In 2010, Paul Graham wrote an essay about the internet called “The Acceleration of Addictiveness”. These 14 years later, it holds up. Graham’s thesis is that technological progress has increased addictiveness in the world. More things we like will become things we like too much. In the temporary absence of societal antidotes, Graham opines that individuals should develop personal strategies to reduce exposure to addictive elements of modern society.

Graham concludes: “If people don’t think you’re weird, you’re living badly.” In other words, only the eccentric survive.

The majority of society faces addiction to cheap mental distractions that prevent them from reaching their potential. Those reading Hacker News might escape the numb psychosis that is the 2024 norm, but only through personal vigilance against ever-more-pleasurable technological drugs. Winners will exist, but they’ll be few, and they won’t let their children use these technologies.

Coming from one of technology’s leading framers, I find this conclusion unsatisfactory. The prescription—just get weirder—is too narrow, too defeatist, and too Disney-esque.

The Personal Struggle

I am one person with one brain, pitting it daily against thousands of experts in human psychology and behavior. Every day, I lose. Full opt-out would require abandoning modern life entirely—no Google Maps, no connectivity. I’ve tried: meditation habits, bedroom phone bans, grayscale screens, no podcasts in the shower.

Despite these efforts, my relationship with the internet remains “quite ordinary: just garden-variety addicted.” I attribute this to personal responsibility and an internal locus of control—a very American perspective.

The Systems Problem

Focusing solely on individual willpower is willfully obtuse. It zooms in too far. I reference the improv principle “Yes, and”—accepting what’s given while developing it further. Personal willingness is necessary but insufficient.

Companies best positioned to build attention-management products won’t do so because it would cannibalize their core businesses. Apple, despite being the greatest product company of our age, has become an advertising company. The business model pioneered by The Daily Telegraph in 1855—taking losses on products to amass audiences, then selling their attention—works everywhere.

Apple could create the “FitBit for our minds” but won’t, because reducing screen time harms business. Non-frazzled people make fewer impulse purchases, shrinking the advertising pie.

The Market Opportunity

I identify three conditions for product creation:

  1. Identification of unmet need: Clearly established by Graham in 2010
  2. Market willing to pay: Self-evident—think Cal Newport, Ali Abdaal, Andrew Huberman. Employees wish they were sharper. People bemoan attention spans.
  3. Technical feasibility: YouTube, Apple know users intimately. They could help marshal attention effectively if they wanted to.

A Proposal

Unable to join established powers, I propose becoming “pirates.” The strategy: B2B SaaS targeting companies. Workers would upload data from major platforms; AI would learn their patterns. The product would resemble Apple Health if Apple actually cared about health—gamified attention tracking, positive reinforcement, gentle nudges. A PR campaign would pressure Apple to open their Screentime API.

Conclusion

Graham closed his essay noting that lonely struggle against addictiveness will define anyone wanting to get things done. I need help saying no and I believe others do too. I may be eccentric, but it’s not enough.

There’s gold in them there hills for the right product builders willing to challenge the status quo.