Tristan Harris

And there's like a third position that I want people to stand from, which is to take on the truth of the situation and then to stand from agency about what are we going to do to change the current path that we're on.

So social media, let's just take that as a different example.

Because people look at that and they say it's hopeless.

Like there's nothing that we could do.

This is just inevitable.

This is just what happens when you connect people on the internet.

But imagine if you asked me, like, you know, so what happened after the social dilemma?

I'd be like, oh, well, we obviously solved the problem.

Like, we weren't going to allow that to continue happening.

So we realized that the problem was the business model of maximizing eyeballs and engagement.

We changed the business model.

There was a lawsuit, a big tobacco-style lawsuit for trillions, the trillions of dollars of damage that social media had caused to the social fabric, from mental health costs to lost productivity of society to all of these, to democracies backsliding.

And that lawsuit mandated design changes across how all this technology worked to go against and reverse all of the problems of that engagement-based business model.

We had dopamine emission standards, just like we have car emission standards for cars.

So now when using technology, we turned off things like autoplay and infinite scrolling.

So now using your phone, you didn't feel dysregulated.

we replaced the division-seeking algorithms of social media with ones that rewarded unlikely consensus or bridging.

So instead of rewarding division entrepreneurs, we rewarded bridging entrepreneurs.

There's a simple rule that cleaned up all the problems with technology and children.

which is that Silicon Valley was only allowed to ship products that their own children used for eight hours a day.