scholarly journals Framing 'digital well-being' as a social good

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Daubs ◽  
Alex Beattie
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Service ◽  
Screen Time ◽  
Well Being ◽  
The United States ◽  
Governmental Regulation ◽  
Social Good ◽  
Commercial Enterprise ◽  
Use Of Social Media ◽  
Time Frames

This contribution argues that companies such as Apple, Facebook, and Google are increasingly incorporating features that supposedly promote “digital well-being” to forestall regulation of their platforms and services. The inclusion of these features, such as Apple’s Screen Time, frames these commercial platforms as providing a social good by promising to encourage more “intentional” or “mindful” use of social media and mobile devices. As a result, oft-critiqued platforms are increasingly adopting the language of their critics in order to frame themselves as a social good. This strategy mimics that used by radio executives in the United States in the early twentieth century, where the medium developed as a predominantly commercial enterprise. To avoid regulation, it became necessary to perpetuate the perception that commercial broadcasters were also a social good that fulfilled a public service function. Platforms today, we assert, are inadvertently or purposefully adopting a similar tactic to position themselves as leaders in a developing digital wellness market in the hopes of avoiding future governmental regulation.

scholarly journals Framing 'digital well-being' as a social good

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex Beattie ◽  
Michael Daubs
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Service ◽  
Screen Time ◽  
Well Being ◽  
The United States ◽  
Governmental Regulation ◽  
Social Good ◽  
Commercial Enterprise ◽  
Use Of Social Media ◽  
Time Frames

This contribution argues that companies such as Apple, Facebook, and Google are increasingly incorporating features that supposedly promote “digital well-being” to forestall regulation of their platforms and services. The inclusion of these features, such as Apple’s Screen Time, frames these commercial platforms as providing a social good by promising to encourage more “intentional” or “mindful” use of social media and mobile devices. As a result, oft-critiqued platforms are increasingly adopting the language of their critics in order to frame themselves as a social good. This strategy mimics that used by radio executives in the United States in the early twentieth century, where the medium developed as a predominantly commercial enterprise. To avoid regulation, it became necessary to perpetuate the perception that commercial broadcasters were also a social good that fulfilled a public service function. Platforms today, we assert, are inadvertently or purposefully adopting a similar tactic to position themselves as leaders in a developing digital wellness market in the hopes of avoiding future governmental regulation.

Framing 'digital well-being' as a social good

First Monday ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex Beattie ◽  
Michael S. Daubs
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Service ◽  
Screen Time ◽  
Well Being ◽  
The United States ◽  
Governmental Regulation ◽  
Social Good ◽  
Commercial Enterprise ◽  
Use Of Social Media ◽  
Time Frames

This contribution argues that companies such as Apple, Facebook, and Google are increasingly incorporating features that supposedly promote “digital well-being” to forestall regulation of their platforms and services. The inclusion of these features, such as Apple’s Screen Time, frames these commercial platforms as providing a social good by promising to encourage more “intentional” or “mindful” use of social media and mobile devices. As a result, oft-critiqued platforms are increasingly adopting the language of their critics in order to frame themselves as a social good. This strategy mimics that used by radio executives in the United States in the early twentieth century, where the medium developed as a predominantly commercial enterprise. To avoid regulation, it became necessary to perpetuate the perception that commercial broadcasters were also a social good that fulfilled a public service function. Platforms today, we assert, are inadvertently or purposefully adopting a similar tactic to position themselves as leaders in a developing digital wellness market in the hopes of avoiding future governmental regulation.

scholarly journals Framing 'digital well-being' as a social good

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Daubs ◽  
Alex Beattie
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Service ◽  
Screen Time ◽  
Well Being ◽  
The United States ◽  
Governmental Regulation ◽  
Social Good ◽  
Commercial Enterprise ◽  
Use Of Social Media ◽  
Time Frames

This contribution argues that companies such as Apple, Facebook, and Google are increasingly incorporating features that supposedly promote “digital well-being” to forestall regulation of their platforms and services. The inclusion of these features, such as Apple’s Screen Time, frames these commercial platforms as providing a social good by promising to encourage more “intentional” or “mindful” use of social media and mobile devices. As a result, oft-critiqued platforms are increasingly adopting the language of their critics in order to frame themselves as a social good. This strategy mimics that used by radio executives in the United States in the early twentieth century, where the medium developed as a predominantly commercial enterprise. To avoid regulation, it became necessary to perpetuate the perception that commercial broadcasters were also a social good that fulfilled a public service function. Platforms today, we assert, are inadvertently or purposefully adopting a similar tactic to position themselves as leaders in a developing digital wellness market in the hopes of avoiding future governmental regulation.

scholarly journals Framing Digital Wellbeing as a Social Good

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Daubs ◽  
Alexander Beattie
Keyword(s):  
Public Service ◽  
Classical Music ◽  
Mobile Apps ◽  
The United States ◽  
Popular Entertainment ◽  
High Culture ◽  
Governmental Regulation ◽  
Social Good ◽  
Commercial Enterprise ◽  
Use Of Social Media

This contribution argues that companies such as Apple, Facebook, and Google are increasingly incorporating features that supposedly promote “digital wellbeing” to forestall regulation of their platforms and services. The inclusion of these features, we suggest, frames these commercial platforms as providing a social good by promising to encourage more “intentional” or “mindful” use of social media and mobile devices. Apple’s June 2018 iOS update, for example, included a new function called Screentime, which incorporates features similar to other digital wellbeing mobile apps including the ability to impose time limits on the use of specific apps and data analytics on amount of time a user spends on their device. The introduction of these features demonstrates how oft-critiqued platforms are increasingly adopting the language of their critics in order to frame themselves as a social good. This strategy mimics that used by radio executives in the United States in the early 20th century, where the medium developed as a fully commercial enterprise. To avoid regulation, it became necessary to perpetuate the perception that commercial broadcasters were also a social good that fulfilled a public service function. Popular entertainment programming was thus supplemented with “high culture” music programmes (e.g., classical music), news, and “home services” shows. Platforms today, we assert, are inadvertently or purposefully adopting a similar tactic to position themselves as leaders in a developing digital wellness market in the hopes of avoiding future governmental regulation.

scholarly journals Framing Digital Wellbeing as a Social Good

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Daubs ◽  
Alexander Beattie
Keyword(s):  
Public Service ◽  
Classical Music ◽  
Mobile Apps ◽  
The United States ◽  
Popular Entertainment ◽  
High Culture ◽  
Governmental Regulation ◽  
Social Good ◽  
Commercial Enterprise ◽  
Use Of Social Media

This contribution argues that companies such as Apple, Facebook, and Google are increasingly incorporating features that supposedly promote “digital wellbeing” to forestall regulation of their platforms and services. The inclusion of these features, we suggest, frames these commercial platforms as providing a social good by promising to encourage more “intentional” or “mindful” use of social media and mobile devices. Apple’s June 2018 iOS update, for example, included a new function called Screentime, which incorporates features similar to other digital wellbeing mobile apps including the ability to impose time limits on the use of specific apps and data analytics on amount of time a user spends on their device. The introduction of these features demonstrates how oft-critiqued platforms are increasingly adopting the language of their critics in order to frame themselves as a social good. This strategy mimics that used by radio executives in the United States in the early 20th century, where the medium developed as a fully commercial enterprise. To avoid regulation, it became necessary to perpetuate the perception that commercial broadcasters were also a social good that fulfilled a public service function. Popular entertainment programming was thus supplemented with “high culture” music programmes (e.g., classical music), news, and “home services” shows. Platforms today, we assert, are inadvertently or purposefully adopting a similar tactic to position themselves as leaders in a developing digital wellness market in the hopes of avoiding future governmental regulation.

scholarly journals Framing Digital Wellbeing as a Social Good

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Beattie ◽  
Michael Daubs
Keyword(s):  
Public Service ◽  
Classical Music ◽  
Mobile Apps ◽  
The United States ◽  
Popular Entertainment ◽  
High Culture ◽  
Governmental Regulation ◽  
Social Good ◽  
Commercial Enterprise ◽  
Use Of Social Media

This contribution argues that companies such as Apple, Facebook, and Google are increasingly incorporating features that supposedly promote “digital wellbeing” to forestall regulation of their platforms and services. The inclusion of these features, we suggest, frames these commercial platforms as providing a social good by promising to encourage more “intentional” or “mindful” use of social media and mobile devices. Apple’s June 2018 iOS update, for example, included a new function called Screentime, which incorporates features similar to other digital wellbeing mobile apps including the ability to impose time limits on the use of specific apps and data analytics on amount of time a user spends on their device. The introduction of these features demonstrates how oft-critiqued platforms are increasingly adopting the language of their critics in order to frame themselves as a social good. This strategy mimics that used by radio executives in the United States in the early 20th century, where the medium developed as a fully commercial enterprise. To avoid regulation, it became necessary to perpetuate the perception that commercial broadcasters were also a social good that fulfilled a public service function. Popular entertainment programming was thus supplemented with “high culture” music programmes (e.g., classical music), news, and “home services” shows. Platforms today, we assert, are inadvertently or purposefully adopting a similar tactic to position themselves as leaders in a developing digital wellness market in the hopes of avoiding future governmental regulation.

Do Rights Still Flow Downhill?

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 273-284 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine Hunt Federle
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Vulnerable Populations ◽  
Well Being ◽  
The United States ◽  
Governmental Regulation ◽  
Social Compact ◽  
Small Measure ◽  
Strong Notion ◽  
Anglo American ◽  
The Welfare State

In the United States, the debate about whether children have rights continues to rage, in no small measure due to the absence of any framing document that recognises children as rights holders. Within Anglo-American traditions, competence is a prerequisite to having and exercising rights, largely because of notions surrounding social compact theory. Thus children are excluded from the class of rights holders because they lack competency. The tension between a conception of the rights holder as an autonomous and capable individual free from governmental regulation and a strong notion of the welfare state suggests that a system of rights which acknowledges remediation of insecurity and inequality as a vital governmental obligation is essential to the well-being of all vulnerable populations, including children. That system of rights, grounded in notions of empowerment, continues to offer a way forward for children.

Dialectical Thinking and Psychological Well-Being in Morocco, China, and the United States

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cassidy Bibo ◽  
Julie Spencer-Rodgers ◽  
Benaissa Zarhbouch ◽  
Mostafa Bouanini ◽  
Kaiping Peng
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Well Being ◽  
The United States ◽  
Dialectical Thinking ◽  
Psychological Well Being

The link between coronavirus, anxiety, and religious beliefs in the United States and United Kingdom

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesco Rigoli
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Religious Beliefs ◽  
Well Being ◽  
The United States ◽  
Christian Faith ◽  
Stressful Event ◽  
Cultural Implications ◽  
The Impact

Research has shown that stress impacts on people’s religious beliefs. However, several aspects of this effect remain poorly understood, for example regarding the role of prior religiosity and stress-induced anxiety. This paper explores these aspects in the context of the recent coronavirus emergency. The latter has impacted dramatically on many people’s well-being; hence it can be considered a highly stressful event. Through online questionnaires administered to UK and USA citizens professing either Christian faith or no religion, this paper examines the impact of the coronavirus crisis upon common people’s religious beliefs. We found that, following the coronavirus emergency, strong believers reported higher confidence in their religious beliefs while non-believers reported increased scepticism towards religion. Moreover, for strong believers, higher anxiety elicited by the coronavirus threat was associated with increased strengthening of religious beliefs. Conversely, for non-believers, higher anxiety elicited by the coronavirus thereat was associated with increased scepticism towards religious beliefs. These observations are consistent with the notion that stress-induced anxiety enhances support for the ideology already embraced before a stressful event occurs. This study sheds light on the psychological and cultural implications of the coronavirus crisis, which represents one of the most serious health emergencies in recent times.

Capturing the Art of Public Service: The Government’s Perspective

Public Voices ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 55
Author(s):  
Tony Carrizales
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Content Analysis ◽  
Popular Culture ◽  
Public Service ◽  
Public Art ◽  
The United States ◽  
Virtual Museum ◽  
Film And Television ◽  
Government Institutions ◽  
Art Forms

Public Service, in popular culture, can be viewed through many artistic lenses. Although there has been a consistent negative portrayal of government through art forms such as film and television, this research looks to review how government institutions in the United States have used art to provide a positive portrayal of public service. Eight forms of public service art are outlined through a content analysis of the holdings at the Virtual Museum of Public Service. The findings show that government and public entities have historically and continually engaged in promoting public service through art. Many of these public art examples are accessible year round, without limitations, such as buildings, statues, and public structures.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document