I, like many others, struggle with an undiagnosed addiction to Instagram reels. I put an hour limit on the app, but clicking the “ignore for the day” button under the warning has become a habit that I could do blindfolded. It was during one such rotting session that an interesting ad came up, sandwiched between a “Family Guy” highlight reel and an AI edit of President Donald Trump inviting me to gamble with him. It was an ad for the Brick, a square fridge magnet that locks certain apps when you tap your phone on it. To unlock them, I would need to bring my phone back to the physical magnet to tap it again. The website shows pictures of smiling customers studying without distraction and spending time with their children, with the tagline: “Take Back Your Time,” all for $59. Phones and apps like social media are designed to be addictive, because all companies want people to use their product more, not less. This business model has largely grown unchecked due to the government being slow to regulate the technology industry. Products that block phone usage are a means of self-regulation. It simultaneously helps people in the absence of government regulation, and acts as a substitute for government regulation.
Brick is not the only product that regulates phone use. Apps and devices that aid in focus by limiting phone use are selling well and generating hype. They are advertised on social media, a remarkable strategy that both saves money and targets their ideal customer: a doomscroller who wishes they could quit but cannot. Nobody likes scrolling, deep down; they recognize it as something their brain compels them to do. I have seen a wide range of ads, ranging from general-use devices like the Brick, to more specialized ones, like an app that will not unlock your social media unless you do pushups in front of it, to whole new phones without internet capabilities. I am going to use “dumbphone” as a blanket term to describe all these products that limit phone usage. Most of the businesses appear to be start-ups, but the demand for their product is so high that they may become a thriving industry, with a consumer base that grows symbiotically with the consumer base of smartphone users. Furthermore, they are unlikely to be bought out by larger technology companies, because their product makes people use technology less, not more. These start-ups are not only profitable, but they can also maintain their independence.
The dumbphone industry has an advantage partly because cell phones and social media are heavily unregulated. The Trump administration has made it clear that it wants to deregulate technology companies to increase our country’s Gross Domestic Product and compete with China. In his administration’s AI Action Plan, there was little talk of ensuring the well-being of citizen’s health or well-being. Even without Trump, the United States has not yet included any technology-related addictions in the DSM-5. Meanwhile, the World Health Organization incorporated Gaming Disorder as an addictive behavior, while many countries around the world have tried to tackle tech addiction in policy.
This is not to say that other countries have “figured it out” in terms of technology regulation either. A lot of the existing tech regulation is aimed at protecting children’s safety and mental health. While many medical journals describe it as an addiction for adults and children, the laws on the books clearly convey more urgency for children. The most famous example is Australia, which recently barred children under 16 from using social media and fined technology companies that allow this. Time will tell if this works well or not, but once a person is 16, so long as they do not post or view illegal content, they are free to use their phone as much as they want. Adults get addicted just like kids can, but there are no regulations for them. I am not saying that the U.S. federal government will never tackle the issue of phone addiction, but there are A) many more obstacles at present, and B) the legal impetus to stamp out specifically phone addiction in adults barely even exists anywhere in the world.
While solving an immediate problem that would otherwise get little attention, it is possible that the dumbphone industry may hinder regulation in the future. Products like the Brick have been invented because technology companies have deliberately made their technology addictive, while the government has not attempted to regulate it. Dumbphones will have customers so long as these things remain true. A helpful way to understand why this is problematic could be to watch a short video of Dagestani Imams criticizing Batman. In a nutshell, they ask why Batman, with his vast fortune, does not stop crime systemically by funding social programs, instead opting to fight individual criminals in a costume. The Imams go so far as to accuse Batman of not wanting crime to disappear, because then he would have no reason to be Batman anymore.
Applying this metaphor, it seems that dumbphones from the private sector could hinder systemic solutions, and fewer citizens would call for regulation because they can simply buy a dumbphone product. It may even be in the best interest of the dumbphone industry for regulations to be weak, so that their industry can grow its services to meet all the unmet needs. For example, a dumbphone startup could launch a phone-blocking device for schools to reduce phone addiction and distraction. However, implement an Australia-style social media age ban, and this start-up idea—with all its earning potential—evaporates into thin air. The dumbphone industry is effectively racing with the government to solve screen addictions, and they are winning.
With the Brick, the private sector has created more than a quirky way to stay offline. It has effectively made a replacement for government regulation that they can profit from. Some may be alarmed at this precedent for health and well-being to be privatized. I am too, but I also do not trust the current government to regulate technology responsibly due to its heavy involvement with larger technology industries. The cure to capitalism may, for the time being, be more capitalism.