What do you think?
Rate this book
Unlocked: The Real Science of Screen Time
Most of us spend a significant part of the day in front of a screen. Our work and social lives play out through our computers, tablets and phones: on email, social media, video conference calls and gaming servers. But what is all this screen time doing to our health, our sleep, and our relationships?
Professor Pete Etchells studies the way we use screens, and how they can affect us. In UNLOCKED, he delves into the real science behind the panic about our alleged device addiction and withering attention spans. Armed with the latest research, he reveals how little we have to fear, and the great deal we have to gain, by establishing a more positive relationship with our screens. That begins with asking ourselves some essential questions about how we use them.
Instead of clamouring for us to ditch our devices (before guiltily returning to the same old habits), UNLOCKED is a sustainable, realistic and vital guide to transforming our connection with technology.
Professor Pete Etchells studies the way we use screens, and how they can affect us. In UNLOCKED, he delves into the real science behind the panic about our alleged device addiction and withering attention spans. Armed with the latest research, he reveals how little we have to fear, and the great deal we have to gain, by establishing a more positive relationship with our screens. That begins with asking ourselves some essential questions about how we use them.
Instead of clamouring for us to ditch our devices (before guiltily returning to the same old habits), UNLOCKED is a sustainable, realistic and vital guide to transforming our connection with technology.
304 pages, Kindle Edition
Published March 21, 2024
30 people are currently reading
378 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
March 24, 2025
A few weeks before the publishing of Unlocked, Jonathan Haidt’s new book The Anxious Generation hit the bookshelves. Haidt takes a clear stance: “Social media use does not just correlate with mental illness; it causes it.” The general public is increasingly in agreeance: a UK Survey, published a few weeks before that, found that two-thirds of the public supports a ban on selling smartphones to kids under 16. Unlocked purports to be an antidote to this kind of digital absolutism, but it really errs far too much on the side of caution. Instead of a being a healthy corrective, it’s a poorly written casket of skepticism that says little and often resorts to attacking strawmen.
Take the chapter on how digital devices have supposedly ‘stolen’ our attention. In this chapter, all of Etchell’s argumentative strategies come to the fore. There are essentially three points endlessly regurgitated. First, that subjects surrounding digital devices are hard to study. What exactly is ‘attention’? (One article cited is literally called ‘There is no such thing as attention’.) What kind of screentime are we talking about? What social media is used in what way? What are the other factors that could have affected the study? Second, in part because of the vagueness of the objects of study, the results of study are often meagre, and very mixed. There are no really clear conclusions in the research. Third, that anecdotal and self-reported evidence is, as it were, inadmissible, because people have poor memory and are bad at describing their own experience. The conclusion Etchells draws? “[I]t’s difficult not to come to the conclusion that the reason we’re all worrying about attention is because we’re incessantly bombarded with media stories telling us to do so.”
Really, those media stories are just born from nothing? It’s all just pessimism based on, what, random conjecture? It’s not based on people observing, both in themselves and each other, an inability to focus on longer tasks, when the phone is nearby? Etchells is here, actually, dismissing his own personal experience, because earlier he mentions that he himself struggles to focus too:
Right, the reason you can’t focus is climate change. For someone who keeps talking about the lack of evidence, he sure loves to jump to random conjecture. (I’d sure love a study showing a correlation between being able to focus and climate change.)
Another favorite argument of Etchells is that we’re not using the right terminology. He quotes Dr. Jacob Fisher, who says that whenever people talk about attention, they really mean self-control and the ability to be in control of your own focus. “That’s only one aspect of what attention is, and it’s also an aspect that is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to measure.” Fine, call it sustained focus instead of attention – then conclude that it’s impossible to measure scientifically. We’re at an impasse then. Maybe consider every teacher I’ve ever known, myself including, observing that it’s getting progressively harder for students to pay attention in class. That watching a movie in class used to be a treat, and is now a chore – that these teenagers say themselves that they don’t have the ‘attention span’ to watch movies. Could this have something, anything, to do with the fact that they are constantly watching short-form videos on TikTok and Youtube? Anything? Not according to Etchells, I guess, because there’s no evidence. That’d be hard when it’s actually impossible to measure, though!
Most of the problems with conversations about research into technology are really problems with the tools of psychology, it turns out. So many things are so hard to measure. His argument against phone addiction existing – and Etchells is oddly clear about this, writing “You are not addicted to your smartphone” – is essentially that there’s no clinical disorder listing phone addiction, indeed the only behavioral addiction listed in the DSM-V is that for gambling addiction. (The gaming addiction one is under review.) In a Guardian article, Etchells writes that none of the supposed addictions “are formalised clinical disorders, and there are no widely agreed medical or scientific definitions”. Well, while Etchells waits for the research to catch up to something that really is nearly impossible to measure, technology companies are given free play. Etchells wants us to use different terminology, he wants to call it “overuse” instead of addiction, because we’re using addiction in the everyday sense, not in the clinical sense. Fine, call it overuse, who cares. According to the latest pew research statistics, teenagers spend 5 hours a day on social media alone. Is that good or bad for them? Whether it’s clinically recognized as addiction or just overuse in the popular tongue seems to me merely a question of semantics.
One reason Etchell dislikes the use of terms like ‘attention’ and ‘addiction’ is that it supposedly takes agency away from the users. He mentions this in several chapters: -- “One of the implicit assumptions we see throughout these narratives is that we, as users, lack agency” – “don’t let anyone tell you that you don’t have a choice, that you can’t change your approach to screens or your relationship with them” – “it’s a type of rhetoric that removes individual agency from the equation”. This seems like a ludicrous strawman to me. When people are addicted to alcohol, they don’t lack agency, they still have to beat their addiction themselves by not taking a drink, it’s not a free pass not to feel personally responsible. It’s simply acknowledging that there inherent features of alcohol, as of technology, that make repeated, unwanted use a trap that’s easy to fall into. And God knows enough people use technology more than they’d want – just look online or at articles at the amount of people complaining how hard it is to stop, even when they want to.
Another strawman Etchells sets up is that of a digital detox, the supposed power of completely stopping with technology for a while. There’s little evidence that completely stopping with digital media is positive, and for most people, that’s not even feasible, because they need to stay connected for work, for friends, for Google Maps. argues Etchells. But who is saying that a digital detox is the only way to go about countering problems with overuse of digital devices? I hadn’t even heard the term digital detox before this book! What I had heard were commonsense pleas for increased regulation, like Haidt’s insistence that tech companies are held responsible for enforcing the age limit on their social media apps, or Kyle Chayka’s suggestion, in his book Filterworld, that the algorithms behind apps be made public. Those are actual, targeted strategies by people who take the problems of technology serious. Etchells just buries his head in the sand and considers it all nonsense: “We’re repeatedly told that digital technology is bad for us, so we start to feel bad about using it – not because it’s actually causing us harm, but because there’s an unfounded assumption that it might.” Right, the assumption is totally unfounded, completely nonsensical. When I took away a student’s phone once, she actually started to cry. (A worse punishment is hard to imagine for teenagers.) That’s a totally healthy relationship we have with technology! All those articles are just nonsense absolutism based on nothing, I’m sure! (Incidentally, I’d never even heard of Haidt before reading Unlocked. I think when your book actually makes the side your arguing against more attractive, that’s some kind of failure, isn’t it?)
Personally, I also can’t stand the ‘quirky’ style of the book. The writing style is worse than pedestrian, and there are constant jokes of the nerdy, wry, British kind that really grate. Worse, each chapter starts with a personal anecdote: “For a few heady years in the mid-2010s, I got to do something that no other academic has ever had the privilege of undertaking: I was the coordinator for the Guardian’s newspaper’s science blog network.” Not exactly ravishing reading, this, Pete. Nor am I insterested in the depressed posts you used to post on Internet forums, I'm sorry to say. Maybe save the anecdotes for your blog. A reviewer in the New Statesman says that “Unlocked is like a good podcast” – well, it is like a podcast insofar as it’s an overenthusiastic nerd rambling at length. This is something I’ve only noticed since the advent of the Internet: many books are written in an overly conversational style, almost as if they’re an internet post or podcast. I’d prefer books to have an actual prose style.
Etchells' conclusion is that the research isn’t there yet, but that we should be vigilant. The problem is that inherent problems with psychological research lead to conclusions always lagging behind the ever-developing real world. Perhaps we should not discount the self-reported personal experience of ever-more people who realize they’re hopelessly – erm, overusing – digital technology. Every teacher knows these phones have not been good for students – and soon we will all see it as that generation enters the workforce. (At one point Etchells argues that productivity at work has actually gone up, so obviously technology isn't causing endless distraction. Yes, technology has been great for workplace productivity, I'm sure -- not so much for workplace happiness though.) Maybe Etchells himself will change his mind when he sees his kids grow into teens who do nothing but stare at their phones for hours a day, and maybe by that time the research will have caught up. Until then, I’m with Haidt: “I can’t believe we did this to our kids!” Neither can I.
Take the chapter on how digital devices have supposedly ‘stolen’ our attention. In this chapter, all of Etchell’s argumentative strategies come to the fore. There are essentially three points endlessly regurgitated. First, that subjects surrounding digital devices are hard to study. What exactly is ‘attention’? (One article cited is literally called ‘There is no such thing as attention’.) What kind of screentime are we talking about? What social media is used in what way? What are the other factors that could have affected the study? Second, in part because of the vagueness of the objects of study, the results of study are often meagre, and very mixed. There are no really clear conclusions in the research. Third, that anecdotal and self-reported evidence is, as it were, inadmissible, because people have poor memory and are bad at describing their own experience. The conclusion Etchells draws? “[I]t’s difficult not to come to the conclusion that the reason we’re all worrying about attention is because we’re incessantly bombarded with media stories telling us to do so.”
Really, those media stories are just born from nothing? It’s all just pessimism based on, what, random conjecture? It’s not based on people observing, both in themselves and each other, an inability to focus on longer tasks, when the phone is nearby? Etchells is here, actually, dismissing his own personal experience, because earlier he mentions that he himself struggles to focus too:
It’s definitely the case that I feel it’s harder to concentrate on things nowadays than when I was younger. I’m also convinced that I probably felt the same way ten, fifteen years ago. Is that because screens are a more prominent part of my everyday life, and actually driving that loss of focus? Or is it that when I was younger I had less stuff going on? No kids, nor mortgage to worry about, climate change was less of an immediate threat, energy prices didn’t cost a small fortune, so it was just easier to focus on things.
Right, the reason you can’t focus is climate change. For someone who keeps talking about the lack of evidence, he sure loves to jump to random conjecture. (I’d sure love a study showing a correlation between being able to focus and climate change.)
Another favorite argument of Etchells is that we’re not using the right terminology. He quotes Dr. Jacob Fisher, who says that whenever people talk about attention, they really mean self-control and the ability to be in control of your own focus. “That’s only one aspect of what attention is, and it’s also an aspect that is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to measure.” Fine, call it sustained focus instead of attention – then conclude that it’s impossible to measure scientifically. We’re at an impasse then. Maybe consider every teacher I’ve ever known, myself including, observing that it’s getting progressively harder for students to pay attention in class. That watching a movie in class used to be a treat, and is now a chore – that these teenagers say themselves that they don’t have the ‘attention span’ to watch movies. Could this have something, anything, to do with the fact that they are constantly watching short-form videos on TikTok and Youtube? Anything? Not according to Etchells, I guess, because there’s no evidence. That’d be hard when it’s actually impossible to measure, though!
Most of the problems with conversations about research into technology are really problems with the tools of psychology, it turns out. So many things are so hard to measure. His argument against phone addiction existing – and Etchells is oddly clear about this, writing “You are not addicted to your smartphone” – is essentially that there’s no clinical disorder listing phone addiction, indeed the only behavioral addiction listed in the DSM-V is that for gambling addiction. (The gaming addiction one is under review.) In a Guardian article, Etchells writes that none of the supposed addictions “are formalised clinical disorders, and there are no widely agreed medical or scientific definitions”. Well, while Etchells waits for the research to catch up to something that really is nearly impossible to measure, technology companies are given free play. Etchells wants us to use different terminology, he wants to call it “overuse” instead of addiction, because we’re using addiction in the everyday sense, not in the clinical sense. Fine, call it overuse, who cares. According to the latest pew research statistics, teenagers spend 5 hours a day on social media alone. Is that good or bad for them? Whether it’s clinically recognized as addiction or just overuse in the popular tongue seems to me merely a question of semantics.
One reason Etchell dislikes the use of terms like ‘attention’ and ‘addiction’ is that it supposedly takes agency away from the users. He mentions this in several chapters: -- “One of the implicit assumptions we see throughout these narratives is that we, as users, lack agency” – “don’t let anyone tell you that you don’t have a choice, that you can’t change your approach to screens or your relationship with them” – “it’s a type of rhetoric that removes individual agency from the equation”. This seems like a ludicrous strawman to me. When people are addicted to alcohol, they don’t lack agency, they still have to beat their addiction themselves by not taking a drink, it’s not a free pass not to feel personally responsible. It’s simply acknowledging that there inherent features of alcohol, as of technology, that make repeated, unwanted use a trap that’s easy to fall into. And God knows enough people use technology more than they’d want – just look online or at articles at the amount of people complaining how hard it is to stop, even when they want to.
Another strawman Etchells sets up is that of a digital detox, the supposed power of completely stopping with technology for a while. There’s little evidence that completely stopping with digital media is positive, and for most people, that’s not even feasible, because they need to stay connected for work, for friends, for Google Maps. argues Etchells. But who is saying that a digital detox is the only way to go about countering problems with overuse of digital devices? I hadn’t even heard the term digital detox before this book! What I had heard were commonsense pleas for increased regulation, like Haidt’s insistence that tech companies are held responsible for enforcing the age limit on their social media apps, or Kyle Chayka’s suggestion, in his book Filterworld, that the algorithms behind apps be made public. Those are actual, targeted strategies by people who take the problems of technology serious. Etchells just buries his head in the sand and considers it all nonsense: “We’re repeatedly told that digital technology is bad for us, so we start to feel bad about using it – not because it’s actually causing us harm, but because there’s an unfounded assumption that it might.” Right, the assumption is totally unfounded, completely nonsensical. When I took away a student’s phone once, she actually started to cry. (A worse punishment is hard to imagine for teenagers.) That’s a totally healthy relationship we have with technology! All those articles are just nonsense absolutism based on nothing, I’m sure! (Incidentally, I’d never even heard of Haidt before reading Unlocked. I think when your book actually makes the side your arguing against more attractive, that’s some kind of failure, isn’t it?)
Personally, I also can’t stand the ‘quirky’ style of the book. The writing style is worse than pedestrian, and there are constant jokes of the nerdy, wry, British kind that really grate. Worse, each chapter starts with a personal anecdote: “For a few heady years in the mid-2010s, I got to do something that no other academic has ever had the privilege of undertaking: I was the coordinator for the Guardian’s newspaper’s science blog network.” Not exactly ravishing reading, this, Pete. Nor am I insterested in the depressed posts you used to post on Internet forums, I'm sorry to say. Maybe save the anecdotes for your blog. A reviewer in the New Statesman says that “Unlocked is like a good podcast” – well, it is like a podcast insofar as it’s an overenthusiastic nerd rambling at length. This is something I’ve only noticed since the advent of the Internet: many books are written in an overly conversational style, almost as if they’re an internet post or podcast. I’d prefer books to have an actual prose style.
Etchells' conclusion is that the research isn’t there yet, but that we should be vigilant. The problem is that inherent problems with psychological research lead to conclusions always lagging behind the ever-developing real world. Perhaps we should not discount the self-reported personal experience of ever-more people who realize they’re hopelessly – erm, overusing – digital technology. Every teacher knows these phones have not been good for students – and soon we will all see it as that generation enters the workforce. (At one point Etchells argues that productivity at work has actually gone up, so obviously technology isn't causing endless distraction. Yes, technology has been great for workplace productivity, I'm sure -- not so much for workplace happiness though.) Maybe Etchells himself will change his mind when he sees his kids grow into teens who do nothing but stare at their phones for hours a day, and maybe by that time the research will have caught up. Until then, I’m with Haidt: “I can’t believe we did this to our kids!” Neither can I.
April 11, 2024
A welcome walk through many of the frequently ungrounded or poorly researched claims regarding the deleterious effects of screen time and device addiction. This book is for laypersons or the pop science audience so it’s easy to parse and only occasionally delves into questions of method, at a level appropriate to its readership. It makes for an important rejoinder to something like Jonathan Haidt’s claims around social media in “The Anxious Generation”, but if you want the real evidence, then you’ll want to refer to the sources and studies this author handily provides.
May 19, 2024
Una excelente y amena obra de divulgación, necesaria en estos tiempos de pánico moral e hiperventilación constante. La idea central es que, pese a quién pese, no hay evidencia de que los móviles y las pantallas tengan efectos adversos más allá de la absoluta pérdida de tiempo que son a menudo. Además, la investigación que trata de encontrarlos suele ser de una calidad infecta, igual que pasa con el porno, los videojuegos - sobre lo que también ha escrito el autor -, la idea del contagio social en la transexualidad y otras mil cosas.
No le doy cinco estrellas porque al final no propone medidas para cambiar nuestros hábitos de uso de las pantallas, y me parece algo perezoso por su parte. Pero en conjunto, un libro excelente.
No le doy cinco estrellas porque al final no propone medidas para cambiar nuestros hábitos de uso de las pantallas, y me parece algo perezoso por su parte. Pero en conjunto, un libro excelente.
October 29, 2024
Healthy skepticism
This book likely won’t receive the attention of as “The anxious generation” and that reality is part of the message. When I teach the topics in Psychology I am responsible for, I caution students to not only read the abstracts but also the Methodologies. Etchells obviously understands why this is important and why contradictory claims often can be explained in how data are collected and what counts as data.
This book likely won’t receive the attention of as “The anxious generation” and that reality is part of the message. When I teach the topics in Psychology I am responsible for, I caution students to not only read the abstracts but also the Methodologies. Etchells obviously understands why this is important and why contradictory claims often can be explained in how data are collected and what counts as data.
September 5, 2024
This is an in-depth and balanced look at the ‘science’ behind studies on screen time and dopamine, etc.
At points it gets a little pedantic.
But, a helpful push-back on all the screen time and detox books.
With working through.
At points it gets a little pedantic.
But, a helpful push-back on all the screen time and detox books.
With working through.
June 5, 2024
This is simply superb - balanced and nuanced approach to digital devices, social media and the science behind it. Etchells clearly assesses the evidence for and against the moral panic behind screen time,as well as whether they're addictive and whether detox is useful. Unsurprisingly there are no simple answers or easy one-size-fits-all solutions. I'd encourage every parent and interested party to read this, it's the best thing I've read from any viewpoint.
More full review here: https://www.churchsociety.org/resourc...
More full review here: https://www.churchsociety.org/resourc...
August 27, 2025
“To medicalise every behaviour by putting it into psychiatric nomenclature is ridiculous. If you expand the concept of addiction to include everything people can overdo, then you must talk about people being addicted to books…”
Well too bad I am addicted to books now because they’re my screen time substitute! 🤦🏾♀️🤷🏾♀️
It’s ironic this book was published a mere 5 days before ‘The Anxious Generation’ and yet challenges Jonathan Haidt’s research.
I was disappointed the book didn’t investigate or acknowledge some obvious detriments of screen time such as the deterioration of posture, social interactions, interpersonal relationships, employment prospects, literacy and numeracy skills etc.
However, Etchell’s common sense contention that screen time should be considered in terms of its quality rather than reductively as a quantity is refreshing.
Well too bad I am addicted to books now because they’re my screen time substitute! 🤦🏾♀️🤷🏾♀️
It’s ironic this book was published a mere 5 days before ‘The Anxious Generation’ and yet challenges Jonathan Haidt’s research.
I was disappointed the book didn’t investigate or acknowledge some obvious detriments of screen time such as the deterioration of posture, social interactions, interpersonal relationships, employment prospects, literacy and numeracy skills etc.
However, Etchell’s common sense contention that screen time should be considered in terms of its quality rather than reductively as a quantity is refreshing.
December 19, 2024
If you read this alongside Jonathan Haidt's The Anxious Generation, you'll get valuable lessons from both, given that each book alone misses important aspects that need to be discussed. There are still aspects missing from this combination, but reading them together is a good start.
Etchells is incredibly laid back when it comes to talking about screen time, and talks fondly about his own screen use when it gave him community when he needed it most, during a pre smartphone period. There are advantages to technology as we well know, but unfettered access given to kids with smartphones, can cause more damage than good. We see this every day.
The reason I've only given this book three stars, is because at times it sounds like a puff piece for modern tech, and often comes across as extremely condescending and dismissive, when in fact we NEED to be more vigilant. There is absolutely a happy medium for monitoring kids and technology, it doesn't need to be so black and white as per Haidt's account, but being too lax about it means we leave kids and young people very vulnerable and unprepared for the reality of being online 24/7.
Etchells is incredibly laid back when it comes to talking about screen time, and talks fondly about his own screen use when it gave him community when he needed it most, during a pre smartphone period. There are advantages to technology as we well know, but unfettered access given to kids with smartphones, can cause more damage than good. We see this every day.
The reason I've only given this book three stars, is because at times it sounds like a puff piece for modern tech, and often comes across as extremely condescending and dismissive, when in fact we NEED to be more vigilant. There is absolutely a happy medium for monitoring kids and technology, it doesn't need to be so black and white as per Haidt's account, but being too lax about it means we leave kids and young people very vulnerable and unprepared for the reality of being online 24/7.
November 12, 2024
This is a clear and solid rebuttal of Jonathan Haidt's *The Anxious Generation*, although I'm pretty sure they came out during the same time. (And I also think Haidt makes good points that are not addressed by Etchells in terms of safety-ism.) Regardless, Pete Etchells is careful and equivocating.
The argument that Etchells puts forward is not that phones are without downsides. Etchells makes a very compelling case that smartphones are a two-way mirror, both showing us the habits of the user and also the contours of the technology. We should use caution with any technology, but imbuing smartphones with such negative power over the human is to make an argument without data, at least at this point. Like all good advice, the answer comes down to reflecting upon what you want out of the phone and practicing that age old moderation mantra.
As a high school teacher, I look forward to see what goes on in this space with more data.
The argument that Etchells puts forward is not that phones are without downsides. Etchells makes a very compelling case that smartphones are a two-way mirror, both showing us the habits of the user and also the contours of the technology. We should use caution with any technology, but imbuing smartphones with such negative power over the human is to make an argument without data, at least at this point. Like all good advice, the answer comes down to reflecting upon what you want out of the phone and practicing that age old moderation mantra.
As a high school teacher, I look forward to see what goes on in this space with more data.
May 10, 2025
Etchells does a good job of picking apart the research which lays the ground for what he calls public alarmism. What he illustrates very well that it is incredibly difficult to quantify a clear negative effect of screen time (which is easily quantifiable but essentially a meaningless measure), but at the same time tries to argue the case for closer inspection and introspection of how we use screens (the quality) in a way that is helpful and healthy because there's no getting around the fact that contemporary life full of technology.
not directly relating to screen time perhaps but I think Etchell is quite "techno optimistic" and he doesn't do much to address emerging concerns such as the end of privacy, emerging fascism, tech-bros and the tech oligarchy, so that's why only four stars from me. A pretty good book, and I personally liked best his reflections as a parent to very young children and his shared concerns along with so many other parents.
not directly relating to screen time perhaps but I think Etchell is quite "techno optimistic" and he doesn't do much to address emerging concerns such as the end of privacy, emerging fascism, tech-bros and the tech oligarchy, so that's why only four stars from me. A pretty good book, and I personally liked best his reflections as a parent to very young children and his shared concerns along with so many other parents.
May 24, 2025
Helpful reframing of the click-bait media often latches onto and sensationalizes, with useful plain language breakdowns of the science behind various purported claims attributed to each (without being “pedestrian,” as other critics here have claimed.) Instead of refuting entire positions for or against screen usage, Etchells instead refutes the fear-mongering itself. By opening the door for more nuanced self-reflection on *how* we’re using digital technology and *for what purpose,* he makes room for evolving with the next generation. Releasing that de facto constant contradiction, both inwardly and with societal pressure, allows for a reduction in the stress one carries—and isn’t stress proving to be the greatest influencer in the decline of our mental and physical health?
August 5, 2025
I first discovered this book on 5th August 2025, when it was referenced on the BBC News article 'What screen time does to children's brains is more complicated than it seems'. According to the article, the author of this book argues that that the evidence of screen time harming the adolescent brain is lacking. It also states that the author of this book has "analysed hundreds of studies about screen time and mental health, along with large amounts of data about young people and their screen habits", and in this book, he argues that the science behind the headline-grabbing conclusions is a mixed bag and, in many cases, flawed. "Concrete scientific evidence to back up stories about the terrible outcomes of screen time simply isn't there," he writes.
May 4, 2024
Read for this: https://time.com/6958809/smartphones-...
I thought the book was a little sloppily organised. It could have done a better job of leading the reader through Etchells' case.
I thought the book was a little sloppily organised. It could have done a better job of leading the reader through Etchells' case.
May 25, 2025
3.5/5 rounding down for Goodreads.
The book can be summed up as ‘screen time isn’t as bad as the media makes out’ in regards to things like attention span, sleep etc. Seems well researched and was a decent read. For a £1 kindle read I’m happy to with it
The book can be summed up as ‘screen time isn’t as bad as the media makes out’ in regards to things like attention span, sleep etc. Seems well researched and was a decent read. For a £1 kindle read I’m happy to with it
January 6, 2026
esperava um conteúdo mais completo e contundente, mas ainda assim foi uma leitura interessante que trouxe bons pontos para reflexão, mesmo que nem todos os argumentos do autor sejam perfeitamente executados. bom ver e ler outras perspectivas sobre o assunto sendo publicadas.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews