so primal a way as to feel self-evident or second nature to human beings in a manner that taking the controls of a helicopter, for example, does not. It is technology that is adept at concealing its technical character behind its frictionless convenience and ease of use. An infant can use a single finger to play an iPad game before she learns to walk, and once she learns to talk she can interact from her crib with her digital assistant. Many adults spend their days typing, clicking, swiping, dragging, scrolling, saving, and sending, which they call "work." As we accommodate ourselves to digital technology's modes of interaction and communication, our patterns of life begin to resemble its ways of interfacing with us. We have not created machines that imitate us, but machines that we imitate. Our computers have made us into computers.
The Tyranny of Data
Barba-Kay demonstrates with haunting elegance the psychological, spiritual, and political implications of our transformation into beings whose habits are conditioned by digital inputs and outputs. Foremost among these is the transformation of ordinary moments in our daily lives into quantified data. Our devices measure and collect data (digits) on our steps, clicks, feelings, locations, routes, hormonal cycles, earnings, expenditures, libidos, temperatures, eating, breathing, reading, viewing, listening, sleeping, and other routine activities. This collection of data makes mundane facts about our lives knowable and interesting to us. If a person in the 1950s obsessively counted every step, calorie, or breath, he or she would have been thought to have psychosis. In the 2020s, this is practicing "self-care."

The transformation of life into data has the dehumanizing effect of turning us into digital simulations of living beings whose purpose is to "optimize" life rather than live it. Dings, beeps, vibrations, and animations nudge us to conform to the numerical averages, medians, minimums, and maximums that will conduce to data-optimized health and happiness. The good life becomes the efficient life rather than, say, the noble, contemplative, or pious life, none of which is sufficiently optimized for efficiency.

The codification of life into data inevitably results in its commercialization. Corporations mine our life databases for profitable exchange. Being online means being a customer, viewing ads, hitting the "paywall," buying a subscription, gaining access, becoming a "valued member," being enticed by the algorithm. Our attention is "monetized" and ravenously pursued by corporations and entities other than us.
Digital Disembodiment
The optimal means of keeping our attention is continually to show us something new, which digital technology excels at because it is incorporeal and immaterial. Barba-Kay observes that digital objects are always on screen "for the time being." This makes them different from artifacts made by craftsmen or words printed on paper pages, the corporeality of which substantiates their intention to stand the test of time. It is easy for corporations and "content creators" to provide something new when the things provided are not really things. Images displayed on screens have no lasting presence, and thus no lasting effect on viewers. There is no canon of online art or online literature comparable in quality to our enduring Western and Eastern canons. Our identities, money, and personal effects are dematerialized, "hosted" in password-protected "clouds" that exist only in the digital ether. What is valuable to us is now so formless as to permit editing and even deletion.

As digital technology habituates us to the moral and social physics of incorporeality, we lose touch with our own embodied nature. Seeming starts to matter more than being. We become avatars of our online selves rather than the other way around, identifying ourselves with our "personal brands," gorging like disembodied pigs on our media "feeds," and "binging" shamelessly on digital "content." The internet's paradoxical status as a place that is both nowhere and global lulls us into believing we are not bounded by our geographical locations or local borders. The language of local politics abounds in digital rhetoric (forum, site, home, community, marketplace, public square), and it is a sad reminder of the warmth of real places and the cold loneliness of their digital facsimiles. Conceptions of political form (nations, regions, cities) become confused in our minds as citizens become "netizens" and our bounded common life expands into a worldwide web. Fewer of us engage in the selfless compromises and tense negotiations required for genuine community building. Political participation means clicking to vote or changing your profile picture in protest, then refreshing the page to see how good it looks.
Virtual Nihilism and the Nature of Human Nature
Barba-Kay's excellent analysis of humanity's digital formation is as compelling as it is comprehensive, but two of his arguments are unpersuasive. The first appears in a section of the book that addresses the highest aspirations of the modern technological project. Barba-Kay argues that digital technology ultimately aspires to overcome reality through a virtual recreation of it, but he judges the prospect of a fully satisfying recreation to be a "doubtful possibility per se." In Barba-Kay's view, our impulse to compare reality to virtual reality (VR) will perpetually elucidate the virtual world's shortcomings, which will heighten the meaning and value of the real. The virtual, in other words, will make the real more tantalizing.

This is plausible, but it is worth pointing out that VR is a young and rapidly evolving technology whose capacities for world creation are as yet undetermined. Augmented reality is presently more compelling than virtual reality, but this may have more to do with current technological limitations than with humanity's affection for the real. Even when debates about current technological limitations are set aside, there are still reasons to think that humanity is not especially attached to the world in which we live. Religious believers' hope for heaven, and techno-elites' hope to colonize other planets, suggest that human beings may not prefer life in the present world if adequate paradisiacal alternatives are available. VR could just as easily evacuate the real world of meaning and further intensify nihilism rather than, as Barba-Kay argues, "accentuate the meaning of the real."

The second aspect of Barba-Kay's argument that I found unconvincing involves his account of the status of human nature. In the introduction to A Web of Our Own Making, he says that he regards the digital revolution as a "dehumanizing force." But he adds to this the caveat that "what we have identified as 'humanity' is variable," and he concludes that "there can be no neutral measure of what is good for us." It is not clear how digital technology can be called "dehumanizing" if humanity or the good for human beings is variable instead of fixed. There is nothing stable called "nature" from which to deviate, nothing essentially human to dehumanize.

Despite Barba-Kay's claim there is no neutral measure of the good for human beings, there are times in A Web of our Own Making when he uses language that suggests he does think we have something like a fixed nature, particularly when he speaks of "our dignity as human beings," our "responsibility" to the world, our "heart's desire," and "the common miracles of work, life, and devotion." Phrases like these strike the ear as Aristotelian or Thomistic (verging on conceptions of natural law). The tension between the variability of human nature on one hand, and humanity's permanent or natural longings on the other, arises a final time when Barba-Kay says near the end of the book that the present technological age urges us to face the question of "what we are." If humanity is variable, then the question of what we are is incoherent, or at least in need of a more precise formulation that accounts for our variability.
Becoming a Human Being Again
Readers of A Web of Our Own Making who hope to find in it a grand solution to the problem digital technology poses for humanity will be disappointed. The problem Barba-Kay confronts is not one that gives itself over to formulaic solutions, and the book suggests that it simply may not be solvable in any but the most personal context. This explains why Barba-Kay speaks directly to his readers in hortatory prose in the book's penultimate chapter, urging us to "reduce your dependence" on digital technology, or "work to cut it down (or out)." He also urges us not to let digital technology enchant us into forgetting that we, unlike it, will die. There is perhaps no more powerful piece of advice, and it is sobering to see an author level so honestly with his audience.

For those who disagree with Barba-Kay's analysis, the final chapter of A Web of Our Own Making presents a brazen tech-bro's attempt to refute the book's arguments and conclusions. Barba-Kay claims that the chapter reproduces the text of an email he was sent from someone who read his manuscript, but he leaves readers to speculate about the sender's identity. More authors should be so courageous as to conclude their books with lengthy (and in this case amusing) attempts at self-criticism. One cannot help but suspect that, true to the internet fashions he derides, Barba-Kay ends his book by trolling himself.

A Web of Our Making is an eye-opening book written by an independent and learned mind with a unique voice. To miss reading it is to miss a chance to begin to become human again.
The featured image is in the public domain, courtesy of Pixabay and Creative Commons Zero.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Psychology of Digital Dehumanization

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A Web of Our Own Making overflows with disquieting observations about the ways digital technology is reshaping human nature. Antón Barba-Kay puts into haunting words the anxiety, exhaustion, and emptiness that most of us feel but cannot put into words because we are too busy scrolling and ogling.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Many parents and caregivers might worry about whether they're giving their children enough attention. After all, it's vital for children to feel loved and supported.

While children need to have time to explore and play on their own, sometimes children are left on their own too much and might feel they don't get enough attention from their parents or caregivers. In this case, several negative outcomes might occur.
Related: 5 Tips for Giving Each Child One-on-One Time
What is an Uninvolved Parenting Style

An uninvolved or neglectful parenting style is characterized by a lack of involvement in a child's life. Parents who use this approach typically have little to no communication with their children and provide them with little or no emotional support.

Uninvolved parents tend to be less involved in their children's education and activities. They may also neglect their children's basic needs, like food, clothing, and transportation.

It is important to note that just because a parent is busy with work or other obligations does not mean they are an uninvolved parent.

While parents may work a lot of hours, they are not uninvolved if they spend some of their free time with their kids and ensure their children are cared for by someone.

An uninvolved parent doesn't make any space or accommodations for their child's needs, while a busy parent makes sure their child's needs are met, even if they aren't the one to meet them.

What Are the Negative Consequences of Uninvolved Parents on Child Development?

There are many ways in which lack of attention can affect child development, and this can vary depending on the age of the child.

What is the Effect of Lack of Attention on Infants and Toddlers?

Many things can affect the development of a baby, and one of the most important is the amount of attention they receive from their parents. A lack of attention can negatively impact an infant's attachment to their caregiver, which is a fundamental task of early childhood development.

In early childhood, infants and preschoolers develop attachments to their caregivers through mutual interaction and communication. Babies learn to trust and rely on their caregivers through repeated positive experiences, such as being fed, held, and comforted.

This trust allows babies to explore their surroundings and develop relationships with others. If an infant doesn't get enough attention from their caregiver, they may develop an insecure attachment.

This can lead to problems later in life, such as problems with self-esteem and social skills.

What is the Effect of Lack of Attention on Young Children?

There is a lot of research that suggests that a lack of attention can have a negative effect on kids. One research study on childhood abuse and neglect found that kids who didn't get enough attention were more likely to have problems in school and in relationships. They were also more likely to get in trouble with the law.

Another study on the effects of early childhood deprivation found that kids who didn't get enough attention were more likely to have poor executive function and self-regulation. This study also found that early neglect negatively impacted a child's brain development.

What is the Effect of Lack of Attention on Adolescents?

You might think that teenagers want to be left alone by their parents, but teenagers still need attention. As they mature and become independent, they may enjoy more freedom, but they still need guidance and support from their parents.

Lack of attention can have a negative effect on teenagers. They may feel neglected and unsupported, which can lead to mental health problems such as depression, anxiety, and low self-esteem.

Teenagers who don't feel loved and cared for may be more likely to engage in risky behaviors, such as drug and alcohol abuse, or unsafe sex.

What are the Signs of Lack of Attention?

One of the most apparent signs that a child isn't getting enough attention is that they're constantly seeking attention from others, especially adults. They may be disruptive in class, frequently interrupting others, or talking out of turn.

Kids who are often ignored by their families may also be clingy and demanding of their parents' time.

Another sign is that a child may be overly aggressive or destructive. They may have problems with impulse control and be quick to anger. They may also have difficulties with social interactions and exhibit signs of loneliness or isolation.

A lack of attention can also lead to problems in school. A child may have difficulty paying attention in class or may struggle with academic subjects or develop a low sense of self-worth.

Do Kids Act Out Due to a Lack of Attention?

Many developmental psychology experts believe that a lack of attention can lead to mental health and behavioral problems in children, including acting out.

One reason why kids may act out is that they are looking for attention. If they feel that they are not getting enough attention from their parents or caregivers, they may start acting out to get noticed.

Differences Between Positive and Negative Attention

Positive attention is often rewarding, while negative attention is often punishing. Positive attention usually involves praising or complimenting a child, while negative attention often involves yelling or scolding.

1. Positive attention usually makes a child feel happy and loved, while negative attention often makes a child feel anxious or scared.

2. Positive attention is usually given when a child does something good, while negative attention is often given when a child does something bad.

1. Positive attention helps a child feel good about themselves, while negative attention often makes them feel bad about themselves.

2. Positive attention teaches a child that they are loved and valued, while negative attention teaches a child that they are not acceptable the way they are.

Overall, positive attention is much better for a child than negative attention. Positive attention helps a child feel good about themselves, learn to trust and rely on others, and feel loved and supported.

Negative attention often does the opposite. Only showing negative attention towards a child can reinforce bad habits and cause kids to act out in other areas of their lives such as in school or with their friends.

What are Ways Parents Can Show Attention to Their Children?

As a parent, there are many different ways that you can show attention to your children, even if you're busy or spend a lot of time working.

1. Show Genuine Interest in Their Hobbies

When your child is telling you about their latest Roblox game or a recent episode of Peppa Pig, show genuine interest in what they have to say. Ask them questions, listen thoughtfully, and make eye contact to show that you're listening.

Even if you don't find the topic interesting, treat it as something that someone you love cares about deeply. This kind of attention will be meaningful to them.

2. Schedule Family Time

Make a point to schedule time when you can spend time together as a family. If your family is large or you have multiple children, make a point to spend time one-on-one with your child every so often. This individual attention can create lasting memories for your child.

3. Develop Routines and Rituals

Whether cuddling together and reading a bedtime story each night, walking to the park in the afternoon or making pancakes together on Sunday mornings, create unique routines and rituals with your child.

4. Take Intentional Breaks from Work

If you're still checking email and feeling stressed about work projects, you may be physically away from work but not mentally.

When you're away from work, whether on the weekend or on vacation, be intentional about stepping away. And be intentional about stepping away and connecting with your child.

5. Find Ways to Connect When Apart

Even when you can't be together, you can still find ways to connect with your child and show them attention.

Whether you stay in touch by sending texts and emails, video chatting, or even mailing cards, you can still give your child attention when you're physically apart.

It is important to remember that all kids need attention, but there is no singular right way to give it to them. Some kids may need more attention than others, and others may require different types of attention.

Listen to your child's cues, talk to them, and follow their lead when it comes to giving them attention.
To get more ideas on how to bond with your kids and spend more time together, read up on 10 Ways to Spend Quality Time with Your Children.
-

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Does Lack of Attention Affect Child Development?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Lack of attention from parents or uninvolved parenting can have negative effects on children's development and behavior. Learn why children need parental love and attention.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How uninvolved parenting is ruining your kids | The Express Tribune

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Typically, the primary goal of parenting is to raise decent kids, but there is no one right way to do it

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The FTC’s Antitrust Overreach Is Hurting U.S. Competitiveness and Destroying Value

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Yale SOM’s Jeffrey Sonnenfeld and Steven Tian write that FTC chair Lina Khan’s attempts to block mergers are draining economic value—and consistently failing in court.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The latest Health news, analysis and comment brought to you by the definitive brand of quality journalism. Read The Irish Times.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our relationships with technology are dehumanizing us. First, in our professional lives, work as we presently know it is rapidly giving way to technological solutions and automated processes. This is not confined to repetitive mechanical operations. The exponential improvement in anthropomorphic machines and software that can closely approximate emotional and psychological interaction will negate the need for people in numerous job roles.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Automation is reducing the need for people in many jobs. Are we facing a future of stagnant income and worsening inequality?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
https://news.stanford.edu/report/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2022/11/antero-garcia-edited.mp3
Listen to the essay, as read by Antero Garcia, associate professor in the Graduate School of Education.
As a professor of education and a former public school teacher, I've seen digital tools change lives in schools.

I've documented the ways mobile technology like phones can transform student engagement in my own classroom.

I've explored how digital tools might network powerful civic learning and dialogue for classrooms across the country - elements of education that are crucial for sustaining our democracy today.

And, like everyone, I've witnessed digital technologies make schooling safer in the midst of a global pandemic. Zoom and Google Classroom, for instance, allowed many students to attend classrooms virtually during a period when it was not feasible to meet in person.

So I want to tell you that I think technologies are changing education for the better and that we need to invest more in them - but I just can't.

Given the substantial amount of scholarly time I've invested in documenting the life-changing possibilities of digital technologies, it gives me no pleasure to suggest that these tools might be slowly poisoning us. Despite their purported and transformational value, I've been wondering if our investment in educational technology might in fact be making our schools worse.

Let me explain.

When I was a classroom teacher, I loved relying on the latest tools to create impressive and immersive experiences for my students. We would utilize technology to create class films, produce social media profiles for the Janie Crawfords, the Holden Caulfields, and other literary characters we studied, and find playful ways to digitally share our understanding of the ideas we studied in our classrooms.

As a teacher, technology was a way to build on students' interests in pop culture and the world around them. This was exciting to me.

But I've continued to understand that the aspects of technology I loved weren't actually about technology at all - they were about creating authentic learning experiences with young people. At the heart of these digital explorations were my relationships with students and the trust we built together.

"Part of why I've grown so skeptical about this current digital revolution is because of how these tools reshape students' bodies and their relation to the world around them."

I do see promise in the suite of digital tools that are available in classrooms today. But my research focus on platforms - digital spaces like Amazon, Netflix, and Google that reshape how users interact in online environments - suggests that when we focus on the trees of individual tools, we ignore the larger forest of social and cognitive challenges.

Most people encounter platforms every day in their online social lives. From the few online retail stores where we buy groceries to the small handful of sites that stream our favorite shows and media content, platforms have narrowed how we use the internet today to a small collection of Silicon Valley behemoths. Our social media activities, too, are limited to one or two sites where we check on the updates, photos, and looped videos of friends and loved ones.

These platforms restrict our online and offline lives to a relatively small number of companies and spaces - we communicate with a finite set of tools and consume a set of media that is often algorithmically suggested. This centralization of internet - a trend decades in the making - makes me very uneasy.

From willfully hiding the negative effects of social media use for vulnerable populations to creating tools that reinforce racial bias, today's platforms are causing harm and sowing disinformation for young people and adults alike. The deluge of difficult ethical and pedagogical questions around these tools are not being broached in any meaningful way in schools - even adults aren't sure how to manage their online lives.

You might ask, "What does this have to do with education?" Platforms are also a large part of how modern schools operate. From classroom management software to attendance tracking to the online tools that allowed students to meet safely during the pandemic, platforms guide nearly every student interaction in schools today. But districts are utilizing these tools without considering the wider spectrum of changes that they have incurred alongside them.

For example, it might seem helpful for a school to use a management tool like Classroom Dojo (a digital platform that can offer parents ways to interact with and receive updates from their family's teacher) or software that tracks student reading and development like Accelerated Reader for day-to-day needs. However, these tools limit what assessment looks like and penalize students based on flawed interpretations of learning.

Another problem with platforms is that they, by necessity, amass large swaths of data. Myriad forms of educational technology exist - from virtual reality headsets to e-readers to the small sensors on student ID cards that can track when students enter schools. And all of this student data is being funneled out of schools and into the virtual black boxes of company databases.

Part of why I've grown so skeptical about this current digital revolution is because of how these tools reshape students' bodies and their relation to the world around them. Young people are not viewed as complete human beings but as boxes checked for attendance, for meeting academic progress metrics, or for confirming their location within a school building. Nearly every action that students perform in schools - whether it's logging onto devices, accessing buildings, or sharing content through their private online lives - is noticed and recorded. Children in schools have become disembodied from their minds and their hearts. Thus, one of the greatest and implicit lessons that kids learn in schools today is that they must sacrifice their privacy in order to participate in conventional, civic society.

The pandemic has only made the situation worse. At its beginnings, some schools relied on software to track students' eye movements, ostensibly ensuring that kids were paying attention to the tasks at hand. Similarly, many schools required students to keep their cameras on during class time for similar purposes. These might be seen as in the best interests of students and their academic growth, but such practices are part of a larger (and usually more invisible) process of normalizing surveillance in the lives of youth today.

I am not suggesting that we completely reject all of the tools at our disposal - but I am urging for more caution. Even the seemingly benign resources we might use in our classrooms today come with tradeoffs. Every Wi-Fi-connected, "smart" device utilized in schools is an investment in time, money, and expertise in technology over teachers and the teaching profession.

Our focus on fixing or saving schools via digital tools assumes that the benefits and convenience that these invisible platforms offer are worth it.

But my ongoing exploration of how platforms reduce students to quantifiable data suggests that we are removing the innovation and imagination of students and teachers in the process.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Technology might be making education worse

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Listen to the essay, as read by Antero Garcia, associate professor in the Graduate School of Education.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Melissa Nilles
Arts & Entertainment Editor

Photo by Andrea Rodriguez

I had a terrible nightmare the other night. Instead of meeting for a quick cup of coffee, my friend and I spent 30 minutes texting back and forth about our day. After that, instead of going in to talk to my professor during his office hours, I emailed him from home with my question. Because of this, he never got to know who I was, even though he would have been a great source for a letter of recommendation if he had. I ignored a cute guy at the bus stop asking me the time because I was busy responding to a text. And I spent far too much time on Facebook trying to catch up with my 1000+ "friends," most of whom I rarely see, and whose meaning sadly seems to dispel even more as the sheer number of "connections" I've made grows.

Oh wait, that wasn't a dream. This technological detachment is becoming today's reality.

Little by little, Internet and mobile technology seems to be subtly destroying the meaningfulness of interactions we have with others, disconnecting us from the world around us, and leading to an imminent sense of isolation in today's society. Instead of spending time in person with friends, we just call, text or instant message them. It may seem simpler, but we ultimately end up seeing our friends face to face a lot less. Ten texts can't even begin to equal an hour spent chatting with a friend over lunch. And a smiley-face emoticon is cute, but it could never replace the ear-splitting grin and smiling eyes of one of your best friends. Face time is important, people. We need to see each other.

This doesn't just apply to our friends; it applies to the world around us. It should come as no surprise that face-to-face interaction is proven by studies to comfort us and provide us with some important sense of well-being, whether it's with friends or friendly cashiers in the checkout line of Albertson's. That's actually the motivation behind Albertson's decision last year to take all of the self-checkout lanes out of its stores: an eerie lack of human contact.

There's something intangibly real and valuable about talking with someone face to face. This is significant for friends, partners, potential employers, and other recurring people that make up your everyday world. That person becomes an important existing human connection, not just someone whose disembodied text voice pops up on your cell phone, iPad or computer screen.

It seems we have more extended connections than ever in this digital world, which can be great for networking, if it's used right. The sad fact of the matter is that most of us don't. It's too hard to keep up with 1000 friends, let alone 200. At that point, do we even remember their names? We need to start prizing the meaning of quality in our connections, not sheer quantity.

One of my best friends from my hometown has 2,241 Facebook friends. Sure, her posts get a ton of feedback, but when I asked her about the quality of those relationships, she said to me that she really has few friends that she can trust and spend time with happily. Using a strange conundrum like this as a constructive example, we should consider pruning our rampant online connections at the very least.

Past evolutionary psychology research by British anthropologist and psychologist Robin Dunbar has revealed that people are actually limited to a certain number of stable, supportive connections with others in their social network: roughly 150. Furthermore, recent follow-up research by Cornell University's Bruno Goncalves used Twitter data to show that despite the current ability to connect with vast amounts of people via the Internet, a person can still only truly maintain a friendship with a maximum of 100 to 200 real friends in their social network.

While technology has allowed us some means of social connection that would have never been possible before, and has allowed us to maintain long-distance friendships that would have otherwise probably fallen by the wayside, the fact remains that it is causing ourselves to spread ourselves too thin, as well as slowly ruining the quality of social interaction that we all need as human beings.

If you are planning on buying or want to learn about Phentermine from UK have a look at this Phentermine website to buy Phentermine online or offline from United Kingdom

So what are we doing with 3000 friends on the Internet? Why are we texting all the time? Seems like a big waste of time to me. Let's spend more time together with our friends. Let's make the relationships that count last, and not rely on technology to do the job for us.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Technology is Destroying the Quality of Human Interaction - The Bottom Line UCSB

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Melissa Nilles Arts & Entertainment Editor Photo by Andrea Rodriguez I had a terrible nightmare the other night. Instead of meeting for a quick cup of coffee, my friend and I spent 30 minutes texting back and forth about our day.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On March 6, 1995, WIRED's executive editor and resident techno-optimist Kevin Kelly went to the Greenwich Village apartment of the author Kirkpatrick Sale. Kelly had asked Sale for an interview. But he planned an ambush.

Kelly had just read an early copy of Sale's upcoming book, called Rebels Against the Future. It told the story of the 19th-century Luddites, a movement of workers opposed to the machinery of the Industrial Revolution. Before their rebellion was squashed and their leaders hanged, they literally destroyed some of the mechanized looms that, they believed, reduced them to cogs in a dehumanizing engine of mass production.

Sale adored the Luddites. In early 1995, Amazon was less than a year old, Apple was in the doldrums, Microsoft had yet to launch Windows 95, and almost no one had a mobile phone. But Sale, who for years had been churning out books complaining about modernity and urging a return to a subsistence economy, felt that computer technology would make life worse for humans. Sale had even channeled the Luddites at a January event in New York City where he attacked an IBM PC with a 10-pound sledgehammer. It took him two blows to vanquish the object, after which he took a bow and sat down, deeply satisfied.

Kelly hated Sale's book. His reaction went beyond mere disagreement; Sale's thesis insulted his sense of the world. So he showed up at Sale's door not just in search of a verbal brawl but with a plan to expose what he saw as the wrongheadedness of Sale's ideas. Kelly set up his tape recorder on a table while Sale sat behind his desk.

The visit was all business, Sale recalls. "No eats, no coffee, no particular camaraderie," he says. Sale had prepped for the interview by reading a few issues of WIRED-he'd never heard of it before Kelly contacted him-and he expected a tough interview. He later described it as downright "hostile, no pretense of objective journalism." (Kelly later called it adversarial, "because he was an adversary, and he probably viewed me the same way.") They argued about the Amish, whether printing presses denuded forests, and the impact of technology on work. Sale believed it stole decent labor from people. Kelly replied that technology helped us make new things we couldn't make any other way. "I regard that as trivial," Sale said.

Sale believed society was on the verge of collapse. That wasn't entirely bad, he argued. He hoped the few surviving humans would band together in small, tribal-style clusters. They wouldn't be just off the grid. There would be no grid. Which was dandy, as far as Sale was concerned.

"History is full of civilizations that have collapsed, followed by people who have had other ways of living," Sale said. " My optimism is based on the certainty that civilization will collapse."

That was the opening Kelly had been waiting for. In the final pages of his Luddite book, Sale had predicted society would collapse "within not more than a few decades." Kelly, who saw technology as an enriching force, believed the opposite-that society would flourish. Baiting his trap, Kelly asked just when Sale thought this might happen.

Sale was a bit taken aback-he'd never put a date on it. Finally, he blurted out 2020. It seemed like a good round number.

Kelly then asked how, in a quarter century, one might determine whether Sale was right.

Sale extemporaneously cited three factors: an economic disaster that would render the dollar worthless, causing a depression worse than the one in 1930; a rebellion of the poor against the monied; and a significant number of environmental catastrophes.

"Would you be willing to bet on your view?" Kelly asked.

"Sure," Sale said.

Then Kelly sprung his trap. He had come to Sale's apartment with a $1,000 check drawn on his joint account with this wife. Now he handed it to his startled interview subject. "I bet you $1,000 that in the year 2020, we're not even close to the kind of disaster you describe," he said.

Sale barely had $1,000 in his bank account. But he figured that if he lost, a thousand bucks would be worth much less in 2020 anyway. He agreed. Kelly suggested they both send their checks for safekeeping to William Patrick, the editor who had handled both Sale's Luddite book and Kelly's recent tome on robots and artificial life; Sale agreed.

"Oh, boy," Kelly said after Sale wrote out the check. "This is easy money."

Twenty-five years later, the once distant deadline is here. We are locked down. Income equality hasn't been this bad since just before the Great Depression. California and Australia were on fire this year. We're about to find out how easy that money is. As the time to settle approached, both men agreed that Patrick, the holder of the checks, should determine the winner on December 31. Much more than a thousand bucks was at stake: The bet was a showdown between two fiercely opposed views on the nature of progress. In a time of climate crisis, a pandemic, and predatory capitalism, is optimism about humanity's future still justified? Kelly and Sale each represent an extreme side of the divide. For the men involved, the bet's outcome would be a personal validation-or repudiation-of their lifelong quests.

Sale's provocative book, Rebels Against the Future, is just one title in a shelf-full of works urging a return to a preindustrial life. His fervor for the simple life took root early. John Kirkpatrick Sale grew up in a close-knit suburb of Ithaca, New York, one of three sons of William M. Sale Jr., who taught literature at Cornell. Sale père was a legend in the field; his students included Kurt Vonnegut and Harold Bloom. Kirkpatrick Sale felt that his tiny community was idyllic. When a plan was proposed to merge his local school into the Ithaca district, young Sale spoke out against it. "Something in my genes flatly resisted the idea of leaving a human-scale school for the vagaries of education down in the city of Ithaca," he later wrote. (Ithaca at the time had all of 30,000 inhabitants.)

Kirkpatrick attended Cornell, the family institution. He studied history, but with an eye toward journalism. Even then he was a rebel. In the late 1950s, there was no war to protest against, but there was a policy called in loco parentis, which put school administrators in charge of moral probity. Sale, who was the former editor of the student newspaper, was enraged by a proposal to ban unchaperoned coeds from off-campus parties. He helped incite close to 1,500 people to demonstrate. In the hubbub, the dean of men got hit by an egg, and protesters hurled rocks and smoke bombs at the beleaguered university president. Sale was suspended, as was his roommate, novelist-to-be Richard Fariña.

Even back then, Sale distrusted computers. With another classmate, he cowrote a sci-fi musical about escaping a dystopian America ruled by IBM; it features an evil computer. If this sounds at all Pynchonesque, it's probably because Sale's cowriter was Thomas Pynchon. Nonetheless, a line in it foreshadows Sale's later work. "All we want is someplace where every time we turn around we don't see that idiot damn machine staring at us," one character gripes. This is 1958.

After college, Sale worked for a leftish publication and spent time in Africa. Returning to the US as the counterculture was gaining steam, he became fascinated with the pivotal antiwar group Students for a Democratic Society, and he wrote the definitive book on the organization. He later said that the immersion "radicalized me in a way beyond where I'd been."

During the '70s, he began formulating a philosophy that took cues from the budding environmental movement. "I was at the dining table one morning thinking about the human scale in architecture, and how modern architecture had completely lost it," he says. It got him thinking more broadly about the shortfalls of city planning, and then of how nations are organized. He realized he had always been, as he puts it now, an "anarchocommunalist." With thoughts of the convivial village of his childhood in mind, Sale began advocating for decentralized, self-sufficient systems-with life organized at "human scale," which became the title of a book-length manifesto. One of his treasures was a collection of books that once belonged to E. F. Schumacher, the author of Small is Beautiful.

Sale's work intertwines two threads: bitter condemnation of so-called progressive civilization and idyllic blueprints for a stripped-down life. For the 500th anniversary of Columbus' landing, he wrote a book bemoaning the ruination of North America. The title said it all: The Conquest of Paradise. In another book, After Eden, he postulated that everything began going downhill when humans started hunting large game, kicking off a relentless trend of destroying the natural world. He often finds himself defending Paleolithic societies; his outrage at the term "cavemen" surpasses even the indignation of the hirsute figure in the Geico commercial.

While none of Sale's own tomes became runaway best sellers, he says that some of them made back their considerable advances. "They were talked about even when disagreed with," he says. For many years, he was a fixture on the lecture circuit, and he estimates he visited at least 250 college campuses.

And then came the Rebels book. His take on the Luddite story provided a novel counterpoint to the media's swooning over the nascent internet, and Sale had a pop culture moment. (I wrote about the book myself in Newsweek.) In its pages, Sale aired out the civilization collapse theory that he'd been developing for years. "If the edifice of industrial civilization does not eventually crumble as a result of a determined resistance within its very walls, it seems certain to crumble of its own accumulated excesses and instabilities within not more than a few decades, perhaps sooner," he wrote.

Sale's Cassandra-like warning got less attention than the stunt he used to promote it. "I had TV people from all over the world come to me, often with their own used computers so I'd have something to hit," he says. He readily complied. But that was not his usual MO. "Kirk was always somewhat aloof, in a grand sort of way," his former editor Bill Patrick says. "Just a bit aristocratic-academic, the stodgy English professor as opposed to the wild and crazy drama teacher."

Despite all the smashed machinery, the Luddite book was also not a best seller, according to Patrick. But one copy, circulated in advance of its June publication, ended up on the San Francisco desk of WIRED's executive editor, Kevin Kelly.

At the time, WIRED was two years old. Kelly had been a key player in its origin, urging founders Louis Rossetto and Jane Metcalfe to move to San Francisco to launch it. Under Kelly's leadership, it became a flagship not only of the new wave of tech and internet but of a techno-optimistic way of thinking: Hackers and entrepreneurs would solve our problems.

Kelly had come to the post through a nontraditional path. Growing up in a New Jersey bedroom community, Kelly seldom traveled. But in his freshman, and only, year at the University of Rhode Island, he read books that convinced him he'd find a better education on the road. He was also inspired by the do-it-yourself ethos of the Whole Earth Catalog, the legendary 1960s book of tools for hippie agrarianism. He decided to tour Asia, indulging his passion for photography by capturing images of the most remote spots he could find.

The journey, lasting for the better part of a decade, transformed him. "I was in very remote parts of Asia, parts which were literally medieval societies in every respect, from the dress, architecture, beliefs, behavior," he says. "I saw completely vehicle-less cities-people throwing garbage in the streets, no toilets. That's not even to mention the hinterland villages, which were without even metal." When he returned to the US in 1979, he had a deep appreciation for the technology that made life easier.

Kelly got a job in a biology lab at the University of Georgia and, on the side, began writing about his views and his travels. He became a computer enthusiast when he discovered that his Apple IIe could connect him with fascinating communities. He stumbled on the Electronic Information Exchange System, an early online conferencing system, and through it he got to know Stewart Brand, founder of the Whole Earth Catalog. Impressed with Kelly's writing, Brand offered him a job editing the in-house magazine, Co-Evolution Quarterly, which was still devoted to the tools-for-living ethos of the original catalog. Later, Kelly merged the tree-hugging magazine with another Brand publication covering software and called it the Whole Earth Review. "All the organic farmers were completely outraged that we were now having reviews of software in their magazine," Kelly says. He would tell them, You don't understand, this is the next big thing. Just like plows and gro-lights and fertilizer, software was a tool. They all belonged on a continuum of technology that lifts our existence out of the difficult conditions he saw farmers coping with in his travels. "I got to experience the world without technology," he says. "So when people were talking about kind of getting rid of technology, I was like, no, no, no, you have no idea."

And that's why Kelly found the ending chapters of Rebels Against the Future so offensive. Kelly had no problem with critiques of technology. He had once edited an issue of the Whole Earth Review headlined " Computers As Poison," and even WIRED deviated on occasion from its '90s-era optimism to call out the tech world's flaws and foibles. But Sale's rhapsodic embrace of what he called "human scale" attacked progress. In his travels, Kelly also had seen how modern industry and tech could improve lives. Sometimes he liked to return to the remote villages he had visited in his youth. He saw a factory pop up where a rice paddy had been, and the villagers who had been barefoot on his first visit were now wearing sandals. As industry grew in the cities, people eagerly abandoned their human-scale existence for something different.

"They're leaving villages that have organic food and beautiful scenery, and beautiful architecture and very strong families," Kelly says. "Why do they do that? Because they have choices. They don't have to be what their father or mother was, which was basically a farmer or housewife. They could maybe be a mathematician, maybe they could be a ballerina." (Government policy may have made migration less of a choice.)

As he stewed over Sale's message, a thought bubbled up. When Kelly gets a fresh idea, his impulse is to say, "Let's do it!" He had read about the history of bets in science-one in particular was Julian Simon's 1980 challenge to biologist Paul Erlich's claim of impending resource scarcity-and liked the idea of intellectual opponents taking a public stand. "I didn't know what we were going to bet about," Kelly says. "I wanted him to be accountable for that romantic nonsense that he was spouting."

Sale didn't see things that way. "I knew the whole thing was a setup," he says. Despite feeling conned, Sale never considered just tossing Kelly out. "We were professionals," he says.

For more than two decades, the two bettors didn't speak. But as the deadline drew near, Kelly set out to contact Sale. "He kind of fell off the map," Kelly says. When Kelly eventually reached him by email, Sale was surprised to hear from his old adversary.

Sale had not forgotten the bet. He'd mentioned it in various interviews, as if recounting an amusing anecdote. But until it came due, he hadn't reflected much on it. "It had nothing to do with my journey," he says. When someone told him there was a website of Long Bets where people could make their own side bets on his wager with Kelly, Sale shrugged it off, befuddled.

Over the past 25 years, Sale had continued to write about decentralization and simplicity. But he had a harder time getting published. He had been unable to sell the major houses on a jeremiad against tourism, another attack on computers, or his takedown of the Emancipation Proclamation, which he self-published in 2012, arguing that Lincoln did Black people no favor by freeing them without a means to gain equality. He also became enamored of the breakup of the US as a way to achieve his small-town-bordering-on-tribal way of life.

In the mid-2000s, Sale cofounded the Middlebury Institute to promote the idea of secession. If states peeled off from the union, the theory went, Sale's decentralized vision might get a little closer to reality. He was disappointed that the movement did not gain steam when George W. Bush was reelected. His romance with decentralization even led him to a blinkered view of the Confederacy, which he lauded for its commitment to concentrating power locally. (Sale told The New York Times he would personally prefer to live in the independent state of Hudsonia, a territory that would include New York City and the Hudson River Valley.)

Sale remained convinced that civilization was doomed. Years earlier he had advised his two daughters not to have children; they ignored him. Now he had an adult granddaughter to whom he'd one day likely offer the same advice. "She'll probably ignore me too," he told an interviewer this year.

So Kelly should not have been surprised at what Sale had to say in March 2019, on their first contact in decades. Collapse is coming, he said. Then Sale shared the news that he was writing a book about the bet.

The book is called The Collapse of 2020-and yes, the neo-Luddite's latest work is available on Kindle. In fact, Sale has made compromises with technology. He recently moved back to Ithaca with his wife to be near family. He does have a computer, as well as a printer, a land line, a stove, two televisions, and four radios. He draws the line at microwaves and smartphones. Despite believing that social media has "a visible deleterious effect," he has a public Facebook page.

In May 2020, Sale and Kelly settled on the terms of the decision. Their editor, Bill Patrick, would name the winner. Kelly proposed that Patrick wait until the last day of the year to issue his verdict, giving civilization every possible chance to self-destruct. Kelly wrote up a four-page essay to press his case. Sale suggested that Patrick read his book. But Patrick had free reign in making the determination.

When Sale and Kelly made the bet, they had assumed that by 2020 the winner would be obvious. Maybe all it would take was a look around: Is civilization still here, or not? It clearly is still kicking around. But the pandemic, its economic consequences, and the worsening climate crisis have made things interesting. What would Patrick say?

Bill Patrick lives outside of Boston, editing, ghostwriting, and book-doctoring on a freelance basis. He's long since left his old job at the textbook publisher where he'd gotten to know Kelly and Sale. But when Kelly asked him if he still had the checks from the 25-year-old bet, he knew just where to look. He pulled open a file cabinet in his home office, flipped to a manila folder, and there were the two checks, preserved in a ziploc bag.

Patrick has his own views on technology. "I'm from the '60s," he says. "When computers came along, I did not view them as the next wave of liberation." He appreciates the beauty of engineering but disdains what he feels is the arrogance of technology people. "And now the evils are very apparent," he says. He is not on Facebook and uses a simple cell phone, not a smartphone.

In assessing the bet, he is taking a judicial stance, viewing his role more as a critical reader of the two men's arguments than as an assessor of the world. "I am not an oracle," he says. "I'm just me." He decided to stick to the terms Sale had suggested on the fly on March 6, 1995. Even if it wasn't quite fair to Sale. Patrick had a lot of sympathy for his point of view, but he felt that Sale's extremism hurt his cause. "I wish Kirk had taken more time to become a better informed critic," he says, adding that his broad dismissal of technology left him out of touch with reality. More relevant to the bet, though, was the way Sale had rashly agreed to terms that made victory contingent on worst-case scenarios. "Kirk was naive to accept on the spot," he says.

Sale says that, even in retrospect, he couldn't have come up with a better answer. "I said 'collapse' at dinner parties, but no one ever asked me to be specific," he says. Moreover, Sales' Collapse of 2020 book, which came out last January, includes an untimely concession. The very fact that his book exists, he wrote, is the equivalent of tossing his cards face down on the table: If society had in fact collapsed, there would be no books, self-published or not. "So let me just admit that I was wrong," he wrote. "But ... not by much. And not totally." Yet shortly after the book appeared, global events seemed to tilt in Sale's favor. The pandemic's effect on physical and economic health, Donald Trump's destabilization of democracy, and ever more extreme weather nudged civilization closer to the precipice. Could it be that while we haven't retreated to caves and hovels, Sale's predictions have landed in the ballpark of reality?

That's what Patrick had to determine. In early December he began writing up his decision. Despite his wariness toward tech, he had no intention of jumping on the current techlash bandwagon. Instead, the bet was constructed on three clear conditions, and Patrick would consider each one separately, as if judging a boxing match round by round.

Economic Collapse. Sale predicted flatly that the dollar and other accepted currencies would be worthless in 2020. Patrick points to the Dow at 30,000 and the success of new currencies such as Bitcoin. "Not much contest here," Patrick writes. Round goes to Kelly.

Global Environmental Disaster. Kelly tried to argue that despite worsening climate change, people are still living their lives pretty much as usual. "If this is a disaster, that is not evident to Earth's 7 billion inhabitants," Kelly wrote in his four-page argument. But Patrick isn't convinced. "With fires, floods, and rising seas displacing populations; bugs and diseases heading north; ice caps melting and polar bears with no place to go; as well as the worst hurricane season and the warmest year on record, it's hard to dispute that we are at least 'close to' global environmental disaster," Patrick wrote in his final decision. This one is Sale's.

The War Between Rich and Poor. Sale's book cites devastating statistics on income inequality and the frayed social fabric. If he had written his book after the pandemic, the picture would be even worse. But are the classes at war? Patrick notes that in the decades since Kelly and Sale made the bet, breathtaking economic development has reshaped China and India, among other countries. On the other hand, he points to undeniable social unrest, even in the United States, with Trumpites taking to the streets with semiautomatic weapons, and massive protests against police abuses. He calls this round a toss-up, with an edge to Sale.

Round by round, the outcome would seem to make it a draw. But when making the final call, Patrick stuck to the language of the original bet. In that fateful Greenwich Village encounter, Sale called for a convergence of three disasters. "Kirk must hit the trifecta to win, meaning that all three horses of his apocalypse must come through," Patrick wrote. "Only one of his predictions was a winner; one came in neck and neck; and one was way back in the pack."

So on December 31, Patrick declared Kelly the winner in an email to the bettors. "But it's a squeaker and not much cause for celebration," he concluded.

It's also not terribly satisfying. Because Kelly's upbeat views seem to have crossed the finish line as Sale's apocalyptic horsemen were closing fast, 2020 offered no clear verdict as to civilization's fate-or where we will be in the next 25 years.

That's due both to the extraordinariness of 2020 and to the bettors' own limitations. They staked out extreme positions in a world that's always likely to regress to the mean. Sale failed to account for how human ingenuity would keep us from getting tossed into forests and caves. Kelly didn't factor in tech companies' reckless use of power or their shortcomings in solving (or sometimes stoking) tough societal problems.

They're also as entrenched as ever. Despite this miserable year, Kelly is boosting his optimism to a higher gear. With tech's help, he believes, the world's woes will be resolved. "In 25 years, poverty will be rare, and middle-class lifestyle the norm," he wrote in his submission to Patrick. "War between nations will also be rare. A bulk of our energy will be renewables, slowing down climate warming. Life spans continue to lengthen." He's working on a book he calls Protopia.

Sale believes more than ever that society is basically crumbling-the process is just not far enough along to drive us from apartment blocks to huts. The collapse, he says, is "not like a building imploding and falling down, but like a slow avalanche that destroys and kills everything in its path, until it finally buries the whole village forever."

Kelly wrote to Sale on New Year's Day, instructing him to direct the $1,000 to Heifer International, a nonprofit that gives away breeding pairs of animals. Sale puzzled him by replying, "I didn't lose the bet." Kelly assumed he hadn't seen Patrick's decision, and he had the editor resend it.

But Sale had read it-and rejected it.

"I cannot accept that I lost," he wrote to Patrick. "The clear trajectory of disasters shows that the world is much closer to my prediction. So clearly it cannot be said that Kevin won."

Like the raging denialist in the White House, the cantankerous anarchocommunalist has quit the game after the final score left him short. Sale says he is seeking some sort of appellate relief, if only by public opinion, when in fact the rules included no such reconsideration. Kelly is infuriated. "This was a gentleman's bet, and he can only be classified as a cad," he says. Kelly warns Sale that history will recall him as a man who doesn't honor his word. But Sale doesn't believe that there will be a history. For Kirkpatrick Sale, collapse is now, and all bets are off.
Updated 1/5/2021 5:22 pm ET: This story has been updated to correct the middle initial of William M. Sale Jr.

More From WIRED's Year in Review

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A 25-Year-Old Bet Comes Due: Has Tech Destroyed Society?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On March 6, 1995, WIRED's executive editor and resident techno-optimist Kevin Kelly went to the Greenwich Village apartment of the author Kirkpatrick Sale. Kelly had asked Sale for an interview. But he planned an ambush. Kelly had just read an early copy of Sale's upcoming book, called Rebels Against the Future.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
About ScienceDirect
Shopping cart
Contact and
supportTerms and
conditionsPrivacy policy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Technology’s Impact on Morality – Communications of the ACM

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
About half of the people responding in this study were in substantial agreement that the positives of digital life will continue to outweigh the negatives. However, as in all great technological revolutions, digital life has and will continue to have a dark side.

Roughly a third of respondents predicted that harms to well-being will outweigh the positives overall in the next decade. In addition, even among those who said they are hopeful that digital life will be more helpful than harmful and among those who said there will not be much change, there were many who also expressed deep concerns about people's well-being in the future. All of these voices are represented in this section of the report.

The technologies that 50 years ago we could only dream of in science fiction novels, which we then actually created with so much faith and hope in their power to unite us and make us freer, have been co-opted into tools of surveillance, behavioral manipulation, radicalization and addiction.
Anonymous research scientist
and professor

Rob Reich, professor of political science at Stanford University, said, "If the baseline for making a projection about the next today is the current level of benefit/harm of digital life, then I am willing to express a confident judgment that the next decade will bring a net harm to people's well-being. The massive and undeniable benefits of digital life - access to knowledge and culture - have been mostly realized. The harms have begun to come into view just over the past few years, and the trend line is moving consistently in a negative direction. I am mainly worried about corporate and governmental power to surveil users (attendant loss of privacy and security), about the degraded public sphere and its new corporate owners that care not much for sustaining democratic governance. And then there are the worries about AI [artificial intelligence] and the technological displacement of labor. And finally, the addictive technologies that have captured the attention and mindspace of the youngest generation. All in all, digital life is now threatening our psychological, economic and political well-being."

Rich Salz, principal engineer at Akamai Technologies, commented, "We have already seen some negative effects, including more isolation, less ability to focus, more ability to be deceived by bad actors (fake news) and so on. I do not see those lessening. Sadly."

Leora Lawton, lecturer in demography and sociology and executive director of the Berkeley Population Center at the University of California, Berkeley, shared these reasons digital life is likely to be mostly harmful: "The long-term effects of children growing up with screen time are not well understood but early signs are not encouraging: poor attention spans, anxiety, depression and lack of in-person social connections are some of the correlations already seen, as well as the small number of teens who become addicts and non-functioning adults."

David Ellis, Ph.D., course director of the department of communication studies at York University in Toronto, said, "Much like a mutating virus, digital services and devices keep churning out new threats along with the new benefits - making mitigation efforts a daunting and open-ended challenge for everyone. Over the next decade, the majority of North Americans will experience harms of many different kinds thanks to the widespread adoption and use of digital technologies. The last year alone has seen an outpouring of commentary, including some 20 trade books, arguing that our digital habits are harming individual welfare and tearing up the social fabric. In marketing its services, Silicon Valley is committed to the relentless promotion of convenience and connectedness. Its success in doing so has wreaked havoc on personal privacy, online security, social skills and the ability to focus attention, not least in college classrooms. While they may be victims of a kind, most consumers are simply in denial about their compulsive use of smartphones and social media, as well as other services designed by their developers to be addictive - a problem that persists even when legal sanctions are in play, as with texting while driving. There's growing evidence these digital addictions are promoting depression, loneliness, video-gaming abuse and even suicidal behavior, especially among teens and young adults. Instead of feeling obliged to moderate their level of connectivity, however, consumers have come to feel a sense of entitlement about their habits, unconstrained by social mores that previously framed these habits as inappropriate. Indeed, heavy use of digital devices is widely encouraged because of the misguided idea that so-called multitasking makes us more productive."

An anonymous research scientist and professor said, "The grand internet experiment is slowly derailing. The technologies that 50 years ago we could only dream of in science fiction novels, which we then actually created with so much faith and hope in their power to unite us and make us freer, have been co-opted into tools of surveillance, behavioral manipulation, radicalization and addiction."

The next few sections share primary concerns expressed by respondents, grouped under commonly expressed themes: digital deficits; digital addiction; digital distrust/divisiveness; digital duress; and digital dangers.

Digital deficits: People's cognitive capabilities will be challenged in multiple ways, including their capacity for analytical thinking, memory, focus, creativity, reflection and mental resilience

A number of respondents said people's cognitive capabilities seem to be undergoing changes detrimental to human performance. Because these deficits are found most commonly among those who live a highly digital life, they are being attributed to near-constant connectivity online.

Steven Polunsky, a research scientist at Texas A&M University, wrote, "One way to describe how we behave is the OODA cycle - when something happens, we Observe it, Orient it to our personal context, Decide what to do and Act on that decision. The internet is easily weaponized to short-circuit that process, so we receive minimal information and are urged to act immediately on it. Unless behavior changes and adapts, this tendency will lead to greater dissatisfaction among internet users and those affected by their actions, which may be a wide audience."

Nikki Graves, an associate professor at Emory University's Goizueta Business School, said, "We currently live in a culture that fosters attention-deficit disorder because of hyperconnectivity. I have been teaching at the college level since 1993, and I can see a definitive decline in students' ability to focus on details and in general. Additionally, I believe that the research on the relationship between hyperconnectivity and this has merit."

We currently live in a culture that fosters attention-deficit disorder because of hyperconnectivity.
Nikki Graves

Meg Mott, a professor of politics at Marlboro College, said, "The internet is harming well-being. My answer has to do with the disturbing trend amongst college students, who operate as if all questions should be answered online. The devices make it so easy to find answers elsewhere that students forget to ask deep questions of themselves. This lack of uninterrupted introspection creates a very human problem: the anxiety of not knowing oneself. The more the culture equates knowledge with data and social life with social media, the less time is spent on the path of wisdom, a path that always requires a good quotient of self-awareness. This becomes evident in classes where a portion of the grade is derived by open-ended writing assignments. In order to write a compelling essay, the author needs to know that the process of crafting a question is more interesting than the retrieval of any answer. Instead, the anxiety is attached to getting the 'right' piece of data. I am of the mind that a lot of the anxiety we see in college students is the agony of not having a clue about who they are. This hypothesis is now supported by Jean Twenge's research on the impact of smartphones on the Millennial and post-Millennial generations."

An anonymous director of one of the world's foremost digital rights organization said, "I'm concerned that the pace of technology creation is faster than the pace of our understanding, or our development of critical thinking. Consider, for a moment, the latest buzzword: blockchain. Yesterday, I heard about a blockchain app designed for consent in sexual interactions - designed, of course, by men in Silicon Valley. If it sounds ridiculous, that's because it is. We've reached a phase in which men (always men) believe that technology can solve all of our social problems. Nevermind the fact that a blockchain is a permanent ledger (and thus incontestable, even though sexual abuse can occur after consent is given) or that blockchain applications aren't designed for privacy (imagine the outing of a sexual partner that could occur in this instance). This is merely one example, but I worry that we're headed toward a world in which techno-solutionism reigns, 'value' has lost all its meaning, and we're no longer taught critical-thinking skills."

An anonymous president of a U.S.-based nonprofit commented, "Increasingly social media is continuing to reduce people's real communication skills and working knowledge. Major industries - energy, religion, environment, etc., are rotting from lack of new leadership. The level of those with aliteracy - people who can read but choose not to do so - is increasing in percentage. The issues we face are complex and intertwined, obfuscated further by lazy bloated media and readers and huge established industry desperate to remain in power as cheaply, easily, safely and profitably as possible - of course! Those of us who still read actual books that require thinking rather than mere entertainment, must redouble our efforts to explain the complex phenomena we are in the midst of addressing in simple terms that can encourage, stimulate, motivate."

Some respondents also more indirectly noted that individuals' anxiety over online political divisiveness, security and privacy issues, bullying/trolling, their loss of independent agency due to lack of control over what they are served by platform providers, and other psychosocial stress are contributing factors in this cognitive change.

An anonymous professor wrote, "As life becomes more and more monitored, what was previously private space will become public, causing more stress in people's lives. Furthermore, some of these technologies will operate without a person's knowledge or consent. People cannot opt out, advocate for themselves, or fix errors about themselves in proprietary algorithms."

A sampling of additional comments about "digital deficits" from anonymous respondents:

"We have less focus - too much multitasking - and not enough real connection."

"The downside is too much information and the lack of ability to manage it."

"Attention spans have certainly been decreasing recently because people are inundated with information today."

"There is increasing isolation from human interaction and increased Balkanization of knowledge and understanding."

"Over 50% of U.S. children over 10 now have some sort of social network-based application, whether it be Instagram, Snapchat or Minecraft. These children are always looking for what they may be missing online. They are increasingly finding it hard to be present and focused."

"The writing skills of students have been in constant decline, as they opt for abbreviations and symbols rather than appropriately structured sentences."

"Digital users who have not lived without technology will not know how to cope with utilizing resources outside of solely tech. With users relying on devices for companionship, we will no longer see people's faces, only the blue or white screens reflecting from this effervescent gaze."

Digital addiction: Internet businesses are organized around dopamine-dosing tools designed to hook the public

Some of the most-concerned respondents pointed to the monetization of attention - the foundation of the internet economy - as the driving force behind many wellness issues.

Douglas Rushkoff, writer, documentarian, and professor of media at City University of New York, said, "The real reason why digital technology will continue to compromise human cognition and well-being is that the companies dominating the space (Facebook, Google, Amazon) are run by people with no knowledge of human society or history. By leaving college at an early age, or running companies immediately after graduating, they fell under the spell of venture capitalists who push growth of capital over all other values. So the platforms will necessarily compromise humanity, democracy and other essential values. The larger the companies grow, the more desperate and extractive they will have to become to grow still further."

Unfortunately, major social media corporations have discovered that anger and insecurity keep people glued to their screens. As long as profit is more important than people, digital life will only grow more destructive.
Kate Thomas

Michael Kleeman, senior fellow at the University of California, San Diego and board member at the Institute for the Future, wrote, "The early promise of the Net has been realized, but the financial incentives to use it for harmful purposes, including legal and illegal ones, have proven too attractive. 'Digital Life' will continue to erode personal interactions, reduce the diversity of ideas and conversation and contribute to negative health impacts. Other than the use of data analytics we have virtually no proof that wearables, etc., alter health trajectories. We do have evidence of a radical reduction in privacy, increase in criminal activity (as digital means reduce the cost of major financial and personal crimes), reduction of engagement with and caring for the environment as a result of increased interaction with online and digital devices."

Kate Thomas, a writer/editor based in North America, wrote, "Unfortunately, major social media corporations have discovered that anger and insecurity keep people glued to their screens. As long as profit is more important than people, digital life will only grow more destructive."

An anonymous professor at one of the world's leading technological universities who is well-known for several decades of research into human-computer interaction wrote, "Deterioration in privacy; slicing and dicing of identity for sale; identification of individuals as targets for political messaging. I don't see the institutions growing that will bring this under control. I don't see corporations taking sufficient responsibility for these issues."

Sam Punnett, president of FAD Research Inc., said, "Distraction is our most prevalent commodity, paid for with attention span. The society-wide effects of 'continuous partial attention' and the tracking, analysis and corruption of the use of data trails are only beginning to be realized."

Many respondents to this canvassing wrote about their concern that online products are designed to tap into people's pleasure centers and create a dependence leading to addiction.

Richard Bennett, a creator of the WiFi MAC protocol and modern Ethernet, commented, "Highly-connected nations such as South Korea have had to develop treatment programs for internet addiction. Gamers in particular are subject to this malady, and Korea's broadband networks make gaming very attractive to socially isolated teens."

Vicki Davis, an IT director, teacher and podcaster based in North America, said, "Un-savvy consumers don't realize the addictive nature of the dopamine hits they are getting through the social media sites they use. In an attempt to keep a Snapchat streak going or to perform for the illusion of a growing audience, this generation could easily live a life one inch deep and a mile wide instead of a deeper life with deeper relationships and deeper productivity. The future of society depends upon our ability to educate people who are willing to get out of the zone on their phone and live life in the real world. ... Many students I work with seem to show some sort of withdrawal symptoms after just a few hours away from Snapchat or Instagram. The greatest innovations often happen with uninterrupted thought. This interruption generation must learn how to turn off their notifications and find satisfaction in solving problems that aren't solved in a snap but take years of dedication. Without tenacity, self-control and some modicum of intelligence about the agenda of social media, the interruption generation will miss out on the greatness that could be theirs."

Robert Stratton, cybersecurity entrepreneur, coach and investor, wrote, "While there may be beneficial uses for this technology ... we cannot ignore the question of what happens when addictive technologies are coupled with very plausible but erroneous content, particularly when generated by skilled actors with specific goals. Additionally, there are decentralized, distributed-actor groups with information operations capabilities that I will assert now rival those of nation-states. Things are not what they seem. We now live in an environment where digital audio and video can be generated with modest skill to produce video that is functionally indistinguishable from photography while being essentially wholly specious. Most internet users and virtually all of the news media seem to operating on two errant assumptions: 1) People mean what they write on the internet. 2) People are witting of their roles in events that occur due to their actions. I would respectfully assert that anyone with a basic knowledge of intelligence tradecraft would agree that these are naïve in the modern environment. Additionally, there are now generalized programming APIs that provide the ability to make essentially ANY application or website habituating for its users."

An anonymous respondent predicted this scenario as a continuation of today's trends into the next decade: "More and more will seem possible in all aspects of life. People may perceive that their lives are better, but it will be the experience of the lobster in the slowly boiling pot. Digital life will take people's privacy and influence their opinions. People will be fed news and targeted information that they will believe since they will not access the information needed to make up their own minds. Out of convenience, people will accept limitations of privacy and narrowed information resources. Countries or political entities will be the influencers of certain groups of people. People will be become more divided, more paranoid as they eventually understand that they have no privacy and need to be careful of what they say, even in their own homes. Some people will break free but at the loss of everything they had worked for. The digital divide will become worse, and many will be unable to pay for all the conveniences. To ensure simpler access and control, some political entities may try to make it available to everyone but at a cost of even more privacy. Convenience will be chosen over freedom. Perhaps."

The massive change in people's news-finding habits instigated by the rapid adoptions of the smartphone and social media was cited by some as the reason for the destruction of accurate, objective journalism, a foundation of democracy. An anonymous respondent commented, "The addictive nature of social media means the dis-benefits could be profound. Watch a young mother utterly engrossed in her phone and ignoring her small children and you will know what I mean. Humans need real-time, real-life interaction not just social interaction, yet the pull of the phone is overwhelming. More broadly, the platform companies are already destroying the business models of legacy media, and as that continues civic journalism will become thinner, poorer and possibly obsolete. Journalism won't disappear. It will simply drift back to propaganda."

A sampling of additional comments related to "digital addiction" from anonymous respondents:

"Engaging apps and digital experiences are much like addictive substances such as alcohol, tobacco and even sweet foods and sex and there has been little progress in creating a 'healthy' consumption model for digital experiences."

"Kids and adults alike are prone to go for the quick fix, the easy high or pleasant feeling, but not well armed to understand its impact on their health."

"People's well-being will continue to be affected by the internet because the software, hardware and structures that are already in place are built to do exactly this."

"As social networking becomes 'professional grooming' as well as providing family/friend updates, the need for multiple platforms (such as LinkedIn and Facebook/Instagram) becomes an assumed need. The amount of time it takes for workers to manage tedious online interactions will lead to an increasing lack of work/life balance."

"Behavioral and psychological impacts of digital life will continue to be discovered and will confirm negative trends."

"Digital communications and the time they take away from personal interactions are contributing to growing social isolation and eroding interpersonal relationships. This affects individuals' mental well-being. People everywhere - walking, in their cars, in meetings, etc. - are glued to their cell phones."

"Unless we are more aware/careful/media literate, there are a lot of 'analogue' behaviours we will jettison that are actually more efficient, positive and valuable."

"When human beings are constantly reminding themselves about a selfish bubble they've lost touch with the truth."

"I fear ... social media having us surround ourselves with people who think like we do, entrenching divisions among people."

"Engagement in social media takes a lot of time for the individual and gives back small and decreasing jolts of satisfaction for a substantial cost in time."

"There is a reason the iPhone was initially called a 'crack-phone.' Spending time on websites and apps is a very seductive way to avoid and/or ignore painful and difficult situations. I've seen very young children ignored while their caregiver texts, plays games, or surf the Net and can't help but wonder how this neglect is affecting them. Will these children learn to parent their children in a better way or will they do the same thing?"

Digital distrust/divisiveness: Personal agency will be reduced and emotions such as shock, fear, indignation and outrage will be further weaponized online, driving divisions and doubts

Among the most-expressed fears for well-being in the next decade were those having to do with issues of social isolation, societal distrust and identity and human agency.

Fay Niker, postdoctoral fellow at Stanford University's Center for Ethics in Society, wrote, "Understanding well-being in terms of human flourishing - which includes among other things the exercise of autonomous agency and the quality of human relationships - it seems to clear to me that the ongoing structuring of our lives by digital technologies will only continue to harm human well-being. This is a psychological claim, as well as a moral one. Unless we are able to regulate our digital environments politically and personally, it is likely that our mental and moral health will be harmed by the agency-undermining, disempowering, individuality-threatening and exploitative effects of the late-capitalistic system marked by the attention-extracting global digital communication firms."

People spend too much time online, often devouring fake and biased items. They grow hateful of each other rather than closer in understanding.
Anonymous respondent

Evan Selinger, a professor of philosophy at Rochester Institute of Technology, wrote, "The repeal of the Obama administration's 2015 rules for Net neutrality is a devastating blow. ... Net neutrality is fundamentally about social control. Thanks to the [Ajit] Pai regime at the FCC, Internet Service Providers have more power than they deserve to micromanage how we conduct our online social, political, educational and economic lives. While Net neutrality advocates have identified several disheartening outcomes to be on our guard for, the projected parade-of-horribles only scratches the surface. If we can't get the information superhighway right, it's a bad omen for the future where we'll need to govern a mature Internet of Things. Second, although analysis of the last U.S. presidential election is shining a spotlight on the problem of botified communication, the focus on internet propaganda obscures the more basic, habit-forming ways that we're being techno-socially engineered to outsource more and more of our communication - and thus ourselves - to software. Third, despite increased awareness of the value of being able to spend time offline, practical constraints continue make the freedom to unplug ever-harder to achieve."

Adam Popescu, a freelance journalist who has written for The New York Times, Bloomberg and other publications wrote, "You see it everywhere. People with their heads down, more comfortable engaging with a miniature world-in-a-box than with the people around them. And you see it while they're behind the wheel driving, while working and performing dangerous and focus-intensive tasks. Forget emotional happiness and the loss of focus and deep thought and the fact that we're now more comfortable to choose who we sleep with based on an algorithm than we are based on serendipity, intuition, chance, and the potential for rejection by walking up to someone and saying 'Hi, my name is ...' The biggest issue with our addiction to smartphones, one none of us talk about openly yet all engage in, is the threat to health and safety. Sure, no one says 'hi' anymore when they're passing by, no one takes a moment to be friendly or reach out, even with just our eyes, because our eyes are no longer at eye-level, they're down, hiding in our screens. Social media over the past year has been revealed for the ugly wolf-in-sheep's clothing it is, a monster once draped in the skin of liberty. We see it for what it is. When will we see that it's not just the programs and toys and apps and sites on our screens that are the problem - but our screens themselves?"

Judith Donath, author of "The Social Machine, Designs for Living Online," also predicted, "We will see a big increase in the ability of technologies to affect our sense of well-being. The ability to both monitor and manipulate individuals is rapidly increasing. Over the past decade, technologies to track our online behavior were perfected; the next decade will see massively increased surveillance of our off-line behavior. It's already commonplace for our physical location, heart rate, etc., to be tracked; voice input provides data not only about what we're saying, but also the affective component of our speech; virtual assistants learn our household habits. The combination of these technologies makes it possible for observers (Amazon, government, Facebook, etc.) to know what we are doing, what is happening around us, and how we react to it all. At the same time, increasingly sophisticated technology for emotion and response manipulation is being developed. This includes devices such as Alexa and other virtual assistants designed to be seen as friends and confidants. Alexa is an Amazon interface - owned and controlled by a giant retailer: she's designed, ultimately, to encourage you to shop, not to enhance your sense of well-being."

A number of these experts wrote about their concerns that technology's evolution would make people suffer a "loss of agency" and control over their world.

Dewayne Hendricks, CEO of Tetherless Access, said, "It is important to consider just how much of digital life is provided/controlled by cyber monopolies. Those entities will have an ever-increasing ability to control/shape the factors that make up that digital life. I see individuals for the most part having less control as time passes."

John Klensin, Internet Hall of Fame member, longtime Internet Engineering Task Force and Internet Society leader, and an innovator of the Domain Name System administration, said, "I am impressed by the increasing anecdotal and research evidence of people not only using the internet to isolate themselves from others but to select the information they are exposed to in a way that confirms and strengthens their existing, predetermined views. While that behavior is certainly not new, the rapid turnaround and instant responsiveness of the internet and social media appear to be reinforcing it in ways that are ultimately undesirable, a situation that is further reinforced by the substitute of labeling and denunciations for examination and reasoning about facts."

Rosanna Guadagno, a social psychologist with expertise in social influence, persuasion, and digital communication and researcher at the Peace Innovation Lab at Stanford University, wrote, "In my professional opinion, the current trends in digital communication are alarming and may have a negative long-term impact on human social interaction. It was naive of social media companies fail to consider and prepare for the prospect that their platforms could be misused for large-scale information warfare (e.g., Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election). Furthermore, these companies have shirked their responsibility to their users by failing to protect their customers from cyberwarfare. This has not only interfered with people's perception of reality and their ability to tell fact from fiction (I've actually conducted research demonstrating that information presented on a computer screen is perceived as more persuasive than comparable printed material). This has caused a lot of disinformation to spread online and has fueled myriad divisive online interactions. In addition to these issues, there is quite a bit of evidence mounting that people are spending more and more time alone using digital communication as a proxy for face-to-face interactions and this is increasing loneliness and depression among people, particularly our young adults. These technologies should be designed to promote healthy interactions. One way to accomplish this would be to switch to more interactive options for conversation (e.g., video chat instead of text-based conversation would reduce miscommunications and remind people that there are other people with real thoughts, feelings, and emotions behind the computer screen). It remains to be seen whether any of the promises made by digital technology companies to address these issue will be implemented. As a faculty member, one issue I've also commonly noticed is how little time is spent on ethics and psychology as part of the typical software engineering course curriculum. The ethics of software development and the idea that technology should be designed to enhance people's well-being are both principles that should be stressed as part of any education in software design."

A sampling of quote excerpts tied to "digital distrust/divisiveness" from anonymous respondents:

"The dominance of algorithmic decision-making and speed and reach of digital realms have proliferated cultures of misinformation and hatred. We have not yet adjusted to this. It may take a while for the political realm to fully engage with it, and for people to demand tech companies regulate better. I am more optimistic in the long run than I am in the short term."

"People spend too much time online, often devouring fake and biased items. They grow hateful of each other rather than closer in understanding. Negative and harmful ideologies now have platforms that can reach much farther."

"There will be an increase in isolation, further dependence on technology and an increase in unearned narcissism."

Digital duress: Information overload + declines in trust and face-to-face skills + poor interface design = rises in stress, anxiety, depression, inactivity and sleeplessness

A swath of respondents argued that as digital life advances it will damage some individuals' sense of self, their understanding of others and their faith in institutions. They project that as these technologies spread, they will suck up people's time and attention and some will be overwhelmed to the point that they often operate under duress, in a near-constant state of alert.

Device use will lead to more social alienation, increased depression and less-fit people. Because it's still relatively new, its dangers are not well understood yet.
Anonymous digital strategy director

Larry Rosen, a professor emeritus of psychology at California State University, Dominguez Hills known as an international expert on technology and its impacts on well-being, wrote, "1) We continue to spend more time connecting electronically rather than face-to-face, which lacks essential cues for understanding. 2) We also continue to attempt to multitask even though it harms performance. 3) We insist on using LED-based devices close to our eyes right up to bedtime even though it negatively impacts sleep and our brain's nightly needs for synaptic rejuvenation harming our ability to retain information."

Susan Price, lead experience strategist at USAA, commented, "Mental health problems are rising and workplace productivity is falling. The tendency to engage with digital content and people not present instead of people in our immediate presence is growing, and small-screen trance has become an accepted interpersonal norm in the workplace. Culturally-induced attention-deficit behavior has already reached staggering proportions, and is still rising. The mini-serotonin payoffs we get when 'connecting' in this way are mildly, insidiously addictive and are squeezing out the more uneven, effortful, problematic real social connections we need for true productivity and intimacy."

Stowe Boyd, futurist, publisher and editor-in-chief of Work Futures, said, "Well-being and digital life seem so intertangled because of the breakdown between personal and public life ... that digital tools have amplified. One significant aspect of public life is our relationship to work. ... We need to wake up to the proximate cause of the drive for well-being, which is the trap of overwork and the forced march away from living private lives."

K.G. Schneider, dean of the university library at Sonoma State University, wrote, "Anonymized discourse, it turns out, is not a civilizing influence, nor is having one's every thought broadcast in real time the best way for us to interact as humans."

Marcus Foth, professor of urban informatics at Queensland University of Technology, wrote, "Advancement and innovation of digital technology is still predominantly driven by the goal to increase and optimise productivity rather than people's quality of life or well-being. While proponents of an elusive work-life balance may argue that you can always switch off digital technology, the reality is that [it] is not being switched off - not because it cannot, but there is now a socio-cultural expectation to be always available and responding in real-time."

Jan Schaffer, executive director at J-Lab, wrote, "Overall, people will be more harmed than helped by the way the internet is evolving. People's trust in basic institutions has been hurt, perhaps irreparably, by conflicting accounts of what is true or not, online. People's productivity at work has been hampered by the distractions of social media. People's social and emotional intelligence have been impaired by the displacement of personal interactions with online interactions. "

An anonymous digital strategy director for a major U.S. professional association wrote, "Device use will lead to more social alienation, increased depression and less-fit people. Because it's still relatively new, its dangers are not well understood yet."

An anonymous professor wrote, "While there are many positive aspects to a more digitally connected life, I find that it is very difficult to keep up with the volume of spaces where one must go. I spend too much time answering emails, communicating in digital spaces and just trying to keep up. This causes a significant amount of stress and a lack of deliberate, thoughtful approach to information sharing. One cannot keep up with personal and professional email accounts, LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and all the rest. Truly, it is just too much."

A sampling of comments about "digital duress" from anonymous respondents:

"There is too much connecting to other people's anxieties and expectations."

"We already know there are negative effects for everyone waiting for a 'like' or other similar kind of gratification."

"I worry about mental illness and increasing social isolation as a result of more time spent with technology."

"Increased digitalization is leading to more sedentary lifestyles in a society already plagued with obesity challenges. Social media use has also led to poor communication skills, even in face-to-face settings, people opt to burying their faces into the smartphone screens."

"Some people are creating and then trying to live up to fake worlds they build with their phones."

"Constant connections to electronic-information feeds causes anxiety and damage to our eyes, brains."

Digital dangers: The structure of the internet and pace of digital change invite ever-evolving threats to human interaction, security, democracy, jobs, privacy and more

A number of respondents pointed out that digital life opens the door to societal dangers that can affect individuals' well-being. They say the digital world's systems - the internet, the web, the smartphone, all networked digital hardware and software - have evolved so rapidly due to their incredible appeal and the economic and social forces driving them forward that there has been little recognition of nor a real reckoning with the wider negatives emerging with the positives.

What we are seeing now becoming reality are the risks and uncertainties that we have allowed to emerge at the fringes of innovation.
Anonymous respondent

Anthony Rutkowski, internet pioneer and business leader, said, "Clearly - as DARPA's director noted in his seminal 2000 millennium article on this topic - the past 17 years have demonstrated how the DARPA internet, which was never designed for public infrastructure use, has resulted in all kinds of adverse impacts to people's lives and even the security of society. It has amplified the most outrageous behavior and alt[ernate]-truth as the new normal. See details of my position at http://www.circleid.com/posts/20170312_the_internet_as_weapon/ (Excerpt: 'The existence of 'an open platform that enables anyone, everywhere, to share information, access opportunities and collaborate across geographic and cultural boundaries' globally is fundamentally a weapon. ... Such an infrastructure has inherent economic, operational, and political self-destructive properties that are playing out exponentially every day.')"

An anonymous longtime leader of research at one of the top five global technology companies said, "I chose my career believing that technology would improve our lives. Seeing what has happened, I've grown pessimistic. Our species has lived for millions of years in small communities - bands, tribes, extended families. We are wired to feel valued and good about ourselves through direct, repeated interactions in such groups. These tight-knit associations are disappearing as our activity moves online. Relationships are replaced by transactions. If we avoid catastrophe, in the long run natural selection will produce a new kind of human being that is adapted for the world we are creating. That individual will not be like most of us. Living through the transition will be painful."

Aram Sinnreich, an associate professor at American University's School of Communication, said, "In general, people's lives will change for the worse over the next decade because of the internet. There are several factors I am taking into account here: 1) The increasing prevalence and power of internet-based surveillance of citizenry by state and commercial actors. 2) The catalyzing power of digital technology in exacerbating the gaps between haves and have-nots. 3) The as-yet-undertheorized and unchecked role of digital disinformation in polluting the democratic process and news dissemination channels. 4) The increasingly savvy and widespread use of the internet by crime syndicates. 5) The increasing vulnerability of our social infrastructure to internet disruption and hacking. 6) The environmental consequences of the internet, recently exemplified by studies analyzing the electrical power consumption that goes into Bitcoin transaction processing. This isn't to say there aren't many benefits to the internet, or that its impact won't net positively over the longer term. But I don't see any likely benefits outweighing the threats I outlined above over the next decade."

An anonymous professor based in North America said there is a public perception of well-being - crafted by platform builders and policy (or lack of policy) - while well-being is actually being damaged. This respondent wrote, "People may very well experience an increase in subjective well-being. The techno-social world we're building is increasingly geared toward engineering happy humans. While a life of cheap bliss, of satiated will, may yield more net well-being measured in terms of subjective happiness, it would at the same time be a rather pitiful life, devoid of many of the meaningful blessings of humanity. Brett Frischmann and Evan Selinger address the questions you're asking in a 500-page book, ' Re-Engineering Humanity,' due out in April 2018. One chapter, 'To What End?' directly considers the normative values at stake and the issue of what well-being means. Other chapters explain in detail the technological path we're on and how to evaluate techno-social engineering of humans."

Bob Frankston, a technologist based in North America, said, "The internet is not a thing but rather a product of the ability to use software to program around limits. It enables the creation of systems of technologies that work in concert. But the benefits will be limited to point solutions as long as we are limited to solutions that are profitable in isolation, until we invest in common infrastructure and have open interfaces."

Jeremy Blackburn, a computing sciences professor who specializes in the study of the impacts of digital life, wrote, "1) People will continue to be manipulated via targeted (mis/dis)information (sic) from a variety of sources. 2) There will be an increase in online harassment attacks that will be mostly ignored due to their statistical weight (Google/Facebook/Twitter/etc. do not care if 0.1% of their users are attacked, even though the raw numbers are substantial). 3) There will be an increase in extremists and their ability to recruit and radicalize vulnerable individuals. 4) There will be an increase in information silos, eventually resulting in extreme polarization of information acceptance. 5) There will be decreased concern about individual impact in the face of big data and large-scale machine learning (e.g., a 1% increase in revenue due to scale is worth it, even if it means a few people here and there will suffer). This will eventually cascade to large-scale suffering due to network effects. 6) There will be an increase in the acceptance of opinion as fact due to the democratization of information. No one knows if you are a dog on the Internet, and no one cares if you are an expert."

An anonymous respondent commented, "What we are seeing now becoming reality are the risks and uncertainties that we have allowed to emerge at the fringes of innovation. One is the systemic loss of privacy, which is a precondition for deliberation and a sense of self-determination. Further, we already see how our critical infrastructures - ranging from energy supply to health systems and the internet itself - increasingly are at risk of failing us due to their openness for malicious attacks, but also due to the complexity of interrelated, networked processes. Due to the lack of traceability on the internet, there is no expectation that we will achieve accountability in such situations."

An anonymous Ph.D. in biostatistics commented, "The culture of anonymity on the Web is scary and seems to allow people to behave in ways they wouldn't otherwise (see recent news about 'swatting' in the online gaming community). Then there is the social media 'hive' that allows internet uproar to dictate what happens. There is no room for discourse, grey areas or mistakes. Lives can be ruined by the publicity of a simple mistake (and combined with people sharing home addresses this can also be dangerous)."

An anonymous professor in the United States commented, "My belief is that unless extensive regulation and user education occurs, we will see an increase in negative consequences of online activity such as violations of privacy, dissemination of misinformation, crime and displacement of jobs."

An anonymous research scientist and internet pioneer commented, "We have reaped great benefit from digital life over the past decades. My answer compares the next decade to the current situation, not to the time prior to the digital life. The negative aspects of the digital life are becoming more pronounced, and I think the next decade will be one of retrenchment and adjustment, while society sorts out how to deal with our perhaps over-optimistic construction of the digital experience."

A sampling of additional comments about "digital dangers" from anonymous respondents:

"Election results will remain unverifiable and subject to digital manipulation by political criminals. ... Terrorists will recognize more ways to destabilize economic, social, political and environmental systems."

"Security/hacking and manipulation online may cause more harm; e.g., the latest Intel bug."

"People's well-being will be hurt unless we figure out the cultural and social and political solutions - and religious and economic ones - to life online. Every medium needs to be tamed. It will take a while for digits to be domesticated."

"I fear government and private-sector security measures in 'protecting' individuals, and I fear the advancement of AI."

"The loss of privacy as data sharing and integration continues will be highly problematic. Government, industry and hackers will all benefit."

"We don't know the effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF) and radiation. It's not a mainstream idea to protect people from the negative health impacts of radiation."

"Technology's beneficial effects (improved efficiency, access to information) are increasingly being overwhelmed by its negatives - distraction, disconnection from real in favor of virtual interactions, and how anonymity unleashes ugly behaviors such as misogyny, racism and overall nastiness."

"Increasing surveillance and social control by corporations and their political representatives will reduce the standard of living and freedom for the majority of the citizens in a world of rapidly changing climate."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
3. Concerns about the future of people's well-being

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
About half of the people responding in this study were in substantial agreement that the positives of digital life will continue to outweigh the

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
About half of the people responding in this study were in substantial agreement that the positives of digital life will continue to outweigh the negatives. However, as in all great technological revolutions, digital life has and will continue to have a dark side.

Roughly a third of respondents predicted that harms to well-being will outweigh the positives overall in the next decade. In addition, even among those who said they are hopeful that digital life will be more helpful than harmful and among those who said there will not be much change, there were many who also expressed deep concerns about people's well-being in the future. All of these voices are represented in this section of the report.

The technologies that 50 years ago we could only dream of in science fiction novels, which we then actually created with so much faith and hope in their power to unite us and make us freer, have been co-opted into tools of surveillance, behavioral manipulation, radicalization and addiction.
Anonymous research scientist
and professor

Rob Reich, professor of political science at Stanford University, said, "If the baseline for making a projection about the next today is the current level of benefit/harm of digital life, then I am willing to express a confident judgment that the next decade will bring a net harm to people's well-being. The massive and undeniable benefits of digital life - access to knowledge and culture - have been mostly realized. The harms have begun to come into view just over the past few years, and the trend line is moving consistently in a negative direction. I am mainly worried about corporate and governmental power to surveil users (attendant loss of privacy and security), about the degraded public sphere and its new corporate owners that care not much for sustaining democratic governance. And then there are the worries about AI [artificial intelligence] and the technological displacement of labor. And finally, the addictive technologies that have captured the attention and mindspace of the youngest generation. All in all, digital life is now threatening our psychological, economic and political well-being."

Rich Salz, principal engineer at Akamai Technologies, commented, "We have already seen some negative effects, including more isolation, less ability to focus, more ability to be deceived by bad actors (fake news) and so on. I do not see those lessening. Sadly."

Leora Lawton, lecturer in demography and sociology and executive director of the Berkeley Population Center at the University of California, Berkeley, shared these reasons digital life is likely to be mostly harmful: "The long-term effects of children growing up with screen time are not well understood but early signs are not encouraging: poor attention spans, anxiety, depression and lack of in-person social connections are some of the correlations already seen, as well as the small number of teens who become addicts and non-functioning adults."

David Ellis, Ph.D., course director of the department of communication studies at York University in Toronto, said, "Much like a mutating virus, digital services and devices keep churning out new threats along with the new benefits - making mitigation efforts a daunting and open-ended challenge for everyone. Over the next decade, the majority of North Americans will experience harms of many different kinds thanks to the widespread adoption and use of digital technologies. The last year alone has seen an outpouring of commentary, including some 20 trade books, arguing that our digital habits are harming individual welfare and tearing up the social fabric. In marketing its services, Silicon Valley is committed to the relentless promotion of convenience and connectedness. Its success in doing so has wreaked havoc on personal privacy, online security, social skills and the ability to focus attention, not least in college classrooms. While they may be victims of a kind, most consumers are simply in denial about their compulsive use of smartphones and social media, as well as other services designed by their developers to be addictive - a problem that persists even when legal sanctions are in play, as with texting while driving. There's growing evidence these digital addictions are promoting depression, loneliness, video-gaming abuse and even suicidal behavior, especially among teens and young adults. Instead of feeling obliged to moderate their level of connectivity, however, consumers have come to feel a sense of entitlement about their habits, unconstrained by social mores that previously framed these habits as inappropriate. Indeed, heavy use of digital devices is widely encouraged because of the misguided idea that so-called multitasking makes us more productive."

An anonymous research scientist and professor said, "The grand internet experiment is slowly derailing. The technologies that 50 years ago we could only dream of in science fiction novels, which we then actually created with so much faith and hope in their power to unite us and make us freer, have been co-opted into tools of surveillance, behavioral manipulation, radicalization and addiction."

The next few sections share primary concerns expressed by respondents, grouped under commonly expressed themes: digital deficits; digital addiction; digital distrust/divisiveness; digital duress; and digital dangers.

Digital deficits: People's cognitive capabilities will be challenged in multiple ways, including their capacity for analytical thinking, memory, focus, creativity, reflection and mental resilience

A number of respondents said people's cognitive capabilities seem to be undergoing changes detrimental to human performance. Because these deficits are found most commonly among those who live a highly digital life, they are being attributed to near-constant connectivity online.

Steven Polunsky, a research scientist at Texas A&M University, wrote, "One way to describe how we behave is the OODA cycle - when something happens, we Observe it, Orient it to our personal context, Decide what to do and Act on that decision. The internet is easily weaponized to short-circuit that process, so we receive minimal information and are urged to act immediately on it. Unless behavior changes and adapts, this tendency will lead to greater dissatisfaction among internet users and those affected by their actions, which may be a wide audience."

Nikki Graves, an associate professor at Emory University's Goizueta Business School, said, "We currently live in a culture that fosters attention-deficit disorder because of hyperconnectivity. I have been teaching at the college level since 1993, and I can see a definitive decline in students' ability to focus on details and in general. Additionally, I believe that the research on the relationship between hyperconnectivity and this has merit."

We currently live in a culture that fosters attention-deficit disorder because of hyperconnectivity.
Nikki Graves

Meg Mott, a professor of politics at Marlboro College, said, "The internet is harming well-being. My answer has to do with the disturbing trend amongst college students, who operate as if all questions should be answered online. The devices make it so easy to find answers elsewhere that students forget to ask deep questions of themselves. This lack of uninterrupted introspection creates a very human problem: the anxiety of not knowing oneself. The more the culture equates knowledge with data and social life with social media, the less time is spent on the path of wisdom, a path that always requires a good quotient of self-awareness. This becomes evident in classes where a portion of the grade is derived by open-ended writing assignments. In order to write a compelling essay, the author needs to know that the process of crafting a question is more interesting than the retrieval of any answer. Instead, the anxiety is attached to getting the 'right' piece of data. I am of the mind that a lot of the anxiety we see in college students is the agony of not having a clue about who they are. This hypothesis is now supported by Jean Twenge's research on the impact of smartphones on the Millennial and post-Millennial generations."

An anonymous director of one of the world's foremost digital rights organization said, "I'm concerned that the pace of technology creation is faster than the pace of our understanding, or our development of critical thinking. Consider, for a moment, the latest buzzword: blockchain. Yesterday, I heard about a blockchain app designed for consent in sexual interactions - designed, of course, by men in Silicon Valley. If it sounds ridiculous, that's because it is. We've reached a phase in which men (always men) believe that technology can solve all of our social problems. Nevermind the fact that a blockchain is a permanent ledger (and thus incontestable, even though sexual abuse can occur after consent is given) or that blockchain applications aren't designed for privacy (imagine the outing of a sexual partner that could occur in this instance). This is merely one example, but I worry that we're headed toward a world in which techno-solutionism reigns, 'value' has lost all its meaning, and we're no longer taught critical-thinking skills."

An anonymous president of a U.S.-based nonprofit commented, "Increasingly social media is continuing to reduce people's real communication skills and working knowledge. Major industries - energy, religion, environment, etc., are rotting from lack of new leadership. The level of those with aliteracy - people who can read but choose not to do so - is increasing in percentage. The issues we face are complex and intertwined, obfuscated further by lazy bloated media and readers and huge established industry desperate to remain in power as cheaply, easily, safely and profitably as possible - of course! Those of us who still read actual books that require thinking rather than mere entertainment, must redouble our efforts to explain the complex phenomena we are in the midst of addressing in simple terms that can encourage, stimulate, motivate."

Some respondents also more indirectly noted that individuals' anxiety over online political divisiveness, security and privacy issues, bullying/trolling, their loss of independent agency due to lack of control over what they are served by platform providers, and other psychosocial stress are contributing factors in this cognitive change.

An anonymous professor wrote, "As life becomes more and more monitored, what was previously private space will become public, causing more stress in people's lives. Furthermore, some of these technologies will operate without a person's knowledge or consent. People cannot opt out, advocate for themselves, or fix errors about themselves in proprietary algorithms."

A sampling of additional comments about "digital deficits" from anonymous respondents:

"We have less focus - too much multitasking - and not enough real connection."

"The downside is too much information and the lack of ability to manage it."

"Attention spans have certainly been decreasing recently because people are inundated with information today."

"There is increasing isolation from human interaction and increased Balkanization of knowledge and understanding."

"Over 50% of U.S. children over 10 now have some sort of social network-based application, whether it be Instagram, Snapchat or Minecraft. These children are always looking for what they may be missing online. They are increasingly finding it hard to be present and focused."

"The writing skills of students have been in constant decline, as they opt for abbreviations and symbols rather than appropriately structured sentences."

"Digital users who have not lived without technology will not know how to cope with utilizing resources outside of solely tech. With users relying on devices for companionship, we will no longer see people's faces, only the blue or white screens reflecting from this effervescent gaze."

Digital addiction: Internet businesses are organized around dopamine-dosing tools designed to hook the public

Some of the most-concerned respondents pointed to the monetization of attention - the foundation of the internet economy - as the driving force behind many wellness issues.

Douglas Rushkoff, writer, documentarian, and professor of media at City University of New York, said, "The real reason why digital technology will continue to compromise human cognition and well-being is that the companies dominating the space (Facebook, Google, Amazon) are run by people with no knowledge of human society or history. By leaving college at an early age, or running companies immediately after graduating, they fell under the spell of venture capitalists who push growth of capital over all other values. So the platforms will necessarily compromise humanity, democracy and other essential values. The larger the companies grow, the more desperate and extractive they will have to become to grow still further."

Unfortunately, major social media corporations have discovered that anger and insecurity keep people glued to their screens. As long as profit is more important than people, digital life will only grow more destructive.
Kate Thomas

Michael Kleeman, senior fellow at the University of California, San Diego and board member at the Institute for the Future, wrote, "The early promise of the Net has been realized, but the financial incentives to use it for harmful purposes, including legal and illegal ones, have proven too attractive. 'Digital Life' will continue to erode personal interactions, reduce the diversity of ideas and conversation and contribute to negative health impacts. Other than the use of data analytics we have virtually no proof that wearables, etc., alter health trajectories. We do have evidence of a radical reduction in privacy, increase in criminal activity (as digital means reduce the cost of major financial and personal crimes), reduction of engagement with and caring for the environment as a result of increased interaction with online and digital devices."

Kate Thomas, a writer/editor based in North America, wrote, "Unfortunately, major social media corporations have discovered that anger and insecurity keep people glued to their screens. As long as profit is more important than people, digital life will only grow more destructive."

An anonymous professor at one of the world's leading technological universities who is well-known for several decades of research into human-computer interaction wrote, "Deterioration in privacy; slicing and dicing of identity for sale; identification of individuals as targets for political messaging. I don't see the institutions growing that will bring this under control. I don't see corporations taking sufficient responsibility for these issues."

Sam Punnett, president of FAD Research Inc., said, "Distraction is our most prevalent commodity, paid for with attention span. The society-wide effects of 'continuous partial attention' and the tracking, analysis and corruption of the use of data trails are only beginning to be realized."

Many respondents to this canvassing wrote about their concern that online products are designed to tap into people's pleasure centers and create a dependence leading to addiction.

Richard Bennett, a creator of the WiFi MAC protocol and modern Ethernet, commented, "Highly-connected nations such as South Korea have had to develop treatment programs for internet addiction. Gamers in particular are subject to this malady, and Korea's broadband networks make gaming very attractive to socially isolated teens."

Vicki Davis, an IT director, teacher and podcaster based in North America, said, "Un-savvy consumers don't realize the addictive nature of the dopamine hits they are getting through the social media sites they use. In an attempt to keep a Snapchat streak going or to perform for the illusion of a growing audience, this generation could easily live a life one inch deep and a mile wide instead of a deeper life with deeper relationships and deeper productivity. The future of society depends upon our ability to educate people who are willing to get out of the zone on their phone and live life in the real world. ... Many students I work with seem to show some sort of withdrawal symptoms after just a few hours away from Snapchat or Instagram. The greatest innovations often happen with uninterrupted thought. This interruption generation must learn how to turn off their notifications and find satisfaction in solving problems that aren't solved in a snap but take years of dedication. Without tenacity, self-control and some modicum of intelligence about the agenda of social media, the interruption generation will miss out on the greatness that could be theirs."

Robert Stratton, cybersecurity entrepreneur, coach and investor, wrote, "While there may be beneficial uses for this technology ... we cannot ignore the question of what happens when addictive technologies are coupled with very plausible but erroneous content, particularly when generated by skilled actors with specific goals. Additionally, there are decentralized, distributed-actor groups with information operations capabilities that I will assert now rival those of nation-states. Things are not what they seem. We now live in an environment where digital audio and video can be generated with modest skill to produce video that is functionally indistinguishable from photography while being essentially wholly specious. Most internet users and virtually all of the news media seem to operating on two errant assumptions: 1) People mean what they write on the internet. 2) People are witting of their roles in events that occur due to their actions. I would respectfully assert that anyone with a basic knowledge of intelligence tradecraft would agree that these are naïve in the modern environment. Additionally, there are now generalized programming APIs that provide the ability to make essentially ANY application or website habituating for its users."

An anonymous respondent predicted this scenario as a continuation of today's trends into the next decade: "More and more will seem possible in all aspects of life. People may perceive that their lives are better, but it will be the experience of the lobster in the slowly boiling pot. Digital life will take people's privacy and influence their opinions. People will be fed news and targeted information that they will believe since they will not access the information needed to make up their own minds. Out of convenience, people will accept limitations of privacy and narrowed information resources. Countries or political entities will be the influencers of certain groups of people. People will be become more divided, more paranoid as they eventually understand that they have no privacy and need to be careful of what they say, even in their own homes. Some people will break free but at the loss of everything they had worked for. The digital divide will become worse, and many will be unable to pay for all the conveniences. To ensure simpler access and control, some political entities may try to make it available to everyone but at a cost of even more privacy. Convenience will be chosen over freedom. Perhaps."

The massive change in people's news-finding habits instigated by the rapid adoptions of the smartphone and social media was cited by some as the reason for the destruction of accurate, objective journalism, a foundation of democracy. An anonymous respondent commented, "The addictive nature of social media means the dis-benefits could be profound. Watch a young mother utterly engrossed in her phone and ignoring her small children and you will know what I mean. Humans need real-time, real-life interaction not just social interaction, yet the pull of the phone is overwhelming. More broadly, the platform companies are already destroying the business models of legacy media, and as that continues civic journalism will become thinner, poorer and possibly obsolete. Journalism won't disappear. It will simply drift back to propaganda."

A sampling of additional comments related to "digital addiction" from anonymous respondents:

"Engaging apps and digital experiences are much like addictive substances such as alcohol, tobacco and even sweet foods and sex and there has been little progress in creating a 'healthy' consumption model for digital experiences."

"Kids and adults alike are prone to go for the quick fix, the easy high or pleasant feeling, but not well armed to understand its impact on their health."

"People's well-being will continue to be affected by the internet because the software, hardware and structures that are already in place are built to do exactly this."

"As social networking becomes 'professional grooming' as well as providing family/friend updates, the need for multiple platforms (such as LinkedIn and Facebook/Instagram) becomes an assumed need. The amount of time it takes for workers to manage tedious online interactions will lead to an increasing lack of work/life balance."

"Behavioral and psychological impacts of digital life will continue to be discovered and will confirm negative trends."

"Digital communications and the time they take away from personal interactions are contributing to growing social isolation and eroding interpersonal relationships. This affects individuals' mental well-being. People everywhere - walking, in their cars, in meetings, etc. - are glued to their cell phones."

"Unless we are more aware/careful/media literate, there are a lot of 'analogue' behaviours we will jettison that are actually more efficient, positive and valuable."

"When human beings are constantly reminding themselves about a selfish bubble they've lost touch with the truth."

"I fear ... social media having us surround ourselves with people who think like we do, entrenching divisions among people."

"Engagement in social media takes a lot of time for the individual and gives back small and decreasing jolts of satisfaction for a substantial cost in time."

"There is a reason the iPhone was initially called a 'crack-phone.' Spending time on websites and apps is a very seductive way to avoid and/or ignore painful and difficult situations. I've seen very young children ignored while their caregiver texts, plays games, or surf the Net and can't help but wonder how this neglect is affecting them. Will these children learn to parent their children in a better way or will they do the same thing?"

Digital distrust/divisiveness: Personal agency will be reduced and emotions such as shock, fear, indignation and outrage will be further weaponized online, driving divisions and doubts

Among the most-expressed fears for well-being in the next decade were those having to do with issues of social isolation, societal distrust and identity and human agency.

Fay Niker, postdoctoral fellow at Stanford University's Center for Ethics in Society, wrote, "Understanding well-being in terms of human flourishing - which includes among other things the exercise of autonomous agency and the quality of human relationships - it seems to clear to me that the ongoing structuring of our lives by digital technologies will only continue to harm human well-being. This is a psychological claim, as well as a moral one. Unless we are able to regulate our digital environments politically and personally, it is likely that our mental and moral health will be harmed by the agency-undermining, disempowering, individuality-threatening and exploitative effects of the late-capitalistic system marked by the attention-extracting global digital communication firms."

People spend too much time online, often devouring fake and biased items. They grow hateful of each other rather than closer in understanding.
Anonymous respondent

Evan Selinger, a professor of philosophy at Rochester Institute of Technology, wrote, "The repeal of the Obama administration's 2015 rules for Net neutrality is a devastating blow. ... Net neutrality is fundamentally about social control. Thanks to the [Ajit] Pai regime at the FCC, Internet Service Providers have more power than they deserve to micromanage how we conduct our online social, political, educational and economic lives. While Net neutrality advocates have identified several disheartening outcomes to be on our guard for, the projected parade-of-horribles only scratches the surface. If we can't get the information superhighway right, it's a bad omen for the future where we'll need to govern a mature Internet of Things. Second, although analysis of the last U.S. presidential election is shining a spotlight on the problem of botified communication, the focus on internet propaganda obscures the more basic, habit-forming ways that we're being techno-socially engineered to outsource more and more of our communication - and thus ourselves - to software. Third, despite increased awareness of the value of being able to spend time offline, practical constraints continue make the freedom to unplug ever-harder to achieve."

Adam Popescu, a freelance journalist who has written for The New York Times, Bloomberg and other publications wrote, "You see it everywhere. People with their heads down, more comfortable engaging with a miniature world-in-a-box than with the people around them. And you see it while they're behind the wheel driving, while working and performing dangerous and focus-intensive tasks. Forget emotional happiness and the loss of focus and deep thought and the fact that we're now more comfortable to choose who we sleep with based on an algorithm than we are based on serendipity, intuition, chance, and the potential for rejection by walking up to someone and saying 'Hi, my name is ...' The biggest issue with our addiction to smartphones, one none of us talk about openly yet all engage in, is the threat to health and safety. Sure, no one says 'hi' anymore when they're passing by, no one takes a moment to be friendly or reach out, even with just our eyes, because our eyes are no longer at eye-level, they're down, hiding in our screens. Social media over the past year has been revealed for the ugly wolf-in-sheep's clothing it is, a monster once draped in the skin of liberty. We see it for what it is. When will we see that it's not just the programs and toys and apps and sites on our screens that are the problem - but our screens themselves?"

Judith Donath, author of "The Social Machine, Designs for Living Online," also predicted, "We will see a big increase in the ability of technologies to affect our sense of well-being. The ability to both monitor and manipulate individuals is rapidly increasing. Over the past decade, technologies to track our online behavior were perfected; the next decade will see massively increased surveillance of our off-line behavior. It's already commonplace for our physical location, heart rate, etc., to be tracked; voice input provides data not only about what we're saying, but also the affective component of our speech; virtual assistants learn our household habits. The combination of these technologies makes it possible for observers (Amazon, government, Facebook, etc.) to know what we are doing, what is happening around us, and how we react to it all. At the same time, increasingly sophisticated technology for emotion and response manipulation is being developed. This includes devices such as Alexa and other virtual assistants designed to be seen as friends and confidants. Alexa is an Amazon interface - owned and controlled by a giant retailer: she's designed, ultimately, to encourage you to shop, not to enhance your sense of well-being."

A number of these experts wrote about their concerns that technology's evolution would make people suffer a "loss of agency" and control over their world.

Dewayne Hendricks, CEO of Tetherless Access, said, "It is important to consider just how much of digital life is provided/controlled by cyber monopolies. Those entities will have an ever-increasing ability to control/shape the factors that make up that digital life. I see individuals for the most part having less control as time passes."

John Klensin, Internet Hall of Fame member, longtime Internet Engineering Task Force and Internet Society leader, and an innovator of the Domain Name System administration, said, "I am impressed by the increasing anecdotal and research evidence of people not only using the internet to isolate themselves from others but to select the information they are exposed to in a way that confirms and strengthens their existing, predetermined views. While that behavior is certainly not new, the rapid turnaround and instant responsiveness of the internet and social media appear to be reinforcing it in ways that are ultimately undesirable, a situation that is further reinforced by the substitute of labeling and denunciations for examination and reasoning about facts."

Rosanna Guadagno, a social psychologist with expertise in social influence, persuasion, and digital communication and researcher at the Peace Innovation Lab at Stanford University, wrote, "In my professional opinion, the current trends in digital communication are alarming and may have a negative long-term impact on human social interaction. It was naive of social media companies fail to consider and prepare for the prospect that their platforms could be misused for large-scale information warfare (e.g., Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election). Furthermore, these companies have shirked their responsibility to their users by failing to protect their customers from cyberwarfare. This has not only interfered with people's perception of reality and their ability to tell fact from fiction (I've actually conducted research demonstrating that information presented on a computer screen is perceived as more persuasive than comparable printed material). This has caused a lot of disinformation to spread online and has fueled myriad divisive online interactions. In addition to these issues, there is quite a bit of evidence mounting that people are spending more and more time alone using digital communication as a proxy for face-to-face interactions and this is increasing loneliness and depression among people, particularly our young adults. These technologies should be designed to promote healthy interactions. One way to accomplish this would be to switch to more interactive options for conversation (e.g., video chat instead of text-based conversation would reduce miscommunications and remind people that there are other people with real thoughts, feelings, and emotions behind the computer screen). It remains to be seen whether any of the promises made by digital technology companies to address these issue will be implemented. As a faculty member, one issue I've also commonly noticed is how little time is spent on ethics and psychology as part of the typical software engineering course curriculum. The ethics of software development and the idea that technology should be designed to enhance people's well-being are both principles that should be stressed as part of any education in software design."

A sampling of quote excerpts tied to "digital distrust/divisiveness" from anonymous respondents:

"The dominance of algorithmic decision-making and speed and reach of digital realms have proliferated cultures of misinformation and hatred. We have not yet adjusted to this. It may take a while for the political realm to fully engage with it, and for people to demand tech companies regulate better. I am more optimistic in the long run than I am in the short term."

"People spend too much time online, often devouring fake and biased items. They grow hateful of each other rather than closer in understanding. Negative and harmful ideologies now have platforms that can reach much farther."

"There will be an increase in isolation, further dependence on technology and an increase in unearned narcissism."

Digital duress: Information overload + declines in trust and face-to-face skills + poor interface design = rises in stress, anxiety, depression, inactivity and sleeplessness

A swath of respondents argued that as digital life advances it will damage some individuals' sense of self, their understanding of others and their faith in institutions. They project that as these technologies spread, they will suck up people's time and attention and some will be overwhelmed to the point that they often operate under duress, in a near-constant state of alert.

Device use will lead to more social alienation, increased depression and less-fit people. Because it's still relatively new, its dangers are not well understood yet.
Anonymous digital strategy director

Larry Rosen, a professor emeritus of psychology at California State University, Dominguez Hills known as an international expert on technology and its impacts on well-being, wrote, "1) We continue to spend more time connecting electronically rather than face-to-face, which lacks essential cues for understanding. 2) We also continue to attempt to multitask even though it harms performance. 3) We insist on using LED-based devices close to our eyes right up to bedtime even though it negatively impacts sleep and our brain's nightly needs for synaptic rejuvenation harming our ability to retain information."

Susan Price, lead experience strategist at USAA, commented, "Mental health problems are rising and workplace productivity is falling. The tendency to engage with digital content and people not present instead of people in our immediate presence is growing, and small-screen trance has become an accepted interpersonal norm in the workplace. Culturally-induced attention-deficit behavior has already reached staggering proportions, and is still rising. The mini-serotonin payoffs we get when 'connecting' in this way are mildly, insidiously addictive and are squeezing out the more uneven, effortful, problematic real social connections we need for true productivity and intimacy."

Stowe Boyd, futurist, publisher and editor-in-chief of Work Futures, said, "Well-being and digital life seem so intertangled because of the breakdown between personal and public life ... that digital tools have amplified. One significant aspect of public life is our relationship to work. ... We need to wake up to the proximate cause of the drive for well-being, which is the trap of overwork and the forced march away from living private lives."

K.G. Schneider, dean of the university library at Sonoma State University, wrote, "Anonymized discourse, it turns out, is not a civilizing influence, nor is having one's every thought broadcast in real time the best way for us to interact as humans."

Marcus Foth, professor of urban informatics at Queensland University of Technology, wrote, "Advancement and innovation of digital technology is still predominantly driven by the goal to increase and optimise productivity rather than people's quality of life or well-being. While proponents of an elusive work-life balance may argue that you can always switch off digital technology, the reality is that [it] is not being switched off - not because it cannot, but there is now a socio-cultural expectation to be always available and responding in real-time."

Jan Schaffer, executive director at J-Lab, wrote, "Overall, people will be more harmed than helped by the way the internet is evolving. People's trust in basic institutions has been hurt, perhaps irreparably, by conflicting accounts of what is true or not, online. People's productivity at work has been hampered by the distractions of social media. People's social and emotional intelligence have been impaired by the displacement of personal interactions with online interactions. "

An anonymous digital strategy director for a major U.S. professional association wrote, "Device use will lead to more social alienation, increased depression and less-fit people. Because it's still relatively new, its dangers are not well understood yet."

An anonymous professor wrote, "While there are many positive aspects to a more digitally connected life, I find that it is very difficult to keep up with the volume of spaces where one must go. I spend too much time answering emails, communicating in digital spaces and just trying to keep up. This causes a significant amount of stress and a lack of deliberate, thoughtful approach to information sharing. One cannot keep up with personal and professional email accounts, LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and all the rest. Truly, it is just too much."

A sampling of comments about "digital duress" from anonymous respondents:

"There is too much connecting to other people's anxieties and expectations."

"We already know there are negative effects for everyone waiting for a 'like' or other similar kind of gratification."

"I worry about mental illness and increasing social isolation as a result of more time spent with technology."

"Increased digitalization is leading to more sedentary lifestyles in a society already plagued with obesity challenges. Social media use has also led to poor communication skills, even in face-to-face settings, people opt to burying their faces into the smartphone screens."

"Some people are creating and then trying to live up to fake worlds they build with their phones."

"Constant connections to electronic-information feeds causes anxiety and damage to our eyes, brains."

Digital dangers: The structure of the internet and pace of digital change invite ever-evolving threats to human interaction, security, democracy, jobs, privacy and more

A number of respondents pointed out that digital life opens the door to societal dangers that can affect individuals' well-being. They say the digital world's systems - the internet, the web, the smartphone, all networked digital hardware and software - have evolved so rapidly due to their incredible appeal and the economic and social forces driving them forward that there has been little recognition of nor a real reckoning with the wider negatives emerging with the positives.

What we are seeing now becoming reality are the risks and uncertainties that we have allowed to emerge at the fringes of innovation.
Anonymous respondent

Anthony Rutkowski, internet pioneer and business leader, said, "Clearly - as DARPA's director noted in his seminal 2000 millennium article on this topic - the past 17 years have demonstrated how the DARPA internet, which was never designed for public infrastructure use, has resulted in all kinds of adverse impacts to people's lives and even the security of society. It has amplified the most outrageous behavior and alt[ernate]-truth as the new normal. See details of my position at http://www.circleid.com/posts/20170312_the_internet_as_weapon/ (Excerpt: 'The existence of 'an open platform that enables anyone, everywhere, to share information, access opportunities and collaborate across geographic and cultural boundaries' globally is fundamentally a weapon. ... Such an infrastructure has inherent economic, operational, and political self-destructive properties that are playing out exponentially every day.')"

An anonymous longtime leader of research at one of the top five global technology companies said, "I chose my career believing that technology would improve our lives. Seeing what has happened, I've grown pessimistic. Our species has lived for millions of years in small communities - bands, tribes, extended families. We are wired to feel valued and good about ourselves through direct, repeated interactions in such groups. These tight-knit associations are disappearing as our activity moves online. Relationships are replaced by transactions. If we avoid catastrophe, in the long run natural selection will produce a new kind of human being that is adapted for the world we are creating. That individual will not be like most of us. Living through the transition will be painful."

Aram Sinnreich, an associate professor at American University's School of Communication, said, "In general, people's lives will change for the worse over the next decade because of the internet. There are several factors I am taking into account here: 1) The increasing prevalence and power of internet-based surveillance of citizenry by state and commercial actors. 2) The catalyzing power of digital technology in exacerbating the gaps between haves and have-nots. 3) The as-yet-undertheorized and unchecked role of digital disinformation in polluting the democratic process and news dissemination channels. 4) The increasingly savvy and widespread use of the internet by crime syndicates. 5) The increasing vulnerability of our social infrastructure to internet disruption and hacking. 6) The environmental consequences of the internet, recently exemplified by studies analyzing the electrical power consumption that goes into Bitcoin transaction processing. This isn't to say there aren't many benefits to the internet, or that its impact won't net positively over the longer term. But I don't see any likely benefits outweighing the threats I outlined above over the next decade."

An anonymous professor based in North America said there is a public perception of well-being - crafted by platform builders and policy (or lack of policy) - while well-being is actually being damaged. This respondent wrote, "People may very well experience an increase in subjective well-being. The techno-social world we're building is increasingly geared toward engineering happy humans. While a life of cheap bliss, of satiated will, may yield more net well-being measured in terms of subjective happiness, it would at the same time be a rather pitiful life, devoid of many of the meaningful blessings of humanity. Brett Frischmann and Evan Selinger address the questions you're asking in a 500-page book, ' Re-Engineering Humanity,' due out in April 2018. One chapter, 'To What End?' directly considers the normative values at stake and the issue of what well-being means. Other chapters explain in detail the technological path we're on and how to evaluate techno-social engineering of humans."

Bob Frankston, a technologist based in North America, said, "The internet is not a thing but rather a product of the ability to use software to program around limits. It enables the creation of systems of technologies that work in concert. But the benefits will be limited to point solutions as long as we are limited to solutions that are profitable in isolation, until we invest in common infrastructure and have open interfaces."

Jeremy Blackburn, a computing sciences professor who specializes in the study of the impacts of digital life, wrote, "1) People will continue to be manipulated via targeted (mis/dis)information (sic) from a variety of sources. 2) There will be an increase in online harassment attacks that will be mostly ignored due to their statistical weight (Google/Facebook/Twitter/etc. do not care if 0.1% of their users are attacked, even though the raw numbers are substantial). 3) There will be an increase in extremists and their ability to recruit and radicalize vulnerable individuals. 4) There will be an increase in information silos, eventually resulting in extreme polarization of information acceptance. 5) There will be decreased concern about individual impact in the face of big data and large-scale machine learning (e.g., a 1% increase in revenue due to scale is worth it, even if it means a few people here and there will suffer). This will eventually cascade to large-scale suffering due to network effects. 6) There will be an increase in the acceptance of opinion as fact due to the democratization of information. No one knows if you are a dog on the Internet, and no one cares if you are an expert."

An anonymous respondent commented, "What we are seeing now becoming reality are the risks and uncertainties that we have allowed to emerge at the fringes of innovation. One is the systemic loss of privacy, which is a precondition for deliberation and a sense of self-determination. Further, we already see how our critical infrastructures - ranging from energy supply to health systems and the internet itself - increasingly are at risk of failing us due to their openness for malicious attacks, but also due to the complexity of interrelated, networked processes. Due to the lack of traceability on the internet, there is no expectation that we will achieve accountability in such situations."

An anonymous Ph.D. in biostatistics commented, "The culture of anonymity on the Web is scary and seems to allow people to behave in ways they wouldn't otherwise (see recent news about 'swatting' in the online gaming community). Then there is the social media 'hive' that allows internet uproar to dictate what happens. There is no room for discourse, grey areas or mistakes. Lives can be ruined by the publicity of a simple mistake (and combined with people sharing home addresses this can also be dangerous)."

An anonymous professor in the United States commented, "My belief is that unless extensive regulation and user education occurs, we will see an increase in negative consequences of online activity such as violations of privacy, dissemination of misinformation, crime and displacement of jobs."

An anonymous research scientist and internet pioneer commented, "We have reaped great benefit from digital life over the past decades. My answer compares the next decade to the current situation, not to the time prior to the digital life. The negative aspects of the digital life are becoming more pronounced, and I think the next decade will be one of retrenchment and adjustment, while society sorts out how to deal with our perhaps over-optimistic construction of the digital experience."

A sampling of additional comments about "digital dangers" from anonymous respondents:

"Election results will remain unverifiable and subject to digital manipulation by political criminals. ... Terrorists will recognize more ways to destabilize economic, social, political and environmental systems."

"Security/hacking and manipulation online may cause more harm; e.g., the latest Intel bug."

"People's well-being will be hurt unless we figure out the cultural and social and political solutions - and religious and economic ones - to life online. Every medium needs to be tamed. It will take a while for digits to be domesticated."

"I fear government and private-sector security measures in 'protecting' individuals, and I fear the advancement of AI."

"The loss of privacy as data sharing and integration continues will be highly problematic. Government, industry and hackers will all benefit."

"We don't know the effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF) and radiation. It's not a mainstream idea to protect people from the negative health impacts of radiation."

"Technology's beneficial effects (improved efficiency, access to information) are increasingly being overwhelmed by its negatives - distraction, disconnection from real in favor of virtual interactions, and how anonymity unleashes ugly behaviors such as misogyny, racism and overall nastiness."

"Increasing surveillance and social control by corporations and their political representatives will reduce the standard of living and freedom for the majority of the citizens in a world of rapidly changing climate."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
3. Concerns about the future of people's well-being

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
About half of the people responding in this study were in substantial agreement that the positives of digital life will continue to outweigh the

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Artificial intelligence (AI) is often touted as the most exciting technology of our age, promising to transform our economies, lives, and capabilities. Some even see AI as making steady progress towards the development of 'intelligence machines' that will soon surpass human skills in most areas. AI has indeed made rapid advances over the last decade or so, especially owing to the application of modern statistical and machine learning techniques to huge unstructured data sets. It has already influenced almost all industries: AI algorithms are now used by all online platforms and in industries that range from manufacturing to health, finance, wholesale, and retail. Government agencies have also started relying on AI, particularly in the criminal justice system and in customs and immigration control.

In a recent paper (Acemoglu 2021), I argue that current AI technologies - especially those based on the currently dominant paradigm relying on statistical pattern recognition and big data - are more likely to generate various adverse social consequences, rather than the promised gains.

These harms can be seen in product markets and advertising, in terms of inequality, wage suppression and job destruction in labour markets, and in the broader societal effects of AI in the context of social communication, political discourse, and democracy.

AI, control of information, and product markets

In all of these cases, the main problem is not AI technologies per se but the way that leading firms, which have an overwhelming effect on the direction of AI technology, are approaching data and its use.

Take the use of machine learning and big data methods in advertising and product design. Although, in principle, these methods can benefit consumers - for instance, by improving product quality and enabling customisation - they can ultimately have various adverse effects on consumer welfare. To start with, firms that acquire more information about their customers may use this knowledge for price discrimination, potentially capturing more of the rents that would have otherwise gone to consumers. In an oligopolistic market, harvesting of consumer data can relax price competition as well. Intuitively, this can happen when price discrimination by a firm that has superior knowledge makes its core clientele less attractive to other businesses, encouraging them to raise their prices. This upward pressure on prices would, of course, further damage consumer welfare.

Other uses of these new techniques could be even more detrimental to consumers. For one, online platforms may come to control excessive amount of information about their users, because when they buy or acquire the data of some users, this also provides information about other users. This type of 'data externality' is more likely to arise when users directly reveal information about their friends and contacts, or when they are sharing information correlated with the information of others are in the same narrow demographic group. Data externalities can contribute to too much data being concentrated in the hands of companies, with adverse implications for privacy and consumer surplus (Acemoglu et al. 2021b).

Even worse, companies can use their superior information about consumer preferences to manipulate their behaviour (e.g. Zuboff 2019). Behavioural manipulation is not common in models in which consumers are fully rational. However, it is quite likely when consumers do not fully understand how much new data collection and processing methods used to track and predict their behaviour. The basic idea of such manipulation was understood by legal analysts of antitrust, such as Hanson and Kysar who observed that "once one accepts that individuals systematically behave in non-rational ways, it follows from an economic perspective that others will exploit those tendencies for gain" (1999: 630). Indeed, advertising has always involved some element of manipulation. However, the extent of such manipulation may have become amplified by AI tools. There are already several examples of AI-based manipulation. These include the chain store Target successfully forecasting whether women are pregnant and sending them hidden ads for baby products, or various companies estimating 'prime vulnerability moments' and advertising for products that tend to be purchased impulsively during such moments. They may also include platforms such as YouTube and Facebook using their algorithms to estimate and favour more addictive videos or news feeds to specific groups of users.

AI and labour market inequality

The effects of AI-based technologies in the context of the labour market may be even more pernicious. Labour market inequality has increased in the US and several other advanced economies, and much evidence suggests that this is caused in part by rapid adoption and deployment of automation technologies that displace low and middle-skill workers from the tasks they used to perform (Acemoglu and Restrepo 2021). Such automation and its adverse inequality consequences predate AI. Nevertheless, Acemoglu et al. (2021a) find that the acceleration of AI in the US since 2016 has targeted automation and has had similar effects to other automation technologies. AI and extensive use of data are likely to multiply automation possibilities, and thus can exacerbate the inequality trends the US and other advanced economies have experienced over the last several decades.

In principle, automation can be efficiency-enhancing. However, there are also reasons to expect that it can take place inefficiently. An important reason for this is the presence of labour market imperfections, which increase the cost of labour to firms above its social opportunity cost. Under this scenario, firms will automate in order to shift rents away from workers to themselves, even when such automation reduces social surplus.

Other uses of AI can have even more powerfully negative consequences. These include the use of AI and workplace data in order to intensify worker monitoring. Once again, when there are worker rents (either because of bargaining or efficiency wage considerations), greater monitoring can be beneficial for firms in order to claw these rents back from the workers. But with the same reasoning, such rent-shifting is socially inefficient and excessive - at the margin, it is a costly activity that does not contribute to social surplus but transfers it from one set of agents to another.

AI, social discourse, and democracy

AI-based automation can have other negative effects as well. Although it is not likely to lead to mass unemployment anytime soon (and disemployment effects from other automation technologies have so far been modest), worker displacement has various socially disruptive effects. Citizens with lower attachments to jobs may participate less in civic activities and politics (Sandel 2020). Even more importantly, automation shifts the balance of power away from labour towards capital, and this can have far-ranging implications on the functioning of democratic institutions. Put differently, to the extent that democratic politics depends on different labour and capital having countervailing powers against each other, automation may damage democracy by making labour dispensable in the production process.

AI's effects on democracy are not confined to its impact by automation. One of the domains that has been most radically transformed by AI so far is communication and news consumption, especially via the products and services offered by various social media platforms. The use of AI and harvesting of user data have already changed social discourse, and existing evidence is that they have contributed to polarisation and diminished the shared understanding of facts and priorities that is critical for democratic politics (e.g. Levy 2021). As Cass Sunstein anticipated 20 years ago, "fragmentation and extremism... are predictable outcomes of any situation which like-minded people speak only with themselves". He stressed that "without shared experiences, a heterogeneous society will have a much more difficult time in addressing social problems" (Sunstein 2001: 9). Indeed, AI-powered social media appears to have contributed both to this type of fragmentation and extremism on the one hand, and the spread of misinformation on the other (e.g. Vosoughi et al. 2018).

A problem of direction of technology

The tone of this essay so far may create the impression that AI is bound to have disastrous social consequences, and that I am staunchly against this technology. Neither is true. AI is a promising technological platform. The problem lies with the current direction in which this technology is being developed and used: to empower corporations (and sometimes governments) at the expense of workers and consumers. This current approach is a consequence of the business practices and priorities of the corporations controlling AI, and in the incentives that this creates for AI researchers.

Take social media. A major reason for the problems I emphasised is that platforms are trying to maximise engagement by ensuring that users are 'hooked'. This objective is rooted in their business model, which is centred on monetising data and consumer traffic by advertising. It is further enabled by the fact that they are unregulated.

The same is true when it comes to the negative effects of automation. AI can be used for increasing human productivity and for generating new tasks for workers (Acemoglu and Restrepo 2018). The fact that it has been used predominantly for automation is a choice. This choice of the direction of technology is driven by leading tech companies' priorities and business models centred on algorithmic automation.

The more general point is that the current path of AI empowers corporations at the expense of workers and citizens, and often also provides additional tools for control to governments for surveillance and sometimes even repression (such as new censorship methods and facial recognition software).

Conclusion: The need for regulation

This reasoning leads to a simple conclusion: the current problems of AI are problems of unregulated AI, which ignores its broader societal and distributional consequences. In fact, it would be naïve to expect that unregulated markets would make the right trade-offs between societal ills and profits from monopolisation of data.

This perspective also suggests that the problem is not just one of monopoly power. If there were more than a few large tech companies, there is no guarantee that they would have different business models and different approaches to AI. Hence, anti-trust is not the most potent, and certainly not a sufficient, tool for dealing with the potential harms of AI. Instead, policy should focus on redirecting technological change away from automation and harvesting of data to empower corporations and towards those that create new capabilities and opportunities for workers and citizens. It should also prioritise the systematic regulation of collection and harvesting of data and use of new AI techniques for manipulating user behaviour and online communication and information exchange.

Given the pervasive nature of AI and data, I would also suggest a new regulatory approach, which can be termed a ' precautionary regulatory principle ': ex-ante regulation should slow down the use of AI technologies, especially in domains where redressing the costs of AI become politically and socially more difficult after large-scale implementation.

AI technologies impacting political discourse and democratic politics may be prime candidates for the application of such a precautionary regulatory principle. To the extent that (excessive) automation and its social consequences would also be hard to reverse, so is the use of AI for automation and labour market monitoring.

References

Acemoglu, D (2021), "Harms of AI", Oxford Handbook of AI Governance, forthcoming.

Acemoglu, D and P Restrepo (2018), "The Race Between Man and Machine: Implications of Technology for Growth, Factor Shares and Employment", American Economic Review 108(6): 1488--1542.

Acemoglu, D and P Restrepo (2019), "Automation and New Tasks: How Technology Changes Labor Demand", Journal of Economic Perspectives 33(2): 3--30.

Acemoglu, D and P Restrepo (2021), "Tasks, Automation and the Rise in US Wage Inequality", NBER Working Paper No. 28920.

Acemoglu, D, D H Autor, J Hazell and P Restrepo (2021a), "AI and Jobs: Evidence from Online Vacancies", NBER Working Paper No. 28257, forthcoming Journal of Labor Economics.

Acemoglu, D, A Makhdoumi, A Malekian and A Ozdaglar (2021b), "Too Much Data: Prices and Inefficiencies in Data Markets", American Economic Journal: Micro, forthcoming.

Hanson, J D and D A Kysar (1999), "Taking Behavioralism Seriously: Some Evidence of Market Manipulation", New York University Law Review 74: 630.

Levy, R (2021), "Social Media, News Consumption, and Polarization: Evidence from a Field Experiment", American Economic Review 111(3): 831-870.

Sandel, M J (2020), The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good?, New York, NY: Penguin Press.

Sunstein, C (2001), Republic.com, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Vosoughi, S, D Roy and S Aral (2018), "The Spread of True and False News Online", Science 359: 1146--1151.

Zuboff, S (2019), The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power, London, UK: Profile Books.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dangers of unregulated artificial intelligence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Over the last decade, artificial intelligence has made great advances and influenced almost all industries. This column argues that the current AI technologies are more likely to generate various adverse social consequences, rather than the promised gains.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
About half of the people responding in this study were in substantial agreement that the positives of digital life will continue to outweigh the negatives. However, as in all great technological revolutions, digital life has and will continue to have a dark side.

Roughly a third of respondents predicted that harms to well-being will outweigh the positives overall in the next decade. In addition, even among those who said they are hopeful that digital life will be more helpful than harmful and among those who said there will not be much change, there were many who also expressed deep concerns about people's well-being in the future. All of these voices are represented in this section of the report.

The technologies that 50 years ago we could only dream of in science fiction novels, which we then actually created with so much faith and hope in their power to unite us and make us freer, have been co-opted into tools of surveillance, behavioral manipulation, radicalization and addiction.
Anonymous research scientist
and professor

Rob Reich, professor of political science at Stanford University, said, "If the baseline for making a projection about the next today is the current level of benefit/harm of digital life, then I am willing to express a confident judgment that the next decade will bring a net harm to people's well-being. The massive and undeniable benefits of digital life - access to knowledge and culture - have been mostly realized. The harms have begun to come into view just over the past few years, and the trend line is moving consistently in a negative direction. I am mainly worried about corporate and governmental power to surveil users (attendant loss of privacy and security), about the degraded public sphere and its new corporate owners that care not much for sustaining democratic governance. And then there are the worries about AI [artificial intelligence] and the technological displacement of labor. And finally, the addictive technologies that have captured the attention and mindspace of the youngest generation. All in all, digital life is now threatening our psychological, economic and political well-being."

Rich Salz, principal engineer at Akamai Technologies, commented, "We have already seen some negative effects, including more isolation, less ability to focus, more ability to be deceived by bad actors (fake news) and so on. I do not see those lessening. Sadly."

Leora Lawton, lecturer in demography and sociology and executive director of the Berkeley Population Center at the University of California, Berkeley, shared these reasons digital life is likely to be mostly harmful: "The long-term effects of children growing up with screen time are not well understood but early signs are not encouraging: poor attention spans, anxiety, depression and lack of in-person social connections are some of the correlations already seen, as well as the small number of teens who become addicts and non-functioning adults."

David Ellis, Ph.D., course director of the department of communication studies at York University in Toronto, said, "Much like a mutating virus, digital services and devices keep churning out new threats along with the new benefits - making mitigation efforts a daunting and open-ended challenge for everyone. Over the next decade, the majority of North Americans will experience harms of many different kinds thanks to the widespread adoption and use of digital technologies. The last year alone has seen an outpouring of commentary, including some 20 trade books, arguing that our digital habits are harming individual welfare and tearing up the social fabric. In marketing its services, Silicon Valley is committed to the relentless promotion of convenience and connectedness. Its success in doing so has wreaked havoc on personal privacy, online security, social skills and the ability to focus attention, not least in college classrooms. While they may be victims of a kind, most consumers are simply in denial about their compulsive use of smartphones and social media, as well as other services designed by their developers to be addictive - a problem that persists even when legal sanctions are in play, as with texting while driving. There's growing evidence these digital addictions are promoting depression, loneliness, video-gaming abuse and even suicidal behavior, especially among teens and young adults. Instead of feeling obliged to moderate their level of connectivity, however, consumers have come to feel a sense of entitlement about their habits, unconstrained by social mores that previously framed these habits as inappropriate. Indeed, heavy use of digital devices is widely encouraged because of the misguided idea that so-called multitasking makes us more productive."

An anonymous research scientist and professor said, "The grand internet experiment is slowly derailing. The technologies that 50 years ago we could only dream of in science fiction novels, which we then actually created with so much faith and hope in their power to unite us and make us freer, have been co-opted into tools of surveillance, behavioral manipulation, radicalization and addiction."

The next few sections share primary concerns expressed by respondents, grouped under commonly expressed themes: digital deficits; digital addiction; digital distrust/divisiveness; digital duress; and digital dangers.

Digital deficits: People's cognitive capabilities will be challenged in multiple ways, including their capacity for analytical thinking, memory, focus, creativity, reflection and mental resilience

A number of respondents said people's cognitive capabilities seem to be undergoing changes detrimental to human performance. Because these deficits are found most commonly among those who live a highly digital life, they are being attributed to near-constant connectivity online.

Steven Polunsky, a research scientist at Texas A&M University, wrote, "One way to describe how we behave is the OODA cycle - when something happens, we Observe it, Orient it to our personal context, Decide what to do and Act on that decision. The internet is easily weaponized to short-circuit that process, so we receive minimal information and are urged to act immediately on it. Unless behavior changes and adapts, this tendency will lead to greater dissatisfaction among internet users and those affected by their actions, which may be a wide audience."

Nikki Graves, an associate professor at Emory University's Goizueta Business School, said, "We currently live in a culture that fosters attention-deficit disorder because of hyperconnectivity. I have been teaching at the college level since 1993, and I can see a definitive decline in students' ability to focus on details and in general. Additionally, I believe that the research on the relationship between hyperconnectivity and this has merit."

We currently live in a culture that fosters attention-deficit disorder because of hyperconnectivity.
Nikki Graves

Meg Mott, a professor of politics at Marlboro College, said, "The internet is harming well-being. My answer has to do with the disturbing trend amongst college students, who operate as if all questions should be answered online. The devices make it so easy to find answers elsewhere that students forget to ask deep questions of themselves. This lack of uninterrupted introspection creates a very human problem: the anxiety of not knowing oneself. The more the culture equates knowledge with data and social life with social media, the less time is spent on the path of wisdom, a path that always requires a good quotient of self-awareness. This becomes evident in classes where a portion of the grade is derived by open-ended writing assignments. In order to write a compelling essay, the author needs to know that the process of crafting a question is more interesting than the retrieval of any answer. Instead, the anxiety is attached to getting the 'right' piece of data. I am of the mind that a lot of the anxiety we see in college students is the agony of not having a clue about who they are. This hypothesis is now supported by Jean Twenge's research on the impact of smartphones on the Millennial and post-Millennial generations."

An anonymous director of one of the world's foremost digital rights organization said, "I'm concerned that the pace of technology creation is faster than the pace of our understanding, or our development of critical thinking. Consider, for a moment, the latest buzzword: blockchain. Yesterday, I heard about a blockchain app designed for consent in sexual interactions - designed, of course, by men in Silicon Valley. If it sounds ridiculous, that's because it is. We've reached a phase in which men (always men) believe that technology can solve all of our social problems. Nevermind the fact that a blockchain is a permanent ledger (and thus incontestable, even though sexual abuse can occur after consent is given) or that blockchain applications aren't designed for privacy (imagine the outing of a sexual partner that could occur in this instance). This is merely one example, but I worry that we're headed toward a world in which techno-solutionism reigns, 'value' has lost all its meaning, and we're no longer taught critical-thinking skills."

An anonymous president of a U.S.-based nonprofit commented, "Increasingly social media is continuing to reduce people's real communication skills and working knowledge. Major industries - energy, religion, environment, etc., are rotting from lack of new leadership. The level of those with aliteracy - people who can read but choose not to do so - is increasing in percentage. The issues we face are complex and intertwined, obfuscated further by lazy bloated media and readers and huge established industry desperate to remain in power as cheaply, easily, safely and profitably as possible - of course! Those of us who still read actual books that require thinking rather than mere entertainment, must redouble our efforts to explain the complex phenomena we are in the midst of addressing in simple terms that can encourage, stimulate, motivate."

Some respondents also more indirectly noted that individuals' anxiety over online political divisiveness, security and privacy issues, bullying/trolling, their loss of independent agency due to lack of control over what they are served by platform providers, and other psychosocial stress are contributing factors in this cognitive change.

An anonymous professor wrote, "As life becomes more and more monitored, what was previously private space will become public, causing more stress in people's lives. Furthermore, some of these technologies will operate without a person's knowledge or consent. People cannot opt out, advocate for themselves, or fix errors about themselves in proprietary algorithms."

A sampling of additional comments about "digital deficits" from anonymous respondents:

"We have less focus - too much multitasking - and not enough real connection."

"The downside is too much information and the lack of ability to manage it."

"Attention spans have certainly been decreasing recently because people are inundated with information today."

"There is increasing isolation from human interaction and increased Balkanization of knowledge and understanding."

"Over 50% of U.S. children over 10 now have some sort of social network-based application, whether it be Instagram, Snapchat or Minecraft. These children are always looking for what they may be missing online. They are increasingly finding it hard to be present and focused."

"The writing skills of students have been in constant decline, as they opt for abbreviations and symbols rather than appropriately structured sentences."

"Digital users who have not lived without technology will not know how to cope with utilizing resources outside of solely tech. With users relying on devices for companionship, we will no longer see people's faces, only the blue or white screens reflecting from this effervescent gaze."

Digital addiction: Internet businesses are organized around dopamine-dosing tools designed to hook the public

Some of the most-concerned respondents pointed to the monetization of attention - the foundation of the internet economy - as the driving force behind many wellness issues.

Douglas Rushkoff, writer, documentarian, and professor of media at City University of New York, said, "The real reason why digital technology will continue to compromise human cognition and well-being is that the companies dominating the space (Facebook, Google, Amazon) are run by people with no knowledge of human society or history. By leaving college at an early age, or running companies immediately after graduating, they fell under the spell of venture capitalists who push growth of capital over all other values. So the platforms will necessarily compromise humanity, democracy and other essential values. The larger the companies grow, the more desperate and extractive they will have to become to grow still further."

Unfortunately, major social media corporations have discovered that anger and insecurity keep people glued to their screens. As long as profit is more important than people, digital life will only grow more destructive.
Kate Thomas

Michael Kleeman, senior fellow at the University of California, San Diego and board member at the Institute for the Future, wrote, "The early promise of the Net has been realized, but the financial incentives to use it for harmful purposes, including legal and illegal ones, have proven too attractive. 'Digital Life' will continue to erode personal interactions, reduce the diversity of ideas and conversation and contribute to negative health impacts. Other than the use of data analytics we have virtually no proof that wearables, etc., alter health trajectories. We do have evidence of a radical reduction in privacy, increase in criminal activity (as digital means reduce the cost of major financial and personal crimes), reduction of engagement with and caring for the environment as a result of increased interaction with online and digital devices."

Kate Thomas, a writer/editor based in North America, wrote, "Unfortunately, major social media corporations have discovered that anger and insecurity keep people glued to their screens. As long as profit is more important than people, digital life will only grow more destructive."

An anonymous professor at one of the world's leading technological universities who is well-known for several decades of research into human-computer interaction wrote, "Deterioration in privacy; slicing and dicing of identity for sale; identification of individuals as targets for political messaging. I don't see the institutions growing that will bring this under control. I don't see corporations taking sufficient responsibility for these issues."

Sam Punnett, president of FAD Research Inc., said, "Distraction is our most prevalent commodity, paid for with attention span. The society-wide effects of 'continuous partial attention' and the tracking, analysis and corruption of the use of data trails are only beginning to be realized."

Many respondents to this canvassing wrote about their concern that online products are designed to tap into people's pleasure centers and create a dependence leading to addiction.

Richard Bennett, a creator of the WiFi MAC protocol and modern Ethernet, commented, "Highly-connected nations such as South Korea have had to develop treatment programs for internet addiction. Gamers in particular are subject to this malady, and Korea's broadband networks make gaming very attractive to socially isolated teens."

Vicki Davis, an IT director, teacher and podcaster based in North America, said, "Un-savvy consumers don't realize the addictive nature of the dopamine hits they are getting through the social media sites they use. In an attempt to keep a Snapchat streak going or to perform for the illusion of a growing audience, this generation could easily live a life one inch deep and a mile wide instead of a deeper life with deeper relationships and deeper productivity. The future of society depends upon our ability to educate people who are willing to get out of the zone on their phone and live life in the real world. ... Many students I work with seem to show some sort of withdrawal symptoms after just a few hours away from Snapchat or Instagram. The greatest innovations often happen with uninterrupted thought. This interruption generation must learn how to turn off their notifications and find satisfaction in solving problems that aren't solved in a snap but take years of dedication. Without tenacity, self-control and some modicum of intelligence about the agenda of social media, the interruption generation will miss out on the greatness that could be theirs."

Robert Stratton, cybersecurity entrepreneur, coach and investor, wrote, "While there may be beneficial uses for this technology ... we cannot ignore the question of what happens when addictive technologies are coupled with very plausible but erroneous content, particularly when generated by skilled actors with specific goals. Additionally, there are decentralized, distributed-actor groups with information operations capabilities that I will assert now rival those of nation-states. Things are not what they seem. We now live in an environment where digital audio and video can be generated with modest skill to produce video that is functionally indistinguishable from photography while being essentially wholly specious. Most internet users and virtually all of the news media seem to operating on two errant assumptions: 1) People mean what they write on the internet. 2) People are witting of their roles in events that occur due to their actions. I would respectfully assert that anyone with a basic knowledge of intelligence tradecraft would agree that these are naïve in the modern environment. Additionally, there are now generalized programming APIs that provide the ability to make essentially ANY application or website habituating for its users."

An anonymous respondent predicted this scenario as a continuation of today's trends into the next decade: "More and more will seem possible in all aspects of life. People may perceive that their lives are better, but it will be the experience of the lobster in the slowly boiling pot. Digital life will take people's privacy and influence their opinions. People will be fed news and targeted information that they will believe since they will not access the information needed to make up their own minds. Out of convenience, people will accept limitations of privacy and narrowed information resources. Countries or political entities will be the influencers of certain groups of people. People will be become more divided, more paranoid as they eventually understand that they have no privacy and need to be careful of what they say, even in their own homes. Some people will break free but at the loss of everything they had worked for. The digital divide will become worse, and many will be unable to pay for all the conveniences. To ensure simpler access and control, some political entities may try to make it available to everyone but at a cost of even more privacy. Convenience will be chosen over freedom. Perhaps."

The massive change in people's news-finding habits instigated by the rapid adoptions of the smartphone and social media was cited by some as the reason for the destruction of accurate, objective journalism, a foundation of democracy. An anonymous respondent commented, "The addictive nature of social media means the dis-benefits could be profound. Watch a young mother utterly engrossed in her phone and ignoring her small children and you will know what I mean. Humans need real-time, real-life interaction not just social interaction, yet the pull of the phone is overwhelming. More broadly, the platform companies are already destroying the business models of legacy media, and as that continues civic journalism will become thinner, poorer and possibly obsolete. Journalism won't disappear. It will simply drift back to propaganda."

A sampling of additional comments related to "digital addiction" from anonymous respondents:

"Engaging apps and digital experiences are much like addictive substances such as alcohol, tobacco and even sweet foods and sex and there has been little progress in creating a 'healthy' consumption model for digital experiences."

"Kids and adults alike are prone to go for the quick fix, the easy high or pleasant feeling, but not well armed to understand its impact on their health."

"People's well-being will continue to be affected by the internet because the software, hardware and structures that are already in place are built to do exactly this."

"As social networking becomes 'professional grooming' as well as providing family/friend updates, the need for multiple platforms (such as LinkedIn and Facebook/Instagram) becomes an assumed need. The amount of time it takes for workers to manage tedious online interactions will lead to an increasing lack of work/life balance."

"Behavioral and psychological impacts of digital life will continue to be discovered and will confirm negative trends."

"Digital communications and the time they take away from personal interactions are contributing to growing social isolation and eroding interpersonal relationships. This affects individuals' mental well-being. People everywhere - walking, in their cars, in meetings, etc. - are glued to their cell phones."

"Unless we are more aware/careful/media literate, there are a lot of 'analogue' behaviours we will jettison that are actually more efficient, positive and valuable."

"When human beings are constantly reminding themselves about a selfish bubble they've lost touch with the truth."

"I fear ... social media having us surround ourselves with people who think like we do, entrenching divisions among people."

"Engagement in social media takes a lot of time for the individual and gives back small and decreasing jolts of satisfaction for a substantial cost in time."

"There is a reason the iPhone was initially called a 'crack-phone.' Spending time on websites and apps is a very seductive way to avoid and/or ignore painful and difficult situations. I've seen very young children ignored while their caregiver texts, plays games, or surf the Net and can't help but wonder how this neglect is affecting them. Will these children learn to parent their children in a better way or will they do the same thing?"

Digital distrust/divisiveness: Personal agency will be reduced and emotions such as shock, fear, indignation and outrage will be further weaponized online, driving divisions and doubts

Among the most-expressed fears for well-being in the next decade were those having to do with issues of social isolation, societal distrust and identity and human agency.

Fay Niker, postdoctoral fellow at Stanford University's Center for Ethics in Society, wrote, "Understanding well-being in terms of human flourishing - which includes among other things the exercise of autonomous agency and the quality of human relationships - it seems to clear to me that the ongoing structuring of our lives by digital technologies will only continue to harm human well-being. This is a psychological claim, as well as a moral one. Unless we are able to regulate our digital environments politically and personally, it is likely that our mental and moral health will be harmed by the agency-undermining, disempowering, individuality-threatening and exploitative effects of the late-capitalistic system marked by the attention-extracting global digital communication firms."

People spend too much time online, often devouring fake and biased items. They grow hateful of each other rather than closer in understanding.
Anonymous respondent

Evan Selinger, a professor of philosophy at Rochester Institute of Technology, wrote, "The repeal of the Obama administration's 2015 rules for Net neutrality is a devastating blow. ... Net neutrality is fundamentally about social control. Thanks to the [Ajit] Pai regime at the FCC, Internet Service Providers have more power than they deserve to micromanage how we conduct our online social, political, educational and economic lives. While Net neutrality advocates have identified several disheartening outcomes to be on our guard for, the projected parade-of-horribles only scratches the surface. If we can't get the information superhighway right, it's a bad omen for the future where we'll need to govern a mature Internet of Things. Second, although analysis of the last U.S. presidential election is shining a spotlight on the problem of botified communication, the focus on internet propaganda obscures the more basic, habit-forming ways that we're being techno-socially engineered to outsource more and more of our communication - and thus ourselves - to software. Third, despite increased awareness of the value of being able to spend time offline, practical constraints continue make the freedom to unplug ever-harder to achieve."

Adam Popescu, a freelance journalist who has written for The New York Times, Bloomberg and other publications wrote, "You see it everywhere. People with their heads down, more comfortable engaging with a miniature world-in-a-box than with the people around them. And you see it while they're behind the wheel driving, while working and performing dangerous and focus-intensive tasks. Forget emotional happiness and the loss of focus and deep thought and the fact that we're now more comfortable to choose who we sleep with based on an algorithm than we are based on serendipity, intuition, chance, and the potential for rejection by walking up to someone and saying 'Hi, my name is ...' The biggest issue with our addiction to smartphones, one none of us talk about openly yet all engage in, is the threat to health and safety. Sure, no one says 'hi' anymore when they're passing by, no one takes a moment to be friendly or reach out, even with just our eyes, because our eyes are no longer at eye-level, they're down, hiding in our screens. Social media over the past year has been revealed for the ugly wolf-in-sheep's clothing it is, a monster once draped in the skin of liberty. We see it for what it is. When will we see that it's not just the programs and toys and apps and sites on our screens that are the problem - but our screens themselves?"

Judith Donath, author of "The Social Machine, Designs for Living Online," also predicted, "We will see a big increase in the ability of technologies to affect our sense of well-being. The ability to both monitor and manipulate individuals is rapidly increasing. Over the past decade, technologies to track our online behavior were perfected; the next decade will see massively increased surveillance of our off-line behavior. It's already commonplace for our physical location, heart rate, etc., to be tracked; voice input provides data not only about what we're saying, but also the affective component of our speech; virtual assistants learn our household habits. The combination of these technologies makes it possible for observers (Amazon, government, Facebook, etc.) to know what we are doing, what is happening around us, and how we react to it all. At the same time, increasingly sophisticated technology for emotion and response manipulation is being developed. This includes devices such as Alexa and other virtual assistants designed to be seen as friends and confidants. Alexa is an Amazon interface - owned and controlled by a giant retailer: she's designed, ultimately, to encourage you to shop, not to enhance your sense of well-being."

A number of these experts wrote about their concerns that technology's evolution would make people suffer a "loss of agency" and control over their world.

Dewayne Hendricks, CEO of Tetherless Access, said, "It is important to consider just how much of digital life is provided/controlled by cyber monopolies. Those entities will have an ever-increasing ability to control/shape the factors that make up that digital life. I see individuals for the most part having less control as time passes."

John Klensin, Internet Hall of Fame member, longtime Internet Engineering Task Force and Internet Society leader, and an innovator of the Domain Name System administration, said, "I am impressed by the increasing anecdotal and research evidence of people not only using the internet to isolate themselves from others but to select the information they are exposed to in a way that confirms and strengthens their existing, predetermined views. While that behavior is certainly not new, the rapid turnaround and instant responsiveness of the internet and social media appear to be reinforcing it in ways that are ultimately undesirable, a situation that is further reinforced by the substitute of labeling and denunciations for examination and reasoning about facts."

Rosanna Guadagno, a social psychologist with expertise in social influence, persuasion, and digital communication and researcher at the Peace Innovation Lab at Stanford University, wrote, "In my professional opinion, the current trends in digital communication are alarming and may have a negative long-term impact on human social interaction. It was naive of social media companies fail to consider and prepare for the prospect that their platforms could be misused for large-scale information warfare (e.g., Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election). Furthermore, these companies have shirked their responsibility to their users by failing to protect their customers from cyberwarfare. This has not only interfered with people's perception of reality and their ability to tell fact from fiction (I've actually conducted research demonstrating that information presented on a computer screen is perceived as more persuasive than comparable printed material). This has caused a lot of disinformation to spread online and has fueled myriad divisive online interactions. In addition to these issues, there is quite a bit of evidence mounting that people are spending more and more time alone using digital communication as a proxy for face-to-face interactions and this is increasing loneliness and depression among people, particularly our young adults. These technologies should be designed to promote healthy interactions. One way to accomplish this would be to switch to more interactive options for conversation (e.g., video chat instead of text-based conversation would reduce miscommunications and remind people that there are other people with real thoughts, feelings, and emotions behind the computer screen). It remains to be seen whether any of the promises made by digital technology companies to address these issue will be implemented. As a faculty member, one issue I've also commonly noticed is how little time is spent on ethics and psychology as part of the typical software engineering course curriculum. The ethics of software development and the idea that technology should be designed to enhance people's well-being are both principles that should be stressed as part of any education in software design."

A sampling of quote excerpts tied to "digital distrust/divisiveness" from anonymous respondents:

"The dominance of algorithmic decision-making and speed and reach of digital realms have proliferated cultures of misinformation and hatred. We have not yet adjusted to this. It may take a while for the political realm to fully engage with it, and for people to demand tech companies regulate better. I am more optimistic in the long run than I am in the short term."

"People spend too much time online, often devouring fake and biased items. They grow hateful of each other rather than closer in understanding. Negative and harmful ideologies now have platforms that can reach much farther."

"There will be an increase in isolation, further dependence on technology and an increase in unearned narcissism."

Digital duress: Information overload + declines in trust and face-to-face skills + poor interface design = rises in stress, anxiety, depression, inactivity and sleeplessness

A swath of respondents argued that as digital life advances it will damage some individuals' sense of self, their understanding of others and their faith in institutions. They project that as these technologies spread, they will suck up people's time and attention and some will be overwhelmed to the point that they often operate under duress, in a near-constant state of alert.

Device use will lead to more social alienation, increased depression and less-fit people. Because it's still relatively new, its dangers are not well understood yet.
Anonymous digital strategy director

Larry Rosen, a professor emeritus of psychology at California State University, Dominguez Hills known as an international expert on technology and its impacts on well-being, wrote, "1) We continue to spend more time connecting electronically rather than face-to-face, which lacks essential cues for understanding. 2) We also continue to attempt to multitask even though it harms performance. 3) We insist on using LED-based devices close to our eyes right up to bedtime even though it negatively impacts sleep and our brain's nightly needs for synaptic rejuvenation harming our ability to retain information."

Susan Price, lead experience strategist at USAA, commented, "Mental health problems are rising and workplace productivity is falling. The tendency to engage with digital content and people not present instead of people in our immediate presence is growing, and small-screen trance has become an accepted interpersonal norm in the workplace. Culturally-induced attention-deficit behavior has already reached staggering proportions, and is still rising. The mini-serotonin payoffs we get when 'connecting' in this way are mildly, insidiously addictive and are squeezing out the more uneven, effortful, problematic real social connections we need for true productivity and intimacy."

Stowe Boyd, futurist, publisher and editor-in-chief of Work Futures, said, "Well-being and digital life seem so intertangled because of the breakdown between personal and public life ... that digital tools have amplified. One significant aspect of public life is our relationship to work. ... We need to wake up to the proximate cause of the drive for well-being, which is the trap of overwork and the forced march away from living private lives."

K.G. Schneider, dean of the university library at Sonoma State University, wrote, "Anonymized discourse, it turns out, is not a civilizing influence, nor is having one's every thought broadcast in real time the best way for us to interact as humans."

Marcus Foth, professor of urban informatics at Queensland University of Technology, wrote, "Advancement and innovation of digital technology is still predominantly driven by the goal to increase and optimise productivity rather than people's quality of life or well-being. While proponents of an elusive work-life balance may argue that you can always switch off digital technology, the reality is that [it] is not being switched off - not because it cannot, but there is now a socio-cultural expectation to be always available and responding in real-time."

Jan Schaffer, executive director at J-Lab, wrote, "Overall, people will be more harmed than helped by the way the internet is evolving. People's trust in basic institutions has been hurt, perhaps irreparably, by conflicting accounts of what is true or not, online. People's productivity at work has been hampered by the distractions of social media. People's social and emotional intelligence have been impaired by the displacement of personal interactions with online interactions. "

An anonymous digital strategy director for a major U.S. professional association wrote, "Device use will lead to more social alienation, increased depression and less-fit people. Because it's still relatively new, its dangers are not well understood yet."

An anonymous professor wrote, "While there are many positive aspects to a more digitally connected life, I find that it is very difficult to keep up with the volume of spaces where one must go. I spend too much time answering emails, communicating in digital spaces and just trying to keep up. This causes a significant amount of stress and a lack of deliberate, thoughtful approach to information sharing. One cannot keep up with personal and professional email accounts, LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and all the rest. Truly, it is just too much."

A sampling of comments about "digital duress" from anonymous respondents:

"There is too much connecting to other people's anxieties and expectations."

"We already know there are negative effects for everyone waiting for a 'like' or other similar kind of gratification."

"I worry about mental illness and increasing social isolation as a result of more time spent with technology."

"Increased digitalization is leading to more sedentary lifestyles in a society already plagued with obesity challenges. Social media use has also led to poor communication skills, even in face-to-face settings, people opt to burying their faces into the smartphone screens."

"Some people are creating and then trying to live up to fake worlds they build with their phones."

"Constant connections to electronic-information feeds causes anxiety and damage to our eyes, brains."

Digital dangers: The structure of the internet and pace of digital change invite ever-evolving threats to human interaction, security, democracy, jobs, privacy and more

A number of respondents pointed out that digital life opens the door to societal dangers that can affect individuals' well-being. They say the digital world's systems - the internet, the web, the smartphone, all networked digital hardware and software - have evolved so rapidly due to their incredible appeal and the economic and social forces driving them forward that there has been little recognition of nor a real reckoning with the wider negatives emerging with the positives.

What we are seeing now becoming reality are the risks and uncertainties that we have allowed to emerge at the fringes of innovation.
Anonymous respondent

Anthony Rutkowski, internet pioneer and business leader, said, "Clearly - as DARPA's director noted in his seminal 2000 millennium article on this topic - the past 17 years have demonstrated how the DARPA internet, which was never designed for public infrastructure use, has resulted in all kinds of adverse impacts to people's lives and even the security of society. It has amplified the most outrageous behavior and alt[ernate]-truth as the new normal. See details of my position at http://www.circleid.com/posts/20170312_the_internet_as_weapon/ (Excerpt: 'The existence of 'an open platform that enables anyone, everywhere, to share information, access opportunities and collaborate across geographic and cultural boundaries' globally is fundamentally a weapon. ... Such an infrastructure has inherent economic, operational, and political self-destructive properties that are playing out exponentially every day.')"

An anonymous longtime leader of research at one of the top five global technology companies said, "I chose my career believing that technology would improve our lives. Seeing what has happened, I've grown pessimistic. Our species has lived for millions of years in small communities - bands, tribes, extended families. We are wired to feel valued and good about ourselves through direct, repeated interactions in such groups. These tight-knit associations are disappearing as our activity moves online. Relationships are replaced by transactions. If we avoid catastrophe, in the long run natural selection will produce a new kind of human being that is adapted for the world we are creating. That individual will not be like most of us. Living through the transition will be painful."

Aram Sinnreich, an associate professor at American University's School of Communication, said, "In general, people's lives will change for the worse over the next decade because of the internet. There are several factors I am taking into account here: 1) The increasing prevalence and power of internet-based surveillance of citizenry by state and commercial actors. 2) The catalyzing power of digital technology in exacerbating the gaps between haves and have-nots. 3) The as-yet-undertheorized and unchecked role of digital disinformation in polluting the democratic process and news dissemination channels. 4) The increasingly savvy and widespread use of the internet by crime syndicates. 5) The increasing vulnerability of our social infrastructure to internet disruption and hacking. 6) The environmental consequences of the internet, recently exemplified by studies analyzing the electrical power consumption that goes into Bitcoin transaction processing. This isn't to say there aren't many benefits to the internet, or that its impact won't net positively over the longer term. But I don't see any likely benefits outweighing the threats I outlined above over the next decade."

An anonymous professor based in North America said there is a public perception of well-being - crafted by platform builders and policy (or lack of policy) - while well-being is actually being damaged. This respondent wrote, "People may very well experience an increase in subjective well-being. The techno-social world we're building is increasingly geared toward engineering happy humans. While a life of cheap bliss, of satiated will, may yield more net well-being measured in terms of subjective happiness, it would at the same time be a rather pitiful life, devoid of many of the meaningful blessings of humanity. Brett Frischmann and Evan Selinger address the questions you're asking in a 500-page book, ' Re-Engineering Humanity,' due out in April 2018. One chapter, 'To What End?' directly considers the normative values at stake and the issue of what well-being means. Other chapters explain in detail the technological path we're on and how to evaluate techno-social engineering of humans."

Bob Frankston, a technologist based in North America, said, "The internet is not a thing but rather a product of the ability to use software to program around limits. It enables the creation of systems of technologies that work in concert. But the benefits will be limited to point solutions as long as we are limited to solutions that are profitable in isolation, until we invest in common infrastructure and have open interfaces."

Jeremy Blackburn, a computing sciences professor who specializes in the study of the impacts of digital life, wrote, "1) People will continue to be manipulated via targeted (mis/dis)information (sic) from a variety of sources. 2) There will be an increase in online harassment attacks that will be mostly ignored due to their statistical weight (Google/Facebook/Twitter/etc. do not care if 0.1% of their users are attacked, even though the raw numbers are substantial). 3) There will be an increase in extremists and their ability to recruit and radicalize vulnerable individuals. 4) There will be an increase in information silos, eventually resulting in extreme polarization of information acceptance. 5) There will be decreased concern about individual impact in the face of big data and large-scale machine learning (e.g., a 1% increase in revenue due to scale is worth it, even if it means a few people here and there will suffer). This will eventually cascade to large-scale suffering due to network effects. 6) There will be an increase in the acceptance of opinion as fact due to the democratization of information. No one knows if you are a dog on the Internet, and no one cares if you are an expert."

An anonymous respondent commented, "What we are seeing now becoming reality are the risks and uncertainties that we have allowed to emerge at the fringes of innovation. One is the systemic loss of privacy, which is a precondition for deliberation and a sense of self-determination. Further, we already see how our critical infrastructures - ranging from energy supply to health systems and the internet itself - increasingly are at risk of failing us due to their openness for malicious attacks, but also due to the complexity of interrelated, networked processes. Due to the lack of traceability on the internet, there is no expectation that we will achieve accountability in such situations."

An anonymous Ph.D. in biostatistics commented, "The culture of anonymity on the Web is scary and seems to allow people to behave in ways they wouldn't otherwise (see recent news about 'swatting' in the online gaming community). Then there is the social media 'hive' that allows internet uproar to dictate what happens. There is no room for discourse, grey areas or mistakes. Lives can be ruined by the publicity of a simple mistake (and combined with people sharing home addresses this can also be dangerous)."

An anonymous professor in the United States commented, "My belief is that unless extensive regulation and user education occurs, we will see an increase in negative consequences of online activity such as violations of privacy, dissemination of misinformation, crime and displacement of jobs."

An anonymous research scientist and internet pioneer commented, "We have reaped great benefit from digital life over the past decades. My answer compares the next decade to the current situation, not to the time prior to the digital life. The negative aspects of the digital life are becoming more pronounced, and I think the next decade will be one of retrenchment and adjustment, while society sorts out how to deal with our perhaps over-optimistic construction of the digital experience."

A sampling of additional comments about "digital dangers" from anonymous respondents:

"Election results will remain unverifiable and subject to digital manipulation by political criminals. ... Terrorists will recognize more ways to destabilize economic, social, political and environmental systems."

"Security/hacking and manipulation online may cause more harm; e.g., the latest Intel bug."

"People's well-being will be hurt unless we figure out the cultural and social and political solutions - and religious and economic ones - to life online. Every medium needs to be tamed. It will take a while for digits to be domesticated."

"I fear government and private-sector security measures in 'protecting' individuals, and I fear the advancement of AI."

"The loss of privacy as data sharing and integration continues will be highly problematic. Government, industry and hackers will all benefit."

"We don't know the effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF) and radiation. It's not a mainstream idea to protect people from the negative health impacts of radiation."

"Technology's beneficial effects (improved efficiency, access to information) are increasingly being overwhelmed by its negatives - distraction, disconnection from real in favor of virtual interactions, and how anonymity unleashes ugly behaviors such as misogyny, racism and overall nastiness."

"Increasing surveillance and social control by corporations and their political representatives will reduce the standard of living and freedom for the majority of the citizens in a world of rapidly changing climate."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
3. Concerns about the future of people's well-being

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
About half of the people responding in this study were in substantial agreement that the positives of digital life will continue to outweigh the

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
You're only meant to have 150 friends. So... what about social media?

Nobody is a stranger to deep diving into the Facebook rabbit hole. You know the scenario.

For me, it's a Tuesday night, and I'm unwinding in bed, mindlessly scrolling "just a little," when half an hour later, I'm no closer to resting.

I'll comment on a friend's post and then Facebook suggests friending a former classmate, but instead of doing that, I'll scroll through their profile and learn about the last few years of their life... until I see an article that sends me down a research spiral and a comment section that leaves my brain on hyperdrive.

The next morning, I wake up feeling drained.

Maybe the blue light that illuminates our faces as we scroll through feeds and friends' profiles is to blame for disrupting our sleep cycle. Being unrested can explain the grogginess and irritability one has. Or it could be something else.

Maybe, as we tell ourselves that we're online to stay connected, we're unknowingly draining our social energy for in-person interactions.

What if every like, heart, and reply we give to someone on the internet is actually taking away from our energy for offline friendships?

While our brains can tell the difference between chatting online and in-person social interaction, it's unlikely we've developed more - or a separate set of - energy just for social media use.

There's a limit as to how many people we're truly in touch with and have the energy for.

That even means that the late-night hours spent engaging in conversations with strangers online takes away from the energy we have to care for people we actually know offline.

"It seems we really can only handle about 150 friends, including family members," says R.I.M. Dunbar, PhD, a professor in the Department of Experimental Psychology at the University of Oxford. He tells Healthline that this "limit is set by the size of our brains."

According to Dunbar, this is one of the two constraints that determine how many friends we have.

Dunbar and other researchers established this by conducting brain scans, finding that the number of friends we have, offline and online, is related to the size of our neocortex, the part of the brain that manages relationships.

The second constraint is time.

According to data from GlobalWebIndex, people were spending an average of more than 2 hours a day on social media and messaging in 2017. This is half an hour more than in 2012 and likely to continue to increase as time goes on.

"The time you invest in a relationship determines the strength of the relationship," Dunbar says.

But Dunbar's recent study, published in 2016, suggests that even though social media allows us to "break through the glass ceiling" of maintaining offline relationships and have larger social networks, it doesn't overcome our natural capacity for friendships.

Often, within the 150-limit network, we have inner circles or layers that require a certain amount of regular interaction to maintain the friendship, whether that's grabbing coffee or at least having some type of back-and-forth conversation.

Think about your own social circle and how many of those friends you consider closer than others. Dunbar concludes that each circle requires different amounts of commitment and interaction.

He says we need to interact "at least once a week for the inner core of five intimates, at least once a month for the next layer of 15 best friends, and at least once a year for the main layer of 150 'just friends.'"

The exception being family members and relatives, who require less constant interaction to maintain connections.

So what happens if you have a friend or follower number greater than 150 on your social media networks? Dunbar says it's a meaningless number.

"We are fooling ourselves," he explains. "You can certainly sign up as many people as you like, but that doesn't make them friends. All we are doing is signing up people that we would normally think of as acquaintances in the offline world."

Dunbar says that, just like we do in the face-to-face world, we dedicate the bulk of our interaction on social media to the 15 people closest to us, with about 40 percent of our attention going to our 5 besties and 60 percent to our 15.

This ties into one of the oldest arguments in favor of social media: It might not expand the number of true friendships, but these platforms can help us maintain and strengthen our important bonds.

"Social media provides a very effective way of keeping old friendships going, so we shouldn't knock it," Dunbar says.

One of the perks of social media is being able to engage in the milestones of people I don't live near. I can be a voyeur of everything from precious moments to mundane meals, all while I go about my own daily routine.

But along with the fun, my feeds are also flooded with headlines and heated commentary from my connections and strangers - it's unavoidable.

Using your energy for extensive social media interaction with strangers may be draining your resources.

After the presidential election, I considered social media an opportunity to bridge the political divide. I crafted what I hoped were respectful political posts about women's rights and climate change.

It backfired when someone barraged me with uncomfortable direct messages, causing my adrenaline to soar. I had to then question my next steps.
Is engaging a response healthy for me and my friendships?
The last few years have been, no doubt, some of the wildest years for online engagement, turning URL conversations into IRL (in real life) consequences.

From a moral, political, or ethical debate to admissions of #metoo, we're often angered or feel pressured to chime in - especially as more familiar faces and voices join the opposite side. But at what cost to ourselves - and to others?

"People may feel compelled to express outrage online because they receive positive feedback for doing so," says M.J. Crockett, a neuroscientist.

In her work, she researches how people express moral outrage on social media and whether their empathy or compassion is different online than in person. A single like or comment may be meant to affirm opinions, but they can also snowball and affect your offline relationships.

Facebook's research team also asked a similar question: Is social media good or bad for our well-being? Their answer was that spending time was bad, but actively interacting was good.

"Simply broadcasting status updates wasn't enough; people had to interact one-on-one with others in their network," David Ginsberg and Moira Burke, researchers at Facebook, report from their newsroom.

They say that "sharing messages, posts, and comments with close friends and reminiscing about past interactions - is linked to improvements in well-being."

But what happens when these active interactions turn rotten? Even if you don't unfriend someone over a dispute, the interaction - at the very least - may change your impressions with and of them.

In a Vanity Fair article about the end of the social media era, Nick Bilton wrote: "Years ago, a Facebook executive told me that the biggest reason people unfriend each other is because they disagree on an issue.

The executive jokingly said, 'Who knows, if this keeps up, maybe we'll end up with people only having a few friends on Facebook.'"

Also, former Facebook exec Chamanth Palihapitiya made headlines for saying, "I think we have created tools that are ripping apart the social fabric of how society works... [Social media] is eroding the core foundations of how people behave by and between each other."

"There is some evidence that people are more willing to punish others when interacting via a computer interface than they are when they interact face to face," Crockett tells us.

Expressing moral outrage can also open up to negative responses in return and from people who may not have much empathy for different opinions. When it comes to engaging in polarizing conversations, you may want to turn online interactions into offline ones.

Crocket mentions "there is also research showing that hearing other people's voices helps us counteract dehumanization during political debates."

For those who are passionate about political and social posting and do find enough resolution to continue on social media, take the advice of Celeste Headlee.

Her years of interviewing experience on Georgia Public Radio's daily talk show "On Second Thought" prompted her to write "We Need to Talk: How to Have Conversations that Matter"and give her TED talk, 10 Ways to Have a Better Conversation.

"Think before you post," Headlee says. "Before you respond on social media, read the original post at least twice so you're sure you understand it. Then do a little research on the subject. All of this takes time, so it slows you down, and it also keeps your thoughts in context."

Autumn Collier, an Atlanta-based social worker who treats patients with problematic social media concerns, agrees. Political posting requires a lot of energy with little return on the investment, she points out.

"It may feel empowering at the time, but then you get caught up in 'Did they reply?' and engage in an unhealthy back-and-forth dialogue. It would be more meaningful to put that energy into a cause or writing a letter to your local politicians."

And sometimes it may just be better to ignore the conversation. Knowing when to step away and go offline can be key for your mental health and maintaining future friendships.

When it comes to staying in touch with friends, it's also important to know when to engage in face-to-face interaction again.

While Dunbar has praised the benefits of social media, there's also a growing body of research about the negative effects of social media, such as increasing depression, anxiety, and feelings of loneliness.

These feelings could be attributed to the number of people you follow and engage with, friends or not.

"Social media advertises itself as increasing our connections to each other, but several studies show that people who spend more time on social media are actually more lonely, not less," says Jean Twenge, author of "iGen: Why Today's Super-Connected Kids Are Growing Up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy - and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood."

Her article for The Atlantic, " Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation? " made waves earlier this year and caused many millennials and post-millennials, to do exactly what can stress people out: Express moral outrage.

But Twenge's research isn't unfounded. She has researched the effects of social media use on teenagers, finding that the newest generation is spending less time hanging out with friends and more time interacting online.

This trend has a correlation to findings of teen depression and feelings of disconnect and increased loneliness.

But while none of these studies confirm that there's causation, there is a feeling of commonality. That feeling has been coined as FOMO, the fear of missing out. But it's not limited to one generation. Spending time on social media can have the same effect on adults, even the older ones.

FOMO can turn into a vicious cycle of comparison and inaction. Worse, it may cause you to live your "relationships" on social media. Instead of enjoying quality time with friends, significant others, or family, you're watching stories and Snaps of others with their friends and family.

Instead of engaging in the hobbies that bring you happiness, you're watching others engage in hobbies we wish we could. This activity of "hanging out" on social media can result in neglecting friends in all circles.

Remember Dunbar's study? If we fail to interact with our favorite people regularly, "the quality of the friendships declines inexorably and precipitously," he says. "Within a couple of months of not seeing someone, they will have slipped down into the next layer."

"Star Trek" famously opens each episode with this line: "Space: The final frontier." And while many think of that as the galaxy and stars beyond, it could also refer to the internet.

The World Wide Web has unlimited storage and, like the universe, has no edge or boundaries. But while the limit may not exist for the internet - our energy, bodies, and mind can still tap out.

As Larissa Pham emphatically wrote in a viral tweet: "this AM my therapist reminded me that it's ok to go offline bc we arent made to process human suffering on this scale, &now i pass it on 2 u" - this tweet has since garnered over 100,000 likes and over 30,000 retweets.

The world is intense right now, even more so when you're always online. Rather than reading one breaking headline at a time, an average feed will seek our attention with more than enough stories, anything from earthquakes to wholesome dogs to personal accounts.

Many of these are also written to trigger our emotions and keep us clicking and scrolling. But there's no need to be part of it all the time.

"Be aware that a constant connection to your phone and social media isn't good for your mental and physical health," Headlee reminds us. "Treat it the way you would candy or french fries: Don't gorge." Social media is a double-edged sword.

Being on your smartphone can drain the energy that could've been spent engaging in real-life interactions with your friends or family. Social media is never the prescription for staving off boredom, anxiety, or loneliness. At the end of the day, your favorite people are.

Research shows that good friendships are vital to your health. More specifically, having close friendships correlates to functioning better, especially as we get older.

A recent cross-sectional study of over 270,000 adults found that strains from friendship predicted more chronic illnesses. So don't keep your friends at arm's length, locked in your phone and DMs.

"Friends exist to provide us with shoulders to cry on when things fall apart," Dunbar says. "No matter how sympathetic someone may be on Facebook or even Skype, in the end it is having a real shoulder to cry on that makes the difference to our being able to cope."
Jennifer Chesak is a Nashville-based freelance book editor and writing instructor. She's also an adventure travel, fitness, and health writer for several national publications. She earned her Master of Science in journalism from Northwestern's Medill and is working on her first fiction novel, set in her native state of North Dakota.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Social Media Is Taking Away from Your Friendships

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We can only handle 150 friendships at a time. So what happens to our social energy when we're also interacting with thousands of other people online?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
When A Parent Needs Too Much: What Is Enmeshment and How Does It Hurt A Child - Dr. Margaret Rutherford