How to Do Nothing: Resisting the Attention Economy

Withdrawing from society altogether is something the author rejects because of the tendency for such experiments to swap out politics for design, effectively removing individual agency. Is that the case in every instance? Have there been no utopian movements that retained politics in which everyone could participate? What about Amish communities or the Utopian Socialists of the 19th century? Pick three such communities (from different traditions or movements) and analyze their structure in terms of the level of internal political participation.

Using either your hometown or current place of residence (if they are different), compare a present-day map to an older one (from at least several decades ago). Follow the same procedure that Odell does in Chapter 4 with her hometown of Cupertino to provide an analysis of the city or town’s growth. If it’s a very large city, choose an area more manageable in size to work with, such as a neighborhood or district. Look at natural landmarks and how they might have influenced the way the area developed around them. For example, which natural areas are more favorable places to live and why? Who lives there now? What development was seen as progress in the past but destructive today? Think of all the aspects you can to include.

The harm of social media that Odell discusses is focused on adults. Only once does she specifically mention children, in the Conclusion, when she notes that many tech executives severely restrict their children’s use of electronic gadgets. What are the effects of social media on kids? Think about this in terms of both educational and social effects, and present what the research says about it. In your view, what steps could be taken to limit any such harm to children?

The author talks a lot about free will, so what about combating the attention economy with willpower and just use social media sparingly? It’s a choice, right? Is this a viable strategy? Why or why not? Be sure to support your arguments with evidence.

Odell references the 2016 presidential election only tangentially in the book. Many people regard that as the first election in which social media played a major, if not decisive, role. Do you think social media makes the political process more or less democratic? Be sure to support your arguments with research and examples.

How different is this phenomenon from TV or even newspapers and other forms of media that rely on advertising? Is social media unique or on a different order of magnitude from them? Trace the aspects of American society that contributed to the trend culminating in social media. How have TV, the print media, and cultural norms and mores changed over the past several decades that played a role in the rise of social media?

Some people might argue that the same aspects of social media the author decries have real benefits. Take the example of influencers and other producers of content. Through the ubiquity of social media and its model of advertising, people with enough subscribers or viewers of their work can make a decent living in places where opportunities were lacking in the past. One no longer needs to be in a certain city or country to take advantage of these opportunities. Examine this positive side of social media and how it can benefit people formerly left behind. Include specific examples to support your ideas.

All of what Odell describes in the book regarding social media takes place because it is legal in America. In places where the government controls the internet more strictly, social media platforms might be shut down if the government deems them harmful. Explore the legal framework in the United States that allows social media to do what it does within the bounds of the law. Is there a middle ground to be had between authoritarian control and a totally laissez-faire approach? In answering this, you might review the legal framework in the European Union in this respect and see how it compares to that of the United States.