Compassion Tech: Designing for Connection, Not Addiction

Introduction by Tristan Harris

“When I worked inside Silicon Valley, I saw firsthand how technologies that promised connection were engineered to compete for our attention at all costs. Every notification, every scroll, every design choice was optimized to keep us hooked — not because anyone wanted to harm us, but because the business model rewarded it.

What began as tools to serve us quickly became systems that shaped us. Our phones turned into slot machines. Our children grew up inside laboratories of behavioral manipulation. And our societies, once bound together by shared stories, began to fracture under the weight of outrage and division.

But here’s the truth: it doesn’t have to be this way. Technology is not destiny. It is design. And if we designed ourselves into this crisis, then we can design our way out.

This series, Compassion Tech: Designing for Connection, Not Addiction, is an invitation to imagine that redesign. To ask: what if technology amplified our humanity instead of hijacking it? What if our devices made us more present, more loving, more alive? The conversations ahead bring together voices who believe that future is possible — and urgent.”

(Note: This is an imaginary conversation, a creative exploration of an idea, and not a real speech or event)

Topic 1: The Economics of Attention — Why Addiction Pays

Moderator: Tristan Harris
(former Google design ethicist, co-founder of the Center for Humane Technology)

Speakers:

• Shoshana Zuboff — scholar, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism
• Nir Eyal — behavioral design thinker, Indistractable
• Jaron Lanier — computer scientist, pioneer of virtual reality, author of Ten Arguments for Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Right Now
• Frances Haugen — Facebook whistleblower, data engineer
• Tristan Harris — weaving insights throughout

Question 1: Why do our technologies seem built to addict us instead of serve us?

Shoshana Zuboff:
It’s because the economic model behind today’s tech is not service, but surveillance. Platforms harvest behavioral data, predict our next moves, and sell those predictions to advertisers. Addiction isn’t a bug, it’s the business model. The more time we spend hooked, the more profit they make. It is not a failure of design, but a triumph of it — for the wrong ends.

Nir Eyal:
I’d put it slightly differently. These tools use the same psychology as games, casinos, and slot machines. Notifications, infinite scroll, variable rewards — all of it was borrowed from behavioral science. That doesn’t mean addiction is inevitable, but the incentives reward “stickiness” above all else. If companies can keep you on the app longer, they win.

Jaron Lanier:
The tragedy is that we’ve reduced human beings to “users.” Platforms are designed to manipulate those users for advertisers, stripping people of agency. It’s digital behaviorism, and it corrodes individuality. When you monetize attention, you inevitably exploit it. This is not connection, it’s conditioning.

Frances Haugen:
And from the inside, I saw this play out. At Facebook, the data showed how content that made people angry spread faster. Executives knew this. But the incentive — engagement — always won out over safety. Anger, fear, outrage: these are the emotions that keep people scrolling. And because the business model rewarded it, nothing changed.

Tristan Harris:
So what we’re all pointing to is this: we’ve built a system where human weakness is the product. Our minds are on the auction block. If addiction pays, then addiction is what the system delivers.

Question 2: Could we redesign the economic incentives so technology serves human well-being instead of exploiting it?

Frances Haugen:
Yes, but it requires regulation. As long as platforms profit from engagement at any cost, nothing will change voluntarily. We need transparency in algorithms, and we need to create financial penalties when harm outweighs profit. Until then, the incentives will remain misaligned.

Shoshana Zuboff:
This is the heart of surveillance capitalism. We must outlaw the trading of behavioral futures — the selling of human prediction. Just as we banned child labor or unsafe factories, we must ban the commodification of human attention. Only then will design shift toward the good.

Nir Eyal:
But we also need to empower individuals. Even if we change the system, people must learn how to manage their attention. Digital minimalism, timeboxing, turning off notifications — these are personal practices that work. Technology can build in “nudges” to support healthier use, but it must start with giving users real choices.

Jaron Lanier:
I disagree slightly — giving people tools to manage their own addiction is like giving smokers better ashtrays. The root cause is systemic. Unless we change the business model, these tools will always manipulate us. We must design platforms where people are the customers, not the product. Subscription models, public-interest platforms, alternatives to ad-based revenue — that’s where hope lies.

Tristan Harris:
I think both points are true. We need systemic reform and individual agency. But until we align profit with human flourishing, we will always be at war with our own devices.

Question 3: If the economics of attention changed, what would the future of technology look like?

Jaron Lanier:
It would look like dignity restored. Imagine logging onto a platform that treats you as a participant, not a user. Where your attention isn’t for sale, and your individuality is honored. Technology could amplify creativity instead of consuming it. That’s the future we could build.

Nir Eyal:
It would also mean balance. Tools would serve us instead of enslaving us. You’d check your phone because it helps you live better, not because you can’t resist. Design could reinforce self-control instead of eroding it.

Shoshana Zuboff:
And societies would be freer. Surveillance capitalism has turned democracy into a marketplace of manipulation. If we broke that model, politics would be less toxic, communities less polarized. We’d no longer be pawns in a data economy, but citizens in a digital society.

Frances Haugen:
And online spaces would feel safer. We wouldn’t fear what the algorithm will feed us next. Platforms would be accountable, and trust could return. Parents wouldn’t feel like they were handing their children over to predatory systems. It would be transformative.

Tristan Harris:
The ultimate measure is this: technology would stop competing with our humanity, and start serving it. We’d design for connection, wisdom, and flourishing. And the business of addiction would finally be replaced with the business of compassion.

Closing Reflections

Tristan Harris:
Tonight we’ve seen how addiction is not a flaw in our systems — it is the foundation of them. Shoshana, you’ve reminded us that surveillance capitalism profits from human futures. Nir, you showed how behavioral science has been weaponized against us. Jaron, you called us back to dignity and individuality. Frances, you revealed what happens inside the machine when anger is the currency. And together we see that until economics align with human flourishing, our minds will remain for sale. But the future can be different. We can choose to redesign not just our apps, but the very incentives that shape them. And in doing so, we can choose technology that serves connection instead of addiction.

Topic 2: The Psychology of Compulsion — Our Brains on Tech

Moderator: Anna Lembke
*(Stanford psychiatrist, author of Dopamine Nation)

Speakers:

• Anna Lembke — dopamine, psychiatry, addiction
• Jonathan Haidt — social psychologist, adolescent well-being
• Gabor Maté — physician, trauma & addiction specialist
• Cal Newport — author of Digital Minimalism, computer science professor
• Jean Twenge — psychologist, generational researcher, iGen

Question 1: What is happening in our brains when we can’t stop scrolling, clicking, or checking notifications?

Anna Lembke:
When we engage with technology, especially social media, our brains release dopamine — the neurotransmitter that governs reward. But the problem isn’t just pleasure; it’s the cycle of anticipation and relief. Each notification or scroll delivers a tiny surge. Over time, the brain adapts, raising the threshold for reward, leaving us in a constant state of craving. It’s the same mechanism that underlies substance use disorders.

Jonathan Haidt:
And adolescence makes this especially dangerous. The teenage brain is wired for novelty and social validation. Social media turns those vulnerabilities into commodities. A “like” isn’t just digital — it hits the same circuits that once told us, “Your tribe accepts you, you belong.” That’s why the absence of likes, or the presence of criticism, cuts so deeply. For teenagers, the stakes feel existential.

Gabor Maté:
I would add that addiction is rarely just about dopamine. It’s about the pain underneath. Technology gives people a way to numb loneliness, anxiety, and trauma. The compulsive checking is not just about pleasure-seeking; it’s a form of self-soothing. Our society is structured to produce disconnection, and technology becomes the easiest anesthetic.

Cal Newport:
Yes — and the design of these platforms is engineered to keep that loop running. Infinite scroll, autoplay, and push notifications ensure that the brain never reaches satiety. Unlike a book or a movie, there’s no natural stopping point. That endlessness hacks the brain’s sense of completion, keeping us trapped in partial satisfaction.

Jean Twenge:
From a generational standpoint, the data is staggering. Rates of depression, anxiety, and self-harm among teens spiked around 2012, right when smartphones became ubiquitous. The correlation isn’t subtle. Teens who spend more time on screens report lower happiness and worse mental health. It’s not just individuals; it’s an entire cohort caught in the compulsion loop.

Question 2: How does technology exploit these vulnerabilities differently across age groups and personalities?

Jonathan Haidt:
Adolescents are the most affected, but adults are not immune. For adults, the compulsion often revolves around outrage — politics, news, tribal battles. The teenage brain craves belonging; the adult brain craves certainty. Platforms know this, and they feed us accordingly.

Anna Lembke:
For people with underlying anxiety or depression, the cycle becomes even more powerful. When dopamine drops after use, they feel worse than before — so they seek the next hit faster. Vulnerability plus technology equals a perfect storm.

Gabor Maté:
And for those with unresolved trauma, technology offers the illusion of connection without the risk of intimacy. It gives them the appearance of being seen, but without the vulnerability of real relationships. That illusion is powerful but ultimately hollow, keeping people locked in cycles of craving.

Cal Newport:
Interestingly, personality plays a role as well. Highly conscientious people may use tools to stay organized, but even they get drawn in by the pull of novelty. Meanwhile, those prone to distraction are essentially defenseless. The system doesn’t just exploit biology; it exploits our differences.

Jean Twenge:
And generationally, older adults sometimes mistake compulsion for productivity — checking email late at night, staying plugged in 24/7. Younger generations, however, experience it as social lifeblood. For teens, losing access to their phone isn’t just inconvenient; it feels like exile. That intensity makes the compulsion harder to break.

Question 3: If compulsion is biological, what practices or cultural shifts can free us from it?

Cal Newport:
We need a culture of digital minimalism — not abandoning technology, but using it with intentionality. Set boundaries. Choose depth over constant connection. For example, schedule “phone-free” hours, batch online activities, and reclaim time for focused work and face-to-face relationships. It’s about rewiring habits.

Anna Lembke:
From a medical lens, we need dopamine fasting. Periods of abstinence reset the brain’s reward pathways. Just as with substances, withdrawal is difficult at first, but balance returns. Compassionate limits — like device-free dinners, screen-free bedrooms — create space for healing.

Gabor Maté:
But we must also address the pain beneath. If we don’t treat the loneliness, anxiety, and trauma that drive compulsion, we’re just managing symptoms. True freedom comes when people find real connection, purpose, and safety in relationships. Otherwise, they’ll always reach for the next digital numbing agent.

Jonathan Haidt:
At the societal level, I believe we need guardrails — especially for children. Phones out of schools, later age of introduction to social media, cultural norms that protect childhood from digital saturation. Individual willpower is not enough when billions of dollars are spent engineering compulsion.

Jean Twenge:
And families must model balance. Parents glued to their phones cannot tell kids to put theirs down. If we create new cultural scripts — “this is dinner, this is conversation, this is rest” — then future generations will inherit healthier habits. The shift has to be communal, not just individual.

Closing Reflections

Anna Lembke:
What we’ve heard tonight is that compulsion is not a personal weakness — it is a biological vulnerability amplified by design. Jonathan, you showed us how adolescence magnifies the risks. Gabor, you reminded us that pain, not pleasure, is at the root of most addictions. Cal, you gave us practical pathways to reclaim our focus. Jean, you revealed how entire generations are shaped by these patterns. And I’ve seen, in clinic after clinic, that while the dopamine system can be hijacked, it can also be healed. The task before us is to build a culture that doesn’t prey on compulsion, but that restores balance, connection, and choice.

Topic 3: Designing for Depth — Can Apps Heal Instead of Hijack?

Moderator: Jenny Odell
*(artist, author of How to Do Nothing)

Speakers:

• Jenny Odell — reclaiming attention, slowing down
• BJ Fogg — behavioral scientist, Tiny Habits
• Sahil Bloom — writer on intentional living, “attention diet”
• Nir Eyal — author of Indistractable, user empowerment
• Kate Raworth — economist, Doughnut Economics

Question 1: Is it possible to design apps that foster depth, reflection, and connection instead of compulsion?

Jenny Odell:
I believe it is. Technology is not inherently shallow — it reflects the priorities we embed in it. Right now, apps are designed to maximize time-on-screen. But imagine if they were designed to maximize presence-in-life. Instead of nudging us toward endless scrolling, they could nudge us into attention: noticing a bird outside the window, calling a friend, stepping into the sun. The design is possible — the question is whether we have the will.

BJ Fogg:
As someone who’s worked in persuasive technology, I can confirm that design can absolutely be reoriented. The same principles that keep us hooked — triggers, routines, rewards — can be redirected. A notification could prompt reflection instead of reaction. A feed could pause after a few posts and ask, “Do you want to connect with someone offline?” The mechanics are flexible. The difference lies in intention: do we design for profit, or for flourishing?

Nir Eyal:
I’d emphasize that while design matters, user agency matters too. Even with better apps, people need to take responsibility for how they use technology. I’ve argued that being “indistractable” requires both external and internal work — adjusting our tools, yes, but also our habits and mindsets. Compassionate design can help, but it cannot replace personal responsibility.

Sahil Bloom:
I’d push us to ask: what is the metric of success? Right now, it’s engagement. But what if it were well-being? Apps could measure whether people sleep better, connect more, or feel more fulfilled. If we shift the goalposts, the design naturally follows. The possibility is real — but only if we redefine what winning looks like.

Kate Raworth:
And that’s the crucial point. As long as our economic systems reward extraction, even compassionate design will be sidelined. We must embed humane tech in an economy that values thriving over growth. If we measure success not by GDP or quarterly profits but by well-being, social cohesion, and ecological health, then depth becomes not only possible but profitable.

Question 2: What principles, habits, or economic models would allow “compassionate design” to thrive?

BJ Fogg:
From a design standpoint, one principle is simplicity. Tools should reduce friction in aligning with our values. For example, an app that helps you connect with loved ones could default to scheduling a call instead of suggesting another scroll. Design must support tiny, positive habits, not overwhelm users with complexity.

Jenny Odell:
I’d add that design should reintroduce friction, not always remove it. Right now, apps are engineered for speed. But depth requires slowness. Imagine if social media delayed posts for a few minutes, encouraging reflection before publishing. Or if platforms nudged us to spend time offline after consuming content. Friction can be compassionate.

Nir Eyal:
Economically, freemium and subscription models already exist as alternatives to advertising. If we stop making attention the currency, companies can compete on value instead of addiction. It’s not utopian — it’s already happening in pockets. We just need to make it the norm.

Sahil Bloom:
And role models matter. When creators, entrepreneurs, and thought leaders choose depth — when they publicly log off, set limits, or prioritize long-form connection — it signals that compassion is cool, not naive. If enough influential people model this, it changes culture, which then pressures business models to adapt.

Kate Raworth:
But the deepest shift must be systemic. We need “doughnut metrics” for tech: does this design keep us within ecological boundaries and deliver human flourishing? If not, it fails. Imagine if regulators measured platforms by how they support democracy, health, and community. That would flip incentives. Compassion would no longer be charity — it would be compliance.

Question 3: If such technology became the norm, how might our daily lives — and even our culture — be transformed?

Sahil Bloom:
We’d see lives that feel less fragmented. Instead of constantly bouncing between shallow hits of novelty, people would have more energy for depth: reading, building, spending time with family. The “attention diet” would shift from junk food to nourishment.

Jenny Odell:
And our days would feel spacious again. Imagine an app that helps you notice your neighborhood, or pause to appreciate silence. Technology could become a portal back to the real world rather than a trap away from it. Our sense of time itself would change — from scarcity to abundance.

Nir Eyal:
Practically, we’d stop feeling at war with our devices. Instead of guilt and compulsion, we’d feel alignment. Our phones would be tools again, not temptations. That psychological shift alone would reduce stress and restore agency.

BJ Fogg:
At scale, we’d see healthier communities. If design nudged us toward face-to-face contact, stronger ties would emerge. Apps could remind us to check in on friends, not just check in online. Connection, not compulsion, would become the baseline.

Kate Raworth:
And culturally, we’d step out of the trap of endless growth. Depth would replace speed as a cultural value. We would measure success not in clicks but in well-being, not in hours online but in lives enriched. Compassionate technology would help us rediscover that the point of progress is not to consume more, but to live better.

Closing Reflections

Jenny Odell:
What I’ve heard tonight is that designing for depth is not only possible, it’s necessary. BJ, you showed us how habit design can support flourishing. Nir, you reminded us that users must also take responsibility. Sahil, you urged us to redefine success. Kate, you expanded the vision to an economy that rewards thriving. And I believe that if we choose slowness, friction, and attention as values, technology could become a teacher of presence instead of a thief of it. The question is not whether we can build compassionate tech — it is whether we are brave enough to demand it.

Topic 4: Digital Childhood — Protecting the Next Generation

Moderator: Jonathan Haidt
(social psychologist, co-author of The Anxious Generation)

Speakers:

• Jonathan Haidt — adolescent psychology, youth & social media
• Esther Wojcicki — educator, journalist, digital literacy pioneer
• Anya Kamenetz — journalist, The Art of Screen Time
• Tim Kendall — former Facebook monetization executive turned critic of addictive design
• Michael Rich — pediatrician, founder of the Center on Media and Child Health at Harvard

Question 1: What unique vulnerabilities make children and teens especially at risk in today’s digital environment?

Jonathan Haidt:
Adolescents are at the center of this crisis. The teenage brain is primed for social connection and novelty. In the past, those impulses were channeled through face-to-face interactions, school activities, and physical play. Now, they are funneled into apps engineered for compulsion. The constant comparisons, the feedback loops of likes and shares, and the possibility of public humiliation magnify normal adolescent insecurities into mental health crises.

Michael Rich:
From a medical perspective, we’re seeing consequences in sleep, attention, and development. Children who spend more hours on screens experience disrupted circadian rhythms, reduced physical activity, and impaired concentration. Their brains are still wiring themselves, and constant digital stimulation reshapes neural pathways. The vulnerability is biological, not just cultural.

Esther Wojcicki:
As an educator, I see how technology affects learning. Kids today often struggle to sustain attention or engage deeply because they’re used to rapid, fragmented consumption. They also lack digital literacy — the ability to distinguish credible information from manipulation. Without guidance, they are dropped into a digital jungle with no map.

Tim Kendall:
And I’ll add: this is by design. At Facebook, we saw how children were among the most engaged users, and that scared me. Features like infinite scroll and notifications were never intended for developing brains. The vulnerabilities are well-known, yet ignored, because younger users mean lifelong customers.

Anya Kamenetz:
Parents also face unique challenges. Unlike past technologies — television, for example — today’s platforms are interactive and personalized, creating highly addictive experiences. Parents can’t simply “turn off” the internet. The line between healthy exploration and harmful exposure is blurred, and the burden falls on families who often feel powerless.

Question 2: How should parents, educators, and designers balance access, learning, and protection?

Esther Wojcicki:
We must teach digital literacy early. Children should understand how algorithms work, why they see what they see, and how their behavior online creates a data trail. Instead of banning technology outright, we must empower them to navigate it wisely. Schools can be central in creating this culture.

Anya Kamenetz:
Yes — balance is the key. The best evidence shows that moderate screen time can be fine, even beneficial, when used for creativity, learning, or connection. The problem is unbounded use. Parents should focus less on the number of hours and more on what children are doing with their devices. Is it creative? Is it social? Or is it passive and isolating?

Tim Kendall:
But let’s be clear: parents and educators can’t fight this alone. Tech companies must redesign their platforms. We need restrictions on features like autoplay, endless feeds, and addictive notifications, especially for children. Saying “parents should set limits” ignores the asymmetry: no parent can out-design Silicon Valley. Regulation is necessary.

Michael Rich:
Clinically, I recommend “media prescriptions.” Just as a doctor might prescribe exercise or sleep, we can prescribe screen limits tailored to a child’s needs. For example, no devices in bedrooms at night, device-free meals, structured downtime. These boundaries help protect development while preserving space for beneficial uses of tech.

Jonathan Haidt:
And culturally, we need new norms. Schools should be phone-free zones. Childhood must include play, independence, and offline socialization. If we allow tech companies to set the default, we lose childhood itself. Balancing access means giving kids what they truly need for growth — not what the algorithm rewards.

Question 3: If we built a truly compassionate digital environment for young people, what would their childhood — and our society — look like?

Anya Kamenetz:
It would look like balance restored. Kids would use devices for exploration and creativity, but they’d also spend hours outside, face-to-face with peers, learning to resolve conflicts in real time. Tech would be a tool, not a tether.

Michael Rich:
We’d see healthier outcomes in sleep, mental health, and learning. Imagine apps that nudge kids to rest, or platforms designed to end sessions after meaningful engagement. A compassionate system would treat young people as developing humans, not as data points.

Esther Wojcicki:
Education would flourish. Technology could enhance classrooms without overwhelming them, guiding students toward research, creativity, and problem-solving. A compassionate approach would make learning joyful and grounded, not distracted and fragmented.

Tim Kendall:
And parents would no longer feel like they’re in a losing battle. If companies designed with children’s well-being in mind, parents could partner with tech instead of policing it. Trust could replace fear. That cultural shift would be profound.

Jonathan Haidt:
Ultimately, we’d see a generation growing up resilient instead of fragile. The epidemic of anxiety and depression would recede. Childhood would once again be a protected space, preparing young people for adulthood with confidence rather than confusion. Society would gain stronger citizens, capable of disagreeing without despairing, connecting without crumbling.

Closing Reflections

Jonathan Haidt:
What we’ve uncovered tonight is that children are not just smaller adults; they are uniquely vulnerable to digital manipulation. Esther, you reminded us that education and literacy must begin early. Anya, you showed us that balance, not bans, is the path forward. Tim, you revealed how design choices exploit youth by default. Michael, you emphasized the biological and medical stakes. Together, we’ve seen that compassion for children requires courage — courage to set boundaries, to demand redesign, and to restore childhood as a sanctuary. If we succeed, we will give the next generation not just devices, but the wisdom to use them well.

Topic 5: The Future of Compassionate Tech — Beyond Screens

Moderator: Tristan Harris
(Center for Humane Technology, tech ethicist)

Speakers:

• Tristan Harris — humane design visionary
• Satya Nadella — Microsoft CEO, advocate of mindful AI and accessibility
• Yuval Noah Harari — historian and futurist
• Esther Perel — psychotherapist, on intimacy and relationships in digital times
• Joi Ito — technologist, former MIT Media Lab director

Question 1: If we move past screen-centered design, what new forms of technology might emerge to serve human flourishing?

Tristan Harris:
Screens were never meant to be the endpoint of technology. They were a convenient surface. But the future lies in technologies that fade into the background, supporting our lives instead of stealing them. Imagine wearables that encourage you to rest, ambient systems that help communities collaborate, or AI that acts like a wise companion rather than a slot machine. The real leap forward is designing tech that amplifies our humanity instead of fragmenting it.

Satya Nadella:
We’re already moving toward what I call “ambient intelligence.” The most powerful technologies won’t be ones we stare at, but ones that quietly empower us — helping a child learn, enabling a doctor to diagnose faster, making workplaces more accessible. AI, when deployed with empathy, can reduce barriers and unlock human potential. The key is building systems that are not just intelligent, but mindful.

Yuval Noah Harari:
But we must be cautious. Technology beyond screens could become even more intimate, embedded directly into our bodies and environments. That raises profound ethical questions. Who controls the data? Who decides what is “humane”? A compassionate future requires not only new devices, but new forms of governance to ensure that technology serves people, not power.

Esther Perel:
I see technology shaping the most intimate parts of our lives. Couples already bring their phones into bed more often than they bring each other. But future design could reverse that trend: tools that encourage quality conversations, that help people step away from distraction, that enrich connection. Compassionate tech will not just change how we work — it must change how we love.

Joi Ito:
And we shouldn’t assume the big corporations will lead. Many of the most humane innovations come from decentralized movements, from open-source communities, from cultures outside Silicon Valley. The future of compassionate tech may be more plural, more experimental, more rooted in local contexts. If we think beyond screens, we also need to think beyond monopolies.

Question 2: How can we ensure that future tech strengthens relationships and community, rather than isolating us further?

Esther Perel:
It begins with redefining intimacy. Right now, platforms confuse connection with contact. A like or a swipe is not a relationship. Humane design would prioritize depth over breadth — encouraging fewer, more meaningful interactions. Imagine platforms that ask, “Have you checked in with someone you love today?” rather than, “Do you want to scroll more?”

Satya Nadella:
We also need to anchor design in accessibility and inclusivity. If technology helps people connect across ability, distance, or culture, it becomes a bridge instead of a wall. That means building tools that empower communities, not isolate individuals.

Tristan Harris:
And we must shift incentives. If companies are rewarded for time-well-spent rather than time-spent, design will naturally evolve to support community. This is not science fiction — we could measure “did this technology strengthen relationships?” as a key metric. If we don’t, isolation will remain profitable.

Joi Ito:
Community also means governance. People should have a say in how the tools they use are built and deployed. Co-ops, local innovation labs, citizen assemblies — these structures can ensure technology reflects collective values. Otherwise, even well-intentioned design risks becoming top-down paternalism.

Yuval Noah Harari:
And history warns us: every powerful technology can be used to divide as well as unite. The printing press spread both enlightenment and propaganda. Social media spread both movements for justice and waves of hate. If we want tech to strengthen community, we must also build resilience — cultural, political, and educational — to use it wisely.

Question 3: What kind of society could we create if compassionate technology became the norm?

Satya Nadella:
We would see workplaces that don’t burn people out but bring out their best. Tools that anticipate needs, reduce stress, and create space for creativity. The economy itself would feel different — less extractive, more regenerative.

Esther Perel:
Relationships would thrive. Families would talk more, couples would connect more deeply, friendships would be less performative and more nourishing. Technology would become an ally of love, not its rival.

Yuval Noah Harari:
Politically, democracy would be revitalized. Instead of platforms weaponizing outrage, we could design civic spaces that reward constructive dialogue. Compassionate tech would not eliminate disagreement, but it would channel it toward solutions rather than polarization.

Joi Ito:
Culturally, we’d rediscover diversity. A decentralized ecosystem of humane technologies would allow communities to experiment with tools that fit their values. We wouldn’t have one monolithic internet; we’d have many humane internets, each reflecting compassion in its own way.

Tristan Harris:
And at the deepest level, society would feel whole again. Technology would no longer compete with our humanity but collaborate with it. Instead of being at war with our devices, we’d feel supported by them. Compassionate tech could give us back our time, our relationships, and our trust. That is the society worth building.

Closing Reflections

Tristan Harris:
What I hear tonight is that the future of technology is not screens, but society itself. Satya, you showed us how humane design can empower human potential. Esther, you reminded us that intimacy is the measure of true connection. Yuval, you cautioned us that power must be governed wisely. Joi, you revealed that decentralization may be the path to compassion. And I believe this: if we can align technology with our deepest values, then compassion won’t be an afterthought — it will be the operating system.

Final Thoughts by Jenny Odell

We live in an age where attention has become the most precious resource — and the most exploited. Screens surround us, demanding we scroll, consume, react. But behind all of that noise, something quieter is waiting: the possibility of presence.

Throughout these dialogues, we’ve heard about addiction, dopamine, algorithms, childhood, and the economics of attention. But underneath every theme runs a deeper truth: technology can either deepen our disconnection or help us return to ourselves and each other.

I believe the future of compassionate tech is not about faster apps or shinier devices. It’s about designing space for what already matters: a walk in the park, a face-to-face conversation, the unmeasured act of noticing the world as it is. Humane design is not just about tools — it’s about the lives we allow ourselves to live.

If we choose compassion as our compass, then our technologies can become not distractions from life, but companions to it. The redesign begins not in code, but in our courage to demand more.

And maybe, just maybe, the greatest innovation of our age will be remembering how to simply be.

Short Bios:

Topic 1: The Economics of Attention — Why Addiction Pays

Shoshana Zuboff — Scholar, author of The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, expert on how tech monetizes human behavior.
Nir Eyal — Behavioral design thinker, author of Hooked and Indistractable, focused on habit-forming products and user agency.
Jaron Lanier — Computer scientist, virtual reality pioneer, and outspoken critic of social media’s manipulative economics.
Frances Haugen — Former Facebook data scientist and whistleblower who exposed internal research on harms of social media.
Tristan Harris — Tech ethicist emphasizing the need to realign business models with human well-being.

Topic 2: The Psychology of Compulsion — Our Brains on Tech

Anna Lembke — Psychiatrist at Stanford, author of Dopamine Nation, specialist on addiction and brain chemistry.
Jonathan Haidt — Social psychologist, co-author of The Anxious Generation, studies the impact of social media on adolescent development.
Gabor Maté — Physician and author, expert on trauma, stress, and addiction as rooted in unmet emotional needs.
Cal Newport — Computer scientist and author of Digital Minimalism, advocate for focus and intentional tech use.
Jean Twenge — Psychologist and author of iGen, known for generational research on smartphones and teen mental health.

Topic 3: Designing for Depth — Can Apps Heal Instead of Hijack?

Jenny Odell — Author and artist, reimagining technology as a tool for presence and reflection.
BJ Fogg — Behavioral scientist at Stanford, author of Tiny Habits, pioneer in persuasive tech and habit formation.
Sahil Bloom — Writer and entrepreneur, known for his “attention diet” approach and frameworks for intentional living.
Nir Eyal — Behavioral design thinker advocating for user empowerment against compulsion.
Kate Raworth — Economist, author of Doughnut Economics, rethinking growth models toward human and ecological thriving.

Topic 4: Digital Childhood — Protecting the Next Generation

Jonathan Haidt — Social psychologist, researching adolescent fragility and the harms of social media.
Esther Wojcicki — Educator and journalist, author of How to Raise Successful People, pioneer in digital literacy and parenting.
Anya Kamenetz — Journalist, author of The Art of Screen Time, focused on parenting, education, and balanced tech use.
Tim Kendall — Former Facebook and Pinterest executive, now a critic of attention-driven design.
Michael Rich — Pediatrician at Harvard, founder of the Center on Media and Child Health, researcher on media’s effects on children.

Topic 5: The Future of Compassionate Tech — Beyond Screens

Tristan Harris — Humane design leader envisioning tech that supports humanity.
Satya Nadella — CEO of Microsoft, advocate for mindful AI, accessibility, and inclusive design.
Yuval Noah Harari — Historian, author of Sapiens, explores tech’s impact on humanity and future societies.
Esther Perel — Psychotherapist and bestselling author, focusing on relationships and intimacy in the digital age.
Joi Ito — Technologist, former MIT Media Lab director, advocate for ethical, decentralized, and community-driven innovation.

T Media Lab director, advocate for ethical, decentralized, and community-driven innovation.