Impact of various media on health

Despite years of research, there is still no clear answer to the question: Do cellphones cause cancer? But two government studies, one in rats and one in mice, suggest that if there is any risk, it is small, health officials said. These two studies on the effects of the type of radiation the phones emit, conducted over 10 years and costing $25 million, are considered the most extensive to date.

[Commentary] President Donald Trump is an odd man, and he may turn out to be a one-of-a-kind celebrity president. But his symbiosis with Twitter carries weight as a portent. Compulsive, manipulative and effective, the president’s tweeting heralds a politics of increasing fractiousness, irrationality and risk. You could blame it on one needy, attention-seeking leader. Or you could call it a step into a very unsettling future.

[Nicholas Carr is the author of The Shallows and The Glass Cage.]

In a blink of an evolutionary eye, radio and television then give way to smartphones—all of the world’s threats in your hand, all the time. “The smartphone, especially, more than pretty much any other technology that existed before, is constant,” says Barry Glassner, a professor of sociology. “For many people, at least, notifications come and updates come pretty much nonstop. It’s a very far cry from picking up the daily paper,” let alone the town square. 

The smartphone has fueled much of Silicon Valley’s soaring profits over the past decade, enriching companies in sectors from social media to games to payments. But over the past year or so, a number of prominent industry figures have voiced concerns about the downsides of the technology’s ubiquity.

[Commentary] The so-called social media revolution isn’t what it’s cracked up to be. Sites like Twitter and Facebook exacerbate emotions like outrage and fear—and don’t help democracy flourish. Social media too easily bypasses the rational or at least reasonable parts of our minds, on which a democratic public sphere depends. It speaks instead to the emotional, reactive, quick-fix parts of us, that are satisfied by images and clicks that look pleasing, that feed our egos, and that make us think we are heroic.

The onset of a new year brings plenty of predictions, and so I will hazard one: Many of the biggest events of 2018 will be bound together by a common theme, namely the collision of the virtual internet with the real “flesh and blood” world. This integration is likely to steer our daily lives, our economy, and maybe even politics to an unprecedented degree. For instance, the coming year will see a major expansion of the “internet of things,” especially home and other smart devices subject to our commands.

Our present panics tend to arrive just as new parts of our economy, culture and politics are reconstituted within platform marketplaces — shifts that have turned out to be bigger than anyone anticipated. Aggravation about “fake news” followed the realization that the business and consumption of online news had been substantially captured by Facebook, which had strenuously resisted categorization as a media company. Children’s entertainment has migrated to new and unexpected venues faster and more completely than either parents or YouTube expected or accounted for.

There is a small but growing band of Silicon Valley heretics who complain about the rise of the so-called “attention economy”: an internet shaped around the demands of an advertising economy. These refuseniks are rarely founders or chief executives, who have little incentive to deviate from the mantra that their companies are making the world a better place. Instead, they tend to have worked a rung or two down the corporate ladder: designers, engineers and product managers who, like Rosenstein, several years ago put in place the building blocks of a digital world from which they are now trying to disentangle themselves.

There is growing concern that as well as addicting users, technology is contributing toward so-called “continuous partial attention”, severely limiting people’s ability to focus, and possibly lowering IQ. But those concerns are trivial compared with the devastating impact upon the political system that some of Rosenstein’s peers believe can be attributed to the rise of social media and the attention-based market that drives it. Drawing a straight line between addiction to social media and political earthquakes like Brexit and the rise of Donald Trump, they contend that digital forces have completely upended the political system and, left unchecked, could even render democracy as we know it obsolete.

If you want to be happier, you might want to ditch your phone. It may be common knowledge that spending too much time on social media leads to disappointment with yourself, but according to data from Moment, an iPhone app that tracks app usage, there isn’t a single app that makes you feel good for spending more, rather than less, time on it.

Weekly, Moment asks users whether they’re happy with the time spent on each of their apps. The ratings are then used to compare the amount of time that “happy” users and “unhappy” users spend on each app. Apps for which “happy” users spend more time on than “unhappy” users meet the criteria for “time well spent.” Moment publishes the list of apps that make the cut each week. It usually includes things like Google Calendar, Podcasts, Spotify, or Reminders—apps that help users stay organized, focused, or informed. But an analysis of app ratings aggregated over 2017 shows that, ultimately, no app that received 1,000 ratings or more actually made the time-well-spent criteria. In other words, all apps have diminishing returns over the long run.