Hari begins with two questions: What kind of changes would make devices and sites less addictive, and how can society make Big Tech corporations enact these changes? Aza Raskin recommends laws prohibiting surveillance capitalism; to reduce targeted ads, companies could adopt subscription models in which users pay a small fee to access the service, so that companies such as Facebook would no longer be working for advertisers, but for users. Another option would be for governments to buy social media sites and convert them into independently run public utilities; to avoid being co-opted into government propaganda, they could follow the model of the BBC, the British broadcast network that is publicly owned, but independently programmed.

Harris and Raskin’s recommendations for minor changes include reintroducing finite scroll, bundling notifications, and turning off recommendations that lead to “polarizing” and “radicalizing” content (159). Social media interfaces could promote pro-social behavior: highlighting friends who want to meet up in real life, limiting screen time, or starting new hobbies. Hari laments, however, that these changes will almost certainly not happen without government intervention.

Some people believe the concern about social media is a needless “moral panic” (161) based on a fear of change. While this opinion has some merit, Hari argues that the risks of societal disruption if Big Tech continues unchecked far outweigh the benefits.