Friction of Choices

    Nowadays, there are large numbers ofapps we can choose from. Through these apps, we can watch videos, make friends,chat with family, learn knowledge, and so on. In a word, no one can tell allabout it in days and nights. There are all kinds of things, which will makepeople dizzy. As the saying goes, only we cannot think of, no apps cannot do.However, with such great numbers of choices, is it always easy for us to choosewhat we really want?

       According to Tristan Harris, instead of viewing the world interms of availability of choices, we should view the world in terms of frictionrequired to enact choices. "Friction" is a physics concept, whichis the force caused by moving, or trying to move. Imagine we are driving a carand stop at a highway fork. We can drive on through any of the roads ahead andarrive at various destinations, but the road conditions would be different:There are both broad roads and winding paths. The friction we feel when drivingon winding paths is likely to push you to another easier way, the way that theauthority wants you to go.

Which waywould you choose?

       This case can just be used as an analogy to the current appsmarket. When we are using apps, we seem to be able to make a wide range ofchoices, such as styles, settings and notifications. Viewing from theperspective of availability, the freedom to choose, the breadth of choice, itis not the problem we are faced with now. The key point is the friction wefeel, the difficulties, the resistance, the obstacles we undergo when we makecertain choices.

       Apps naturally want to make the choices they want you to makeeasier, and the choices they don’t want you to make harder. The choices thatapps hope or induce you to make often have several outstanding features:

1.    The font size is big,and the color is bright, whose only goal is to let user click on that button.

2.    These choices alwayswrite a line of so-called "tips" in an inconspicuous place, with aninconspicuous font. If you don't observe the website carefully, it's hard tonotice.

3.    It is very convenientto make such choices. Apps are only too anxious to let the user turn somethingon immediately. After the user makes a choice, he doesn't even realize that hehas just made it.

       However, when you want to cancel the previous choice, thischoice is usually not so simple——The entrance is hidden, the procedure iscomplex, and the steps are cumbersome. Take the automatic renewal as anexample, which is a contractual provision that operates at the end of acontract current term to automatically extend the term for a specified periodof time. Some users complained about Baidu network disk, saying that the mobileapp not only prevents us from canceling the renewal, but also forces us tocontinue to renew it. Some other apps do set up the function of cancelingrenewal, but they take us around for a long time. When the entrance is finallyfound, the platform will often tell us that the cancellation fails, or theaccount is abnormal.

It's sohard to cancel the renewal.

       Therefore, the focus of the problem is not on the availabilityof choices, but on the friction/difficulty of specific choices. The core of itis inequality, the information imbalance. That is to say, our right to know andthe right to choose are not really guaranteed. Just as Tristan Harris writes,technical businesses are hijacking people's minds.

       Need to add that, I do not mean that the apps developed bytechnical businesses have not brought convenience to our life. I could notagree more with Kai-Fu Lee's view in AI Superpower: The digitization ofthe world will eliminate common points of friction and tailor services to everyone.Here, the friction refers to the inconvenience or impossibilities to dosomething in the past. It is used to emphasize how great the changes are,brought by the development of technologies. They will bring the availabilityand abundance of the on-line world into our off-line reality.

       Since apps have brought great convenience to our life and wehave almost achieved a leap in quantity, this time we should stop and thinkabout something further. What do we lose when we get so much information throughapps? What compensation do we pay for each choice we make on apps? Are thereinequalities and subjectivity in these choices? When we are induced to makecertain choices, are apps making choices instead of us? By accepting variousprotocols, we are offering all aspects of privacy information to apps. Afterthe processing and analysis of big data, this information has become the basisfor apps to provide us with recommended choices. We embrace these easy choices,and apps continue to give feedback based on the choices we make. This forms acycle: the choices we are interested in become easier, and the choices we arenot interested in fade out of our vision. If at this time, we suddenly want totry something else, but find that other choices no longer exist, and ourmindsets have been completely kidnapped by apps - do we still have the freedomof choice? Are we still ourselves?

       The final goal of technical businesses is actually racking theirbrains to bundle us on the screen and consume our time, so as to exchange formore visibility and revenue. Almost all of the choices that apps induce us tomake are focusing on how to occupy more time and consume more money in yourpocket.

       Apps arehijacking your mind!

Moreparticularly, some apps even have the order reversed. They use our dependenceon apps, to forcibly increase the friction of choices. For example, they put upinteractive pages in the form of hovers and delegated dialogs during startupand use. When we are tired of dealing with friction produced by these apps, ourwork, study or life efficiency can be severely affected. From this point ofview, we should know that the app is just a tool. It is necessary to use it ifit can help people work and live better. On the contrary, we don't have to cutyour feet to fit your shoes and ask for trouble.

       To tackle this problem, not only do we users need to enhance ourawareness in this regard, but we should also appeal for legal supervision andcall on businesses to shoulder their social responsibilities. To be specific,technical businesses should be supervised by the market and administrationdepartment to establish a joint punishment mechanism. For example, through theblacklist system, the necessary credit punishment should be given to the appsthat illegally operate and infringe on the rights and interests of us. Priorsupervision should be applied to ensure that apps can inform us of all choicesin a clear and eye-catching form, and we can determine by ourselves freely withequal ease; post supervision is also necessary, where our privacy informationshould be well preserved, and the apps should be in line with its socialresponsibility of serving the people. With social supervision and our appeal,the friction of choice will be gradually eliminated.

       Our broad roads have been paved. Now what we need to do is toexpand the winding paths, and make the road signs more objective and specific.In this way, all roads lead to Rome, and we can pass freely without friction.