Android 17 launches Pause Point, a function to save us from addictive apps. It is the paradox of the arsonist firefighter

Among all the news announced by Google a few days ago, without a doubt Gemini Intelligence It was the one that attracted the most attention, but it was not the only one. Android 17 also releases other changes Among which a function called ‘Pause Point’ caught my attention, an option that promises to save us from infinite scrolling by making us stop and think for a few seconds. When I discovered what Pause Point was, I did just that, stopped to think for a moment and realized the ironic of the situation. What is Pause Point “Have you ever spent 45 minutes scrolling and suddenly you realize that you don’t remember why you opened the phone?” This is how Google presents this new function that will arrive with Android 17 and that follows the line of others like Digital Wellbeing that was released with Android 9. Until now, if we wanted to limit the use of certain apps we could set timers or even block access completely, but according to Google this does not solve the problem: timers can be postponed and blocking sometimes makes it impractical if we need that app for something important. What they propose now is another different approach: when you open an app that usually distracts you, Pause Point is activated and makes you stop for 10 seconds to ask yourself “Why am I here?” During this break you can do a small breathing exercise or open the app, but setting a timer of 5, 15 or 30 minutes. It also offers you other apps to focus on, such as one for audiobooks. It makes sense: we have internalized certain patterns so much that we pick up our cell phone and open apps for no apparent reason, out of pure muscle memory. If we want to completely disable Pause Point, it is necessary to restart the phone. The goal is to make you stop and think before anything else. It makes sense and is something we have talked about before: we have internalized certain patterns so much, that we pick up our cell phone and open apps for no apparent reason, by Pure muscle memory. The arsonist who sells fire extinguishers In 2017 we were already talking about what was being set up an industry that promised to cure us of mobile addiction. There are all kinds of solutions that promise to reduce our screen time, from boring cell phones that make us use them lesseven accessories that They prevent us from opening certain apps. What is striking is when Those who offer the cure are the same ones who have created the problem. Recently, a judge in the United States has said that Meta, TikTok and Google They are guilty of having deliberately designed their products to generate addiction among young people, with functions such as autoplay or infinite scroll. Google defended itself arguing that “this case misinterprets YouTube, which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social network.” It is true that the concept of “addictive” infinite scroll was born with apps like Snapchat, TikTok or Instagram, but let’s not forget that Google entered fully into this formula with YouTube Shorts and one is no less guilty for having committed the “crime” later than the rest. Google is not the only company that is offering the solution to a problem that they themselves are fueling. Instagram and TikTok also have features to help users disconnect from the app, but without leaving the appclear. As long as the metric that controls is usage time, these “detox” functions will be little more than a cosmetic patch in a system designed so that we never let go of our cell phone. One thing must be clear and that is that the business of these apps lies in Let us spend as much time as possible on them. Only then do we see more advertising and buy more products. We live in the attention economy and, as long as the metric that controls is the time of use, these “detox” functions will be little more than a cosmetic patch in a system designed so that we never let go of the mobile. Images | Google In Xataka | The psychology of doomscrolling: the trap our brain is programmed to fall into again and again

The US is discussing whether to condemn technology companies for designing something as addictive as slot machines: doomscroll

If you have Instagram or TikTok, you’ve probably been caught up in that constant river of videos, each one funnier and more interesting than the last. You like them, you share them, sometimes you comment and you continue seeing more. Without realizing it, an hour has passed. It is the phenomenon of doomscrolling and that is the reason why Meta, TikTok and Google have sat in the dock in the US. Now, the jury’s verdict is coming. The accusation. It all started with the complaint of Kaley, a 20-year-old girl, who accused Instagram, YouTube and TikTok of having designed their products to encourage addiction which ended up harming her mental and physical health as a child. He claims that one day he spent 16 hours on Instagram. Now, a jury decides whether his addiction was his fault or the design of these social networks; infinite scroll, autoplay and algorithms expressly designed to trap us for as long as possible. Why it is important. It is not the only complaint about the effects of social networks on mental health (they say on BBC that there are more than 2,000 similar lawsuits), but Kaley’s has become a reference case for being the first to reach court and also with a jury. The trial has been compared to the one that put the tobacco companies on the bench at the end of the 90s, it now remains to be seen if it has real consequences. The defense. During the trial, internal Meta documents were provided in which some employees joked that Instagram was a drug and they were dealers. However, the platforms defend themselves by arguing that each user is responsible for their own use. The director of Instagram, Adam Mosseri said at trial that social media is not “clinically addictive,” and compared it to being addicted to a television series. In addition, they defend that they have implemented safety features, such as screen time limitations and rest reminders. And now what. The platforms have been spared other accusations thanks to Article 230 of the Communications Decency Law, which exempts them from responsibility for what users publish on them. However, the lawsuit tries to get around this limitation by focusing on the design and not the content. If it succeeds, it will set a precedent and open a path for the thousands of lawsuits awaiting processing. Still, it may not be enough for real consequences to occur. In statements to, New York Times Glenn Cohen, a professor at Harvard Law School specializing in new technologies, says that even if the jury agrees with him, “it will not survive an appeal.” Chip change. In recent years, the discourse of rejection of social networks has been growing (although its use has not decreasedparadoxically) and its effects on our mental health, especially that of the youngest. Australia has banned the use of social networks for those under 16 years of age and there are other countries that have shown themselves inclined to follow in their footsteps, such as Denmark either, recently, Spain. In Xataka | Spending all day scrolling on Instagram or TikTok has a very specific effect on your brain: it dwarfs Image | Wikipedia

Brussels points to its “addictive design” and calls for changes

Maybe TikTok be one of the many applications installed on your mobile. It’s even likely that in recent days you’ve found yourself swiping almost without realizing it through a flood of videos competing for your attention. However, the European Commission does not look favorably on some of the dynamics of this social network, and everything indicates that the experience as we know it could change sooner rather than later. Addictive design. Brussels has focused on what it considers a possible “addictive design.” In a statement published this Fridaythe Commission points out several functions of the platform that, in its opinion, respond to a constant reward mechanism guided by the algorithm, something that “encourages the need to continue browsing and activates the ‘autopilot’ mode in platform users.” With the focus on minors. The executive arm of the European Union maintains that the company would not have taken into account relevant indicators of compulsive use, such as the time that minors spend on TikTok during the night, the frequency with which they open the application or other similar parameters. Added to this is the risk that “minors have an experience that is inappropriate for their age due to a misrepresentation of their age.” Insufficient measures. The community evaluation preliminarily concludes that the platform “does not appear to implement reasonable, proportionate and effective measures to mitigate the risks derived from its addictive design.” According to the Commission, current screen time management and parental control tools are not sufficiently effective: in the first case, because they can be easily circumvented; in the second, because they require additional skills on the part of the parents for their activation. The changes sought by the Commission. Beyond the diagnosis, Brussels also makes clear what kind of changes it hopes to see. In this phase, the Commission considers that TikTok would have to tweak basic elements of its design, such as progressively deactivating functions associated with continuous consumption (including infinite scroll), introducing truly effective pauses of use, also during the night, and adjusting its recommendation system. The objective would be to mitigate the risks that the analysis itself links to the current operation of the platform. How we got here. The origin of this research is found in the Digital Services Law (DSA), approved in 2022 to impose stricter obligations on large platforms operating in the European Union. The procedure against TikTok began on February 19, 2024 and is still ongoing, so there is still a long way to go before a final decision is made. As in any process of this type, the company has the right to defend itself. TikTok may examine the file and respond in writing to the preliminary conclusions. If these are confirmed and the company does not take the necessary measures, it could face a penalty of up to 6% of its global annual turnover. The company has already reacted. In an email sent to Xataka, TikTok’s Spanish office states that “the Commission’s preliminary conclusions present a categorically false and totally unfounded description of our platform, and we will take all necessary measures to challenge these conclusions by all means at our disposal.” Topic of the moment: social networks. All this occurs in a European context that is increasingly demanding with the use of social networks by minors. France has taken the first step to prohibit access to minors under 15 years of agewhile in Spain The Government of Pedro Sánchez is working on a similar measure with the intention of setting the limit at 16 years.. Images | Guillaume Perigois | Eyestetix Studio In Xataka | The science of “doomscrolling”: how technology hacked psychology so we can’t let go of our phones

Meta, Google, TikTok will go to the bench for “addictive design”

Today The selection of the jury that will judge Meta, TikTok and YouTube begins in Los Angeles due to childhood addiction to social networks. It is the first time that these technological giants have to defend their business model in court for damages to minors. Why is it important. This is not just another case of inappropriate content or poor moderation. This lawsuit directly attacks the design of the platforms: scroll infinite, autoplay, notifications push and algorithms that maximize screen time. If the plaintiffs win, a precedent is set that could be devastating for the entire industry. The facts. The plaintiff is a 19-year-old girl identified as KGM. She claims to have developed an addiction to networks since she was a teenager. He maintains that the design of these applications was what fueled his depression, anxiety, body dysmorphia and suicidal thoughts. Meta, TikTok and YouTube have denied these accusations and argue that they have invested in security tools. During the six weeks of the trial, Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta, and Adam Mosseri, head of Instagram, will testify. Snap, also initially accused, reached an out-of-court settlement last week for an amount not publicly disclosed. Between the lines. The plaintiffs’ key argument avoids the traditional protection of technology companies: the famous Section 230which exempts them from responsibility for the content uploaded by users. But here the question is not what is published, but rather how the experience was designed to engage minors. The lawsuit openly compares it to slot machines and the tobacco industry: “Defendants deliberately embedded in their products a series of features designed to maximize the engagement youth and increase advertising revenue. The threat. This is just the tip of the iceberg. There are more than 3,000 additional lawsuits in California and 2,000 federal cases pending against these same companies. Several will go to trial this year. The parallels with the trials against tobacco companies in the 90s They are clear and that ended in an agreement of 206,000 million dollars spread over 25 years. A favorable verdict for the plaintiffs would not only cost them billions but would force them to redesign their products practically from scratch, eliminating the addictive mechanics that sustain their spectacular usage figures and therefore their advertising models. The context. Global regulatory pressure has increased greatly in recent years: Australia banned social media for those under 16 in December. France is studying doing the same with those under 15. Other countries such as the United Kingdom and Egypt are currently evaluating similar measures. According to a recent survey by Wall Street Journal71% of Americans would support banning most social networks for those under 16 years of age. Yes, but. The technological they don’t sit idly by: Meta, TikTok and YouTube have launched a public relations offensive by organizing workshops for parents in schools and promoting parental controls. Meta has hired the same lawyers who defended McKesson in the opioid scandal. And TikTok has signed those who represented Activision Blizzard in Previous Lawsuits About Video Game Addiction. At stake. If KGM wins, Section 230 will cease to be the impenetrable shield it has been until now, since it questions how the applications are made, not the content that is uploaded to them. Hopefully this case will end up in the Supreme Court, whatever the verdict. The next six weeks will determine if the scroll infinite and other common practices of these networks have their days numbered, or if there are engagement for a while. In Xataka | An eternally unfocused generation: “I can’t do anything for more than fifteen minutes without looking at my phone” Featured image | Solen Feyissa

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.