This brings us to the final big controversy in the topic of Internet addiction: whose problem is it to resolve? If we agree that some forms of technology have a risk of Internet addiction and that certain populations are at potential risk of that addiction, then whose job is it to solve that problem? Like all of our problems in society, it’s not an easy question to answer. How you feel about it is affected not only by who you think is most to blame but also by your views on such things as the role of government in individual lives and the importance of personal responsibility.
For example, if you believe in limiting government involvement as much as possible, then the role of the government in resolving Internet addiction will be smaller for you than for someone who believes the government should be involved in handling societal issues. If you believe that addiction is an individual issue, then you’re more likely to think that addicts and their parents should resolve the issue than someone who looks at the intersectionality of the many causes of addiction and finds that perhaps institutions must play a bigger role. These are all huge questions, and there are no simple solutions. But by starting the conversation about the different roles that various people and organizations can play, we can start to come up with new ways that we can benefit from the advances in technology while mitigating some of the addictive harms.
Picture a heroin addict in active addiction. What responsibility does that person have to take care of their addiction alone? Now imagine that the heroin addict is only fourteen years old. Does that change how much responsibility you think that person must take as compared to how much involvement there should be from parents, schools, and authorities? How much should the government offer in terms of support and care to stop the addiction, and how much should the person have to be responsible for? As we know from substance addiction, there’s no easy equation for distributing “blame” or coming up with a solution. It’s no different with Internet addiction. We may be tempted to think that the individual should just put the phone down, but addiction is more complicated than that.
When it comes to individual responsibility for dealing with Internet addiction, there are two types of individuals: the addicts themselves and parents of (potential) addicts. Parents are tasked with the huge responsibility of setting rules around device use in their homes. Children are at greater risk of addiction than adults because their brains are still developing. But there is no blueprint for what a parent should do to help their children thrive in a tech-dominated society while still avoiding addiction.
And, as author Anya Kamenetz highlights, there is more intersectionality than you might guess at first. In other words, not all parents are on an even playing field. A very simple example that she gives is that if you’re an upper-middle-class parent who pays a nanny a lot of money to engage in analog activities with your child, then you have a lot more control over whether or not they use devices in your absence than does the lower-income parent who has to ask a neighbor for the favor of watching the kids while she goes to work. Similarly, if you’re in a two-parent home with an only child and one of you is a stay-at-home parent, then perhaps you’re more likely to be able to provide your child with nonscreen engagement and activities than the single, working parent with four children who might give their children screens just to get enough quiet in the house to get dinner on the table. The lower-income or busy working parent is not at fault; it’s simply a difference that we have to notice in our society. Individuals, including parents, can and should play a huge role in setting boundaries that limit the risks of Internet addiction, but we also have to recognize that not all individuals are in the same circumstances, and so there are varying levels of ability to be able to set such limits.
And, even when you can set boundaries for yourself and your children, it’s hard to know what those boundaries should be. We are all new at this. The research is young, the technology is changing quickly, and we’re just beginning to get a grasp on what Internet addiction might look like. Perhaps the best the individual can do is just try.
We can look closely at what kind of relationship we have with our devices. What do you like about your use? What causes problems? Learn the signs of addiction, and determine whether or not you see those cropping up in your own life. As a parent, pay attention to how your children act when they use their devices more as compared to less—or when they experience certain content as compared with other types of information online. Pay attention, ask questions, tweak usage, and see what happens. In particular, be curious, but vigilant, when adding new technologies to your life. Whether it’s a new device, a new app, or simply a new feature of one of those things, take the time to think carefully about it. It’s easier to prevent an addiction than to interrupt one, so take the time to be thoughtful about how you incorporate new things into your life. Research seems to indicate that balancing screen time with active engagement in real life (including hands-on activities and in-person relationships) is one simple, effective starting point.
On the one hand, individuals have a great capacity for controlling their usage (and to some extent, that of their children). On the other hand, beating yourself up for not being perfect at it doesn’t help the situation. As we know, bad feelings make us even more likely to turn to addictive behavior. So, we have to strike a balance here. The individual does have a huge amount of personal responsibility to take, but there’s also only so much the individual can do.
There are two big questions that provoke a lot of smaller questions: what role should the individual play in stopping Internet addiction and what role should institutions and government agencies play? And these aren’t necessarily easy to separate. Consider, for example, the role that schools should play as well as the potential role of the individual teacher. These are very different things, and there are no clear-cut answers. But we can at least ask the questions about what different groups, and individuals within those groups, can do to be aware of and help prevent or resolve Internet addiction.
Schools play a huge role today in identifying problems for at-risk children as well as in educating children and their parents about risks. They also have to grapple with the huge questions of when and how technology should be used in the classroom. Different schools are addressing this in different ways. Kamenetz has identified three common types of classrooms today (in so far as tech goes):
Schools are still figuring out how best to implement technology in the classroom, and it can look any of these ways. There are some great advantages to tech in the classroom. A busy teacher with too many students can have each student work at their own pace on their devices while attending one-on-one to students who have special needs, and they can perhaps more efficiently identify those needs with computer feedback than they could when they had to grade every paper by hand. But if children are at risk of Internet addiction, then having more screen time in the classroom has to be considered a potential risk. What should schools be doing to mitigate that risk? Should teachers be educated in the warning signs of Internet addiction, and if they see those signs, what should they do?
So, the question of the role of schools is twofold: (1) how should schools incorporate technology in the classroom with an understanding of and respect for the risks of Internet addiction among children and (2) what responsibility do schools have to identify, prevent, and raise awareness about Internet addiction. Those are huge questions. And they don’t even take into consideration the way that the answers might trickle down and affect individuals—not just students but also teachers, principals, and school counselors. We don’t have the answers, but it’s important that we are thinking about these things.
The 2018 movie Ready Player One depicts a possibly near future in which intensity in the virtual world bleeds over into violence in the real world, but it also speaks to the potential for merging the two worlds in a positive way. At the end of this film, the hero and heroine take over the virtual world, and they make the controversial decision to shut off access to that world on Tuesdays and Thursdays. They do this based on the sage advice of the game’s creator who has shown them that no matter how amazing virtual reality gets, it is no comparison to “real reality.” Viewers hear this announcement as a narrative over a visual of the couple happily cuddling and kissing in their real world, despite the fact that their virtual avatar characters are arguably sexier and more exciting than the flesh-and-blood selves. This is a great example of how media itself can highlight the pros and cons of choices in technology and encourage people of all ages to get off the screen and out into the real world to experience real kisses, real connections, and real feelings.
The media can and does highlight the risks of Internet addiction and other problems associated with technology. (And, of course, the Internet is itself “the media.”) Ready Player One is just one example. Another is the television/Netflix show Black Mirror that depicts a variety of different near-future scenarios related to problems associated with technology. Television and other forms of entertainment make commentary on social issues, and the topic of Internet addiction is no exception. But what responsibility, if any, does the media have to help resolve the issue? Given the importance of free speech, we can’t—and shouldn’t—mandate what messages media should share. We should, perhaps, make sure that all voices in the debate can be heard.
Notably, there are limitations on media already. The movie rating system, for example, prevents (at least theoretically) children under a certain age from viewing specific types of content. There’s a similar system in place for gaming content. These systems are arguably flawed, but they offer one way that media companies share responsibility for regulating content for children. Could we eventually put a system in place that warns about how addictive certain content might be? Research indicates, for example, that people can become addicted to a game as simple as Tetris, but they are significantly more likely to become addicted to a game like World of Warcraft, so could those games have different ratings based not just on content but also on risk for addiction?
Media also comes with warning labels besides ratings. Television shows with graphic content warn that “viewer discretion is advised.” Increasingly, we even see trigger warnings at the start of online articles. Media is letting people know, “Hey, there’s something here, and you might want to see it, but you also might want to think twice because it could have a negative impact on your wellbeing and/or mental health.” The individual gets the choice, but the media gives them additional information to help them make that choice. Could the media do something similar with not just the content but also how the content relates to addiction? “Some people who view this content regularly find themselves developing Internet addiction. Viewer discretion is advised.”
Media companies certainly aren’t the only types of businesses or content producers that might bear some responsibility for the issue of widespread Internet addiction. Tech companies, for example, play a crucial role in creating the tools that are leading to the addiction. What role should they have to play in resolving the problem? Many individuals have come out of these companies to raise awareness about the issue. If you read widely about Internet addiction, then you’ll almost certainly come across the name Tristan Harris. He was a design ethicist at Google who became well known for a 140+ slide presentation he created in-house called “A Call to Minimize Distraction & Respect Users’ Attention.” In it, he warned that Google and other big companies were engaging in behavior that was addicting their users and that they should take responsibility for that. He went on to launch the Time Well Spent movement and founded the Center for Humane Technology, and he continues to speak about the problem of Internet addiction, including the risks of emerging technologies, and the role that the companies creating this technology have to play in mitigating the problem.
Part of the mission of the Center for Humane Technology reads:
We envision a world where Humane Technology is the default for all technology products and services. A combination of new design processes, new goals and metrics, new organizational structures, and new business models would drastically reduce harmful externalities, actively supporting our individual and collective well-being.
This organization believes that the tech companies have a responsibility to consider the human behind the devices and that it’s possible to move forward in such a way that we create new technologies without utilizing the “get them hooked” mentality that many companies currently rely upon. This brings us to the convergence of two different types of business: tech companies and the responsibilities that they have and nonprofit organizations that have the potential to raise awareness and create change. Should we limit tech companies in what they can do with their tools? If you agree with the free market and the rights of innovators, then probably not. But perhaps we can encourage the organizations, including the nonprofits, that are doing something about the problem. And this, actually, brings us back to the individuals—because each individual within a company plays a role and has a voice (even though sometimes it doesn’t feel like it). Moreover, the individual as a consumer has a lot of power. You can put your money toward the companies that are encouraging addiction, or you can put your money toward the companies that want to create a tech-enriched world that doesn’t, as Tristan Harris puts it, downgrade humanity.
What role should the government play in raising awareness about Internet addiction? What about providing funding and support for the people who do develop addiction? And what role, if any, should the government play in regulating the most problematic companies that are aiding in developing addiction? These are murky waters. Government regulation is a divisive topic. But asking the questions is a good starting point.
Author Anya Kamenetz points out something very interesting in her book The Art of Screen Time. Back in 1982 (long before smartphones were in our pockets), the National Institutes of Mental Health conducted federally funded research called “Television and Behavior” to determine the effects of those particular screens on our children. What’s interesting is that she highlights that this was “the last major piece of federally funded research on children and media.” Of course, there has been plenty of other research done by various individuals and institutions. But the quality of the research and its results is always debatable. Perhaps one starting place for the government’s role in dealing with Internet addiction would be a federally funded study that’s more relevant to our daily lives than the one that took place in 1982. In fact, in 2017, the government started exactly that research. The National Institutes of Health launched a two-year study at the University Study of Connecticut School of Medicine to help determine whether or not Internet addiction is a true disorder. This study looks specifically at gaming, so it doesn’t fully address the wider spectrum of Internet addiction risks, but at least it’s a starting point. Arguably, the government should play some role in funding this type of research to raise true awareness about the risks of harm, particularly for our society’s children.
If the government should be involved in funding research into Internet addiction, should it also be involved in funding treatment? Of course, this gets into the tricky questions associated with government-funded health care. When it comes to substance addiction, there are currently several different ways that the government helps with treatment including through Medicare/Medicaid, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration grants, specific aid for military veterans, and state-funded addiction treatment centers. Since the government plays a role in funding treatment for drug and alcohol addiction, should the government also help fund treatment for Internet addiction?
Funding is one thing, but what about government regulation? Should the government have laws related to Internet addiction risks? The government regulates intake of addictive substances; some (like heroin) are completely banned, and others (like alcohol) have age and location restrictions. Should there be similar restrictions on certain Internet content? Despite the importance of free speech, we do limit certain types of content, and there are government rules about this. For example, we don’t allow child pornography in our society; there are laws against it. But what about how readily children today have access to hard-core pornography featuring adults? There is some regulation in place. In 2000, Congress enacted the Children’s Internet Protection Act, which helps to limit the “obscene content” children can view at schools and libraries. In order to receive certain funding, those places must prove that they have an adequate Internet safety policy in place. Can and should the government go further in helping to protect children from this type of content, or is this as far as the government should get involved? From a technology perspective, it would be relatively easy to make it harder for underage people to access hard-core pornography. Whether or not the government should be involved in that is a question up for debate.
In fact, all of this is up for debate. This book is just a starting point for discussion about Internet addiction. We’ve come up with a basic definition for what Internet addiction is, described the types of content that make people prone to addiction and why that is the case, examined some of the most at-risk populations, looked at different types of treatment options, and reviewed some of the biggest questions and controversies including whether or not we can truly define it as addiction, how widespread the problem is, whether the benefits of technology may outweigh the risks of addiction, and who might be responsible for helping to resolve the addiction problems that do arise. You have a lot of information. Now you can take that forward, dig deeper into your own relationship with technology, and broaden the conversation.