It doesn’t require the perspicacity of Sherlock Holmes to realize that the internet has altered our notions of space and time. However, highlighting how this change has affected the scene is essential. In time, we live in the shadow of the immediate and the interminable; in space, we are faced with an approach that separates the real from the virtual.

This division between the virtual and the real was useful during the early days of the internet to help understand the emerging reality. However, as time progresses, this distinction makes less sense.

Disrupting the notion that we are in two distinct environments is important for starting the conversation about digital habits.

Manuel Castells, already in the early 2000s [1], questioned this distinction by proposing the term “real virtuality.” There would be no opposition between the real and the virtual, as virtuality would already be part of our realities, and it would be impossible to think about our lives in society without considering this dimension [1].

More recently, the Italian Stefano Quintarelli [2] has named a "non-material dimension" or "immaterial reality," a dimension in which "people engage in economic and social relationships through digital technologies." According to Quintarelli, the immaterial reality actually emerged at the beginning of 2001.

Alongside this divided approach, when considering the effects of technologies—perhaps to accommodate the discomfort we feel in the face of a complex scenario involving the pace of technological development, economic changes, and the limits of our institutions—we tend to adopt perspectives where the focus is on the technologies themselves. Thus, we reduce the discussion to classifying a particular technology, whether devices, social networks, or even the internet, as either good or bad.

It is not uncommon to see nostalgic discourses evoked, as if things were better in the past, as if all communication and interaction were "real" before. This is an illusion, because our communication is, to some extent, always of the virtual order, even offline.

“It is estimated that by around 2030 there will be 500 billion devices connected to the Internet” [2]. And with the Internet of Things (IoT), “devices” refers to a multitude of objects: from household appliances and cars to wearables like smart pacemakers and ingestible sensors.

In this complex and sometimes anxiety-inducing scenario, it becomes necessary, though somewhat late, to factor in our digital habits or the way we use technology.

Why should the main focus of these discussions be our digital habits and the way we use technology?

Usage is related both to the development of technologies and to their effects and how they impact us. People and organizations that design or develop new technologies try to anticipate specific uses and, in some cases, even the emotions and feelings involved. This is because most information technologies rely heavily on interactivity, engagement, and high immersion, as their "popularity" depends on user attention. Some authors already use the term "attention economy" in these contexts. Alongside information, user attention is what holds the most value in the immaterial dimension [2].

The term persuasive computing [3] [4] refers to how software design, through the experience it provides—including the emotions and feelings it evokes—can influence users to adopt certain behaviors. However, design cannot predict all possible uses. In different contexts, with the presence of new variables or changes in interaction methods, other responses may emerge.

Thus, developers of any product, whether technological or not, when designing, can and should aim to offer benefits and improvements to users. On the other hand, even if they strive to design with the intention of providing well-being and benefits, the way we use these products can alter the impacts and effects, whether emotional or otherwise.

When using most digital products or services, our configuration preferences and the way we interact with these services or products are included in our data. This information becomes available to the provider of the product or service. Based on this data, new versions can be optimized, features added or removed, and improvements implemented. [2]

This is why some features are first tested in certain countries. The choice may be based on the behavior of the majority of users in that region. A recent example is Twitter's Fleets, a kind of stories feature, which was initially tested in Brazil, followed by Italy, and last month became available for testing to users in India as well.

“Since Brazil is one of the countries where people converse the most on Twitter, with many of you passionate about talking and following other Brazilians on the platform, we are excited to test the new feature here.” [Twitter Blog]

That said, in addition to requiring more engaged stances regarding corporate accountability and ethics in product development and privacy aspects—which is increasingly necessary—discussions should also include how we use certain technologies.

This perspective holds some potential for change. Just as developers and designers think before creating, we users can also rethink how we use technologies, thereby making choices that contribute to our own well-being and, in the case of specific products, influence service providers or producers, leading to modifications or even the development of positive technologies.

I do not have the naivety to believe that service providers or producers will implement changes solely because it could offer well-being to us users. However, if our attention is the currency in this dimension—and it is—facing the possibility of losing user attention, they will at least consider the possibility of making changes. This is what happened with the supposed “disappearance” of Instagram likes—supposed because the information is still visible, but it is no longer displayed all the time in the app as it was before. With criticisms backed by some research indicating that the count of likes was contributing to users' discomfort, and to ensure a positive image of the organization and avoid losing these users, the information was hidden.

The development of technologies occurs in a social context where consumption and an ideal of happiness based on consumption still dominate:

“(...) the consumer society educates us in the virtues and pleasures of knowing ourselves and understanding what we desire (to know ourselves simply means to know what we want to have).” Adam Phillips [5].

The way we use technology still serves these discourses, and the discomfort we often feel may also be related to the possibility that technologies allow us to confront the harsher expression of this logic, which we might take longer to notice under different circumstances.

Technologies can influence changes in behavior; however, the way we use them—which can reflect the discourses that shape us—is an important component and perhaps the one closest to us.

“‘Machines’ offer the chance to penetrate information into the most incomparable curves of space-time ever imagined. Use these machines in the way things should be 'used,' critically; otherwise, they will use you. The difference lies in the approach, and sometimes it’s just a matter of method; but I hope you are able to distance yourselves from the facts, reflect on information, and interrupt the flow whenever you need to regain your own sense of the world.” Stefano Quintarelli [2]

Originally written in Brazilian Portuguese

References

[1] Castells, M. (2002) A sociedade em rede. 6ª edição. Editora Paz e Terra.

[2] Quintarelli, S. (2019) Instruções para um futuro imaterial. Editora Elefante.

[3] Fogg, B. J. (1998). Persuasive computers: perspectives and research directions. Proceedings of CHI 1998, ACM Press, 225–232 .

[4]Thompson, Clive. (2019). Coders: The Making of a New Tribe and the Remaking of the World. Penguin Books.

[5] Phillips, Adam. (2013). O Que Você É e o Que Você Quer Ser. Editora Benvirá.