Stoney, 1

Matthew Stoney
CST-300, Writing Lab
02/03/2021
The Technology of Addiction

Since the dawn of the information age, people have voiced countless doubts about the

safety of modern technologies. From children spending too many hours playing video games to

conspiracies that the latest generation of mobile data transmission causes cancer, technology has

proven the old wisdom that people fear what they do not understand. This comes naturally

because of the organic way that technology changes. Just like living organisms, the tech industry

is constantly evolving in ways that will allow it to thrive more comfortably in its environment.

This means adopting strategies to make their products appear friendly and inviting to the public.

Also like any organism, tech companies must stay competitive due the limited nature of

resources. To an animal these resources are food, water, and territory. But the main resource of

the tech industry is the user. And so, like the leopard blending in with the jungle, these

companies have evolved a facade so ingenious that one might never know they had teeth. Their

goal is to present a novel and friendly user experience that distracts consumers from realizing

how their products might negatively impact their lives. With the advent of personal devices such

as smartphones it has become much easier for companies to influence their users' behavior.

A simple Google search for "technology addiction" will return results showing that

addiction centers across the country are providing treatment for this new malady. However,

addictive technology was not always such a prevalent problem. According to Child Psychologist

Richard Freed, the addictive aspects of technology were pioneered by a behavioral scientist

named B.J. Fogg (Lieber, 2018). Many companies have adopted these methods in recent years to

hook their users. Freed states that a product only needs three key things to keep users coming
 Stoney, 2

back: motivation, ability, and triggers (Lieber, 2018). Motivation could be a need for social

connection as with social media sites; or the desire to gain skills, ranks or levels in video games.

Ability is simply the ease of using the product. And triggers are the rewards user's get for using

the product, such as free credits in an app, lootboxes in games, and comments in social media.

Combined, these three elements make for products that are very hard to put down. Subsequently,

these three elements can also be found in every major mobile app and social media site. With the

pervasiveness of personal technology in our lives these days, it is easy to see the damage

potential of such manipulative products if they are left unchecked. This essay will explore the

issue of addictive technology by analyzing the ethical positions of both consumers and

corporations to determine whether regulations are justified.

The first stakeholder in this argument is consumers. Since the technologies in question

are so pervasive, this group contains people of all backgrounds, age groups and income levels.

For this essay, the technology consumer is considered to be the average American. This means

the people in this stakeholder group value their health, families, jobs, and freedom. All these

values are being affected by the issue of addictive technology. Deaths caused by people texting

while driving, children losing sleep to endless social media, as well as anxiety caused by online

social comparison are just a few examples of the dangers society is facing. According to Mitroff

and Sorenson, "technology...now constitutes one of the biggest threats facing humankind. It

threatens not only our physical, but our mental and social well-being" (2020).

The main claim on behalf of this stakeholder group is that companies should be

prohibited from developing addictive technologies that can ruin lives. This is a claim of policy

that is backed up by research stating that social media sites have been linked to mental health
 Stoney, 3

problems such as depression, anxiety, and low self-esteem (Pantic, 2014). If these sites are

allowed to continue developing addictive features, the negative mental health effects will be

widespread. In addition to social media, cellphones provide users with nearly limitless amounts

of other addictive content, including pornography, mobile games, shopping, and gambling. When

the pervasiveness of cellphones and social media sites such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and

Reddit are taken into account this can easily be seen as a public health hazard that needs

attention. Dr. David Greenfield of the Center for Internet and Technology Addiction estimates

that 90% of people overuse their cellphone, with 10-12% falling into the category of addiction

(Firestone, 2017). Greenfield states that cellphones operate on the same neurobiological

principles as slot machines. Every text, notification, new image, and comment acts in the exact

same way as hitting a small prize at the casino, triggering the release of Dopamine into the body.

This is the reason nearly every mobile app uses too many notifications and why every social

media site has endless scrolling. These types of designs flood the brain with Dopamine, making

the user want more (Firestone, 2017). With the widespread use of these devices and sites, this

research shows us that the development of addictive technology is a threat to public health and

must be regulated.

The second stakeholder in this argument consists of the tech companies whose products

would be subjected to regulations. The most popular products are owned and developed by some

of the largest tech companies such as Facebook, Apple, Netflix and Google. Companies like

these create products that improve our lives in many ways such as entertainment, communication

and productivity. These corporations value things like gaining and retaining users, staying

globally competitive and increasing revenues.

 Stoney, 4

The main claim on behalf of this stakeholder is that regulation will have a negative

impact on technology consumers. This is a claim of fact, since according to Economist Scott

Sumner, “economic theory suggests that the vast majority of regulations are counterproductive,

and many actually hurt the people they are intended to help” (Sumner, 2016). This is because

regulations increase the cost of doing business, and that cost always gets passed on to the

consumers. This cost increase affects more than just the price of products. Since technology is so

necessary, the trickle-down effect of regulations would hinder other businesses as well as

decrease employee wages and job opportunities (Beales et al, 2017). This is similar to the idea of

introducing new regulations on oil, food, or textiles. Like information technology, these are all

essential goods and price increases in these sectors have cascading negative effects. These types

of regulations tend to hurt the poorest households the most. Researchers at George Mason

University have found that a “10 percent increase in the effective federal regulatory burden upon

a state is associated with about a 2.5 percent increase in the poverty rate” (Chambers et al.,

2019). This link between regulation and poverty could be devastating if applied to regulation of

essential goods like technology.

The argument that needs to be settled between these two stakeholders is: should the

government step in and restrict companies from developing addictive technology? On one side is

the consumer who is facing serious consequences that are caused by addiction to technology.

Should the government step in and protect consumers from these subtle threats? On the other

side of this argument is the tech industry. Should they be allowed to continue intentionally

addicting their users while other harmfully addictive substances are regulated? Would it be fair to

regulate an industry that provides so much benefit to society? Would it be fair to poorer
 Stoney, 5

consumers, knowing the effect regulations tend to have on that demographic? The answers to

these questions can be explored using ethical frameworks.

The consumer stakeholder group views the issue of addictive technology through the lens

of the care ethics framework. Care ethics was pioneered in the early 1980's by Carol Gilligan and

Nel Noddings, who posited that certain emotional influences should be considered rational when

making moral decisions (D'Olimpio, 2020). Where many ethical frameworks focus solely on the

rational and logical, Care Ethics allows for the importance of social bonds and protecting those

who may be powerless. This is the case for consumers in the issue of addictive technology

because it affects friends and family members, neighbors, and colleagues. Care ethics also

applies due to the nature of the technology being developed. It is so subtle that many unwitting

consumers are powerless to avoid becoming addicted. The stakes are quite high for the average

consumer, with mental health, social relationships and financial stability threatened by addictive

technology.

The tech industry stakeholder group views their position through the utilitarian ethical

framework. Largely defined in the early 19th century by philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham

and John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism is based on the idea that moral decisions are the ones that

create the most pleasure for the most people (Driver, 2014). Tech companies use this type of

ethical rationalization to justify their products. These personal devices simply make people's

lives better. Cellphones and social media have brought countless pleasure to millions through

social connection, endless entertainment, and increased productivity. According to utilitarianism,

this is morally good. However, regulating the development of products would have the outcome

of hurting the tech industry. The negative effects of regulation come in the form of lower wages,
 Stoney, 6

fewer jobs, and higher prices for tech goods and services. These consequences all take pleasure

away from the consumer, and thus regulation is morally questionable, according to the utilitarian

framework.

The author of this essay sides with the consumer group and believes that technology

absolutely needs to be regulated with respect to addictive features. There is compelling evidence

showing that the use of many, if not most, features of cellphones and social media sites activate

the Dopamine response in the brain. This is clear evidence that it is potentially addictive for

anyone who uses it. The human body evolved the Dopamine response to reinforce behaviors that

are beneficial to the development and survival of the species, such as eating, sex and

socialization. The idea that this pleasure response can lead to addictive behaviors should be scary

to anyone. As a comparison, heroin is a dangerously addictive substance. The easiest way to

avoid heroin addiction is to never try heroin. But how does one avoid getting addicted to

technology? It is a necessary part of modern living; yet every notification, image reel, comment

and text message quietly releases Dopamine into the brain.

It is widely known that tobacco companies targeted children in their advertisements by

using cartoon mascots such as Camel's Joe Cool. This was a form of subtle behavioral

manipulation. If children saw a cool camel wearing sunglasses and smoking a pack of Unfiltered

Camel Lights, they might be more inclined to start smoking. This was one of the reasons tobacco

products were legally prohibited from advertising on television, radio, and magazines in the early

1970s (Warner, K. E., & Goldenhar, L. M., 1989). The public and the government knew that

smoking causes terrible health problems, so they began to regulate the industry in ways that

prevented people from becoming addicted. The tech industry is in a similar state, although there
 Stoney, 7

are no obvious symptoms like lung cancer and emphysema. The negative effects will be far

subtler as society slowly becomes immersed in a fully connected dystopia.

While the author of this essay believes that these regulations are necessary, it is not clear

what such laws would look like. While Congress is very adamant about regulating the tech

industry, their focus seems to be entirely on antitrust aspects of mega-corporations like Google.

What would anti-addiction regulation even look like? It would start with oversight. A new

committee would be formed to come up with technology guidelines that companies would be

legally obligated to follow in order to keep their technology safe for the general public's use.

This would function in the same fashion as the FCC does with television. The guidelines would

be synthesized on the basis of modern psychological research with respect to technology

addiction and would be enforced by this committee. The author of this essay believes that

regulation is never perfect but steps like this committee must be taken to create public awareness

and prevent companies from continuing to manipulate the people for their own financial gain.
 Stoney, 8

References

Beales, H., et al. (2017). Government Regulation: The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly. The

Regulatory Transparency Project of the Federalist Society, 8.

https://doi.org/https://regproject.org/wp-content/uploads/RTP-Regulatory-Process-

Working-Group-Paper.pdf

Chambers, D., McLaughlin, P., & Stanley, L. (2019, September 15). Regulation and Poverty.
Mercatus Center. https://www.mercatus.org/publications/regulation/regulation-and-
poverty.
D'Olimpio, L. (2020, July 30). Ethics Explainer: Ethics of Care. The Ethics Center.

https://ethics.org.au/ethics-explainer-ethics-of-care/.

Driver, J. (2014). The History of Utilitarianism. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/utilitarianism-history/

Firestone, L. (2017, March 2). Understanding Cell Phone Addiction. PsychAlive.

https://www.psychalive.org/cell-phone-addiction/

Lieber, C. (2018, August 8). Tech companies use "persuasive design" to get us hooked.

Psychologists say it's unethical. Vox.

https://www.vox.com/2018/8/8/17664580/persuasive-technology-psychology.

Mitroff, I. I., & Storesund, R. (2020). Techlash: the future of the socially responsible tech

organization. Springer.

Pantic I. (2014). Online social networking and mental health. Cyberpsychology, behavior and

social networking, 17(10), 652–657. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2014.0070

 Stoney, 9

Sumner, S. (2016, May 23). Why most regulations are harmful. Econlib.
https://www.econlib.org/archives/2016/05/why_most_regula.html.

Warner, K. E., & Goldenhar, L. M. (1989). The cigarette advertising broadcast ban and magazine

coverage of smoking and health. Journal of public health policy, 10(1), 32–42.