Should Addictive Tech Come With a Health Warning?

holy_calamity writes "Academics researching how technology addiction affects businesses and employees say 'habit-forming' gadgets like Blackberries should be dispensed along with warnings about the effect they can have on your life. 'We don't want to be in a situation in a few years similar to that with fast food or tobacco today. We need to pay attention to how people react to potentially habit-forming technologies.'"

Comments

Absolutely Not

[milsoRgen]

Any behavior comes with a risk of psychological addiction. To stipulate a health warning on devices is absolutely ludacris.

Re:Absolutely Not

[cuantar]

Oh no! Help us, Nanny State! We need you to save us from our pathetic lack of willpower, responsibility, and maturity!

Re:Absolutely Not

[node 3]

How is that bad, let alone "worse"? Sometimes only the government (or other regulatory organization) can counter certain actions, at least on any reasonable timeframe. The most obvious example is seat-belts.

That's not to say that government intervention is always good or desirable, but sometimes *it's absolutely crucial*.

Re:Absolutely Not

[Anonymous Coward]

My answer will change with available evidence. For a specific example lets look at cell phones. There is some evidence that supports a link between cell phone use and cancer. Other experiments fail to support that case. With inconclusive and contradictory data on that link, I do not think that a warning is required. If conclusive evidence establishes such a link, then I do think a warning should be required. In that case, I expect many cell phone companies may find significantly reduced profits. If we learn the cell phone companies are purposefully concealing dangers of cell phone use, then they should be penalized. If we learn that cell phone companies have learned how to modify behavior through cell phones in some way and are secretly using them to create a chemical addiction, then I think they should be penalized.

Re:Absolutely Not

[milsoRgen]

How is that bad, let alone "worse"? Oh I don't know, government mandated 'correct' usage of consumer electronics devices as suggested by the author seems a whole lot worse then the subject of the article itself... How you can equate any of that to seat belts is far beyond me.

Re:Absolutely Not

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you feel it's necessary for the government to mandate seatbelt usage? If people want to behave stupidly and weed themselves out of the gene pool, why should society object?

Re:Absolutely Not

[lgw]

I know! How about we let adults choos for themselves whether to indulge in self-destructive behavior if it makes them happy. We could just decide that freedom was more important than safety. It's a revolutionary idea.

Or, I dunno, we could arrest and imprison someone for their own safety if they decide not to wear a seatbelt, or a not to wear a motorcycle helmet, or eat to much fast food, or whatever else someone doesn't like today. Think of the children! Freedom is scary, and we'll save a couple bucks on health insurace -- its win-win!

Re:Absolutely Not

[Rakishi]

Why? If you don't care enough about your own life to protect it then why should the government care and why should the rest of us pay for it?

There are of course economic arguments for certain laws (be it cost to society indirectly or directly) however even those are arsine. Unless people themselves decide to not act stupid you will just need to pile on laws till it's beyond absurd.

I mean the logical conclusion of your argument is that we should all be brainwashed or have computer ships shoved into our heads to control 99.99% of our behavior, to prevent us from doing anything that might be considered as even possibly dangerous. don't forget to put that bubble wrap on before you leave the house or the voice in your head may compel you to.

Re:Absolutely Not

[khayman80]

You've uncovered a basic point of contention regarding the role of government. Some people believe that the role of the government is to protect citizens from themselves. This mindset results in alcohol and drug prohibition (i.e. "we know how to run your life better than you, and we believe you shouldn't be drinking or smoking pot, so we're not going to let you"). It also results in religious laws like Sharia and the Inquisition (i.e. "we know how to run your life better than you, and we believe you shouldn't be worshipping any god but Allah/Jesus/what-have-you, so we're not going to let you. Oh, and go to prayers/church every couple of hours/week or we'll stone you to death/burn you at the stake. Again, this is just for the good of your immortal soul.")

(Note that you may disagree with the particular reasoning employed in these examples. In fact, I hope you do- I intentionally chose extreme examples. My point is that by accepting the fundamental premise that the government has the right to protect you from yourself, your position is only quantitatively different from these policy disasters.)

I'm sorry, but I just can't agree with this kind of reasoning. I think that governments should treat their citizens like adults, in the sense that we're capable of making decisions about our own lives/bodies and living with the consequences, be they good or bad. Maybe the decisions we make aren't the best possible ones, but they're our mistakes to make. I'm not an anarchist, though; I believe that the government has a very real and important role to play in the sense that they protect citizens from the actions of other people.

So, in a sense, I'm irked that people like Hillary Clinton (who apparently believes that health insurance should be forced on everyone "for their own good") are treating me and my fellow citizens like preschoolers. But it's deeper than that. You see, I think that the only real purpose the government serves- to protect us from deranged people by keeping a police force/armed forces- effectively means that they need to hold a monopoly on power in the country. While I think I have the right to defend myself against aggression in my own home or car, it would be madness to suggest that I should be able to chase down burglars vigilante-style into the night, firing my automatic weapon at their car with my left hand while driving with my right. This is a job that should be left to trained police who have the resources and backup to perform such a manhunt without endangering bystanders.

Unfortunately, this monopoly on power carries with it a strong predilection to abusing that authority (as anyone who's been on youtube lately can see for themselves.) So I'm loathe to give the government any powers over me and my fellow citizens that aren't absolutely necessary. The potential for abuse is just too great.

A common objection to this argument is that the alternative is simply tyranny via corporation rather than tyranny by government- "at least the government is elected". I completely disagree. However evil and corrupt corporations are, they don't have the right to bust down my door at 2am and kill me or (if I'm lucky) drag me away to spend the rest of my life in a small cement room. I think this is a very important distinction, and that's why I will never agree with handing the government any more powers than are absolutely necessary to safeguard my rights to take action to preserve my life, liberty and property.

Re:Absolutely Not

[Kral_Blbec]

For most situations I would agree, however with seat belts there is a factor in which your decision effects others around you. If your own decision will kill you and only you (ie motorcycle helmet) then its your choice to take the risk. But if you are in a crash without a seatbelt then you may be thrown out of the car. This presents a danger to others by 1) having another obstacle in the road. You may be thrown into oncoming traffic and cause a secondary collision. 2)losing control of a vehicle that you may have been able to control had you remained in the seat, and thus cause a secondary collision.

Re:Absolutely Not

[StikyPad]

The problem isn't that people need to be protected from themselves, but rather that people don't think about the externalities of their actions. No man is an island, and all that..

Re:Absolutely Not

[Kpau]

I don't know... a LOT of people look pretty addicted to electricity and indoor plumbing. Won't someone think of the children! (in other news, "addiction" no longer means anything because it means everything....)

Re:Absolutely Not

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Exactly. A large number of people making bad decisions often affect more than just themselves. Just take a look at the sub prime scandal, those bad loans may just pull the entire nation into a recession. You may get laid off because some idiots signed mortgages they were never able to afford. Should the government have taken action, restricting their freedoms to prevent them from screwing you over? Its a tough question.

Re:Absolutely Not

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Any accident is going to leave obstacles in the road. Unless you are also going to advocate that other items (e.g. cell phones, dogs, shopping bags) this is a pretty weak argument. I would love to see some data on seatbelts preventing secondary collisions.

2. If you were thrown from the car that means your car experienced a rapid slowdown and is likely no longer 'out of control'.

The people most affected by other people not wearing seatbelts. People in the back seats have a habit of smashing into the people in front of them. Yet, oddly, the back seat is the most likely place (depending on your state) wear seat belts do not have to be worn.

This is all a bunch of nonsense, though. Anyone getting in a car is accepting risk. Arguing that other people not wearing seatbelts substantially increases those risks is absurd.

Re:Absolutely Not

[notwrong]

There are potential costs to others if you don't wear a seatbelt, but I don't think that's the main reason they are compulsory in most Western jurisdictions.

The risk of death and severe injury is reduced when people wear seatbelts. Premature death and debilitating injuries carry real costs to society, such as lost productive capacity, medical services and long-term care, in addition to the personal and emotional costs to the victims and their families. It is prudent social policy to attempt to minimise these costs.

In my opinion, mandating seatbelt use when travelling on public roads is a reasonable component of the social contract you agree to when being granted your driver's license. If some people don't like this impingement on their freedom, that's fine - don't drive or be a passenger on public roads.

Re:Absolutely Not

[Jasin Natael]

I think you forget the most important point to justify the social contract: If the driver at fault has to pay medical bills for the victim by law, then every potential victim has a legal and moral responsibility not to die or become maimed unnecessarily and thereby become an onerous burden for other parties.

Don't wear your seatbelt if that's your choice, but (win or lose) don't take me to court when you lose an arm or break your clavicle. And don't let your family harass me if you snap your stupid neck.

Re:Absolutely Not

[SL Baur]

a LOT of people look pretty addicted to electricity and indoor plumbing. This is modded funny, but it's not really funny, it's insightful. Most of the world's people live without one or the other or both. I've lived (very recently) in places with some electricity, but not always and no indoor plumbing and count me as one of the addicts.

Personal Responsibility

[Doomstalk]

Personally, if there's any addictive activity that I think should have a warning associated with it, it's foisting responsibility off on another person or object. Nothing is anyone's fault anymore, it seems.

WARNING

[Gat0r30y]

Useful tools may be useful. In fact you may find the need to incorporate them into your daily life. Electronic communication tools such as "e-mail" and 'the internets' (A.K.A. the tubes) may also be found to significantly improve productivity. Use with extreme caution.

Bender: Don't worry I don't have an addictive personality - chugs beer, puffs cigar, jacks on

TV considered harmful, by the Surgeon General

[Anonymous Coward]

SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: The Surgeon General Has Determined that Watching Television is Dangerous to your Health.
SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Women Who are Pregnant or Nursing Should Not Watch Television.
SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING:Television May Result in AD(H)D, Premature Laziness, and Decreased Brain Function.
SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Quitting Television Now Greatly Reduces Serious Risks to Your Intelligence.
SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Television Contains Advertisements.

Ground Up

[milsoRgen]

Either way it's pathetic, and no warning label will fix it. It occurs to me everyone goes after the symptoms, never the problem them selves. We need to focusing on raising well adjusted physically fit people, that would drastically reduce the likelihood of any form of addiction. But I'm sure blowing research money on warning labels is just as good...

Re:Heh

[Archangel Michael]

Exactly!

Next time someone wants a Nanny State to provide something to everyone, this should be the response from the crowd. I'd love to see someone say this very thing each and everytime Obama (or Hillary) or McCain mentions a new program to save us from ourselves.

You have it all twisted

[Bane1998]

There's a lot of posts about why we shouldn't have warning labels if they don't protect the person, or if the person doesn't listen, etc. I think everyone is missing the point. Warning labels are not about protecting the reader. It's about protecting the person who made the product. I like to think we as a society aren't so stupid as to think warning labels make a difference. Everyone knows they don't. To keep pointing out the obvious that they won't stop anyone from doing something stupid and expecting the system to change is a complete failure to understand the system.

Warning labels exist not because a woman was stupid and burned her lap with hot coffee. She was stupid. Everyone knows that. They exist because she decided to sue and wasn't laughed out of court. She wasn't laughed out of court because everyone likes to attack the big companies. Because if yer on a jury with this poor burned woman on one side, and a megacorporation on the other, yer going to make the coorporation pay just because it's the liberal-ish thing to do. And so now companies have to protect themselves. I would too, if some person could sue me for a hundred billion gajillion USD. I'd put warning labels on every single thing I made.

When you see a warning label, replace 'warning' with 'disclaimer' and suddenly the whole system makes a lot more sense. Warning labels are not indicative of a nanny state or anything like that, it's indicative of there being a huge risk of someone deciding to sue you, and actually winning.

Re:Do warnings actually work?

[Digi-John]

A priori, it seems reasonable that a warning label would discourage people, but people need to read them, think about them, and then decide to follow them. As we see with cigarettes, some people have trouble doing that.

So you've just decided that all "normal" people would decide "Hmm, the Surgeon General warned me, better not smoke!", rather than weighing the risks and deciding that the pleasure obtained through smoking was worth it? Remember--a decision is only a smart, *informed* decision if it's the same one you approve of! Everyone who decides otherwise is just brainwashed.

Who wants to live to be 90?

Information

[ilikepi314]

Your post (which by the way, I agree with) reminds me of another issue though that I have contemplated for some time and not been able to figure out -- the matter of information on making decisions.

While adults should be left to their own decisions for the most part, is it safe to assume that *everyone* has read all of the medical papers, scientific journals, safety instructions on a particular object? I do not see how this is possible, as I can barely keep up with all of the papers related to my field of research, let alone all of the other things being done on the planet. It's not a matter of I'm lazy or not willing to find it on my own, but simply that I *do not have the time* to wade through all of this research on whether or not a particular thing is a good idea for me to do or buy.

Thus comes my dilemma: do we assume everyone will find out about the results of this research and therefore have the knowledge necessary to make an informed decision, or do we push a bit harder for people to hear our message by forcing warning labels? I personally like the idea of a well-informed public (I know if chocolate pudding caused cancer, I would DEFINITELY want it reported immediately, which could potentially require government intervention as I imagine few pudding companies would want to put this on their box voluntarily), but I also realize this sort of thing has a huge potential for abuse (i.e., spreading misinformation and bias), and that perhaps some citizens will not care anyway or feel they are being picked on as a result.

You'd have to find a way of informing everyone in a clear unbiased manner (which removing bias from people is near impossible), while simultaneously not demonizing people for making what are ultimately personal decisions (which is also near impossible for many people). So yeah, I'm not sure how to balance that any better than the way we have right now -- which isn't always very balanced in itself.

Re:Information

[khayman80]

I've put some thought into this as well. I think warning labels may actually be counter-productive, in that they give Average Joe the impression that he doesn't have to think about how to safely use a product or do any research. All he has to do is read the warning labels and all danger magically evaporates. In addition, the fact that there is a government body devoted to forcing these warning labels gives the impression that all dangers have been rigorously examined and makes the government liable for any omissions or mistakes.

While I think that voluntary warning labels are a good idea, I don't think mandating them is a good idea. First of all, companies that are responsible will put intelligent warning labels on their products to warn against non-obvious dangers, just because there's no profit in killing off their customer base. Non-responsible companies are a different matter, and fifty years ago I might have agreed that government intervention was necessary to protect people against predatory companies. With the advent of the internet, though, it would be a relatively simple matter for a citizen to google the name of the product/company before buying/using the product. Any dangerous information would be revealed through a quick 30 second search.

PSA: Sanitation, Agriculture Habit Forming

[chkn0]

Public Service Announcement: Habit-Forming Technologies

It has come to the attention of this institution that certain technologies and innovations developed over the course of human history may, in retrospect, be habit-forming and could lead to addiction. Citizens are encouraged to exercise caution and restraint in their use of the following list of technologies and are further encouraged to be vigilant for the sake of their friends and family members, lest they become too deeply involved in these potentially dangerous activities.

Help is available. If you or a loved one, friend, or acquaintance finds himself or herself excessively attached to one or more of these technologies, contact your local branch office of the Ministry of Progress immediately.

List of recognized potentially habit-forming technologies:

• Tools
• Fire
• Language
• Clothing
• Artificial Shelter
• Domestication of Animals
• Agriculture
• Ships
• Writing
• Wheels
• Plumbing
• Sanitation
• Lenses
• Internal combustion engines
• Refrigeration
• Electrical distribution
• Radio
• Semiconductors