press /
Time Tax A movement
§ 7 — Chronicle

Newsfeed

A running chronicle of the regulation, research, and critique bearing on the extraction of digital time. We collect, we annotate, we link out. We do not editorialise where the source speaks for itself.

Twice weekly · Mon & Thu Updated 20 July 2026

July 2026

8 entries
Regulation·Ofcom

Ofcom counts the age checks — 69 million of them — and finds the harm largely intact

Ofcom's first statutory Use of Age Assurance Report finds that in the first six months of the Online Safety Act's child-protection duties (July–December 2025), 69 million age checks were completed across the 32 services examined — a 23-fold increase — with facial age estimation and photo-ID matching the dominant methods. The judgment is mixed: checks deterred access on pornography sites that implemented them, but Ofcom says it has "not seen a material reduction in the volume of harmful content being surfaced to children" and that age assurance "is not delivering the intended outcome." No single method eliminates circumvention; the regulator calls for layered protections.

Why we logged it. A regulator putting a number on a compulsory friction imposed at national scale, then honestly assessing whether the extraction it was meant to interrupt actually fell — the discipline attention markets have never been subjected to. Caveat: this is child-safety regulation, not attention-market regulation; the relevance is by analogy of method, not subject.

Regulation·European Commission

The Commission preliminarily finds Instagram and Facebook's addictive design in breach of the DSA

The European Commission has preliminarily found Meta in breach of the Digital Services Act over the addictive design of Instagram and Facebook — the investigation focused on infinite scroll, autoplay, push notifications, and the platforms' highly personalised recommender systems. The finding is twofold: Meta did not adequately assess the risks its design posed to the physical and mental wellbeing of users, including minors and vulnerable adults, and the mitigations it deployed failed to address them. It is the second DSA addictive-design case after TikTok (February 2026); non-compliance can carry fines of up to 6% of global annual turnover.

Why we logged it. The biggest regulatory landing on this site's core argument since it launched — a regulator asserting, for the second time in five months, that the engagement architecture is itself the violation, not the content it carries. Caveat: preliminary findings, not a decision. Meta has the right of defence, no fine has been imposed, and Meta says the findings do not recognise its Teen Accounts work.

Regulation·New York City

New York City writes click-to-cancel into law — and moves on junk fees

New York City finalised a Click-to-Cancel rule making it, by the administration's account, the first municipality in the nation to require that cancelling a subscription be as easy as signing up — subscribe online, cancel online — paired with a separately proposed all-in pricing rule banning hidden "junk fees." The city projects the cancel rule alone will save New Yorkers up to $162.5 million a year, with penalties starting at $350 per violation; it takes effect 1 October 2026.

Why we logged it. A government treating designed friction — the hard-to-find cancel button, the fee revealed only at checkout — as a compulsory extraction of money and time, and pricing it. The same move this site makes about attention, applied where the transfer is denominated in dollars. Caveat: the junk-fee rule is a proposal in its comment period; both are municipal rules stepping into the gap left when a US appeals court vacated the FTC's federal click-to-cancel rule in 2025.

Regulation·Court of Justice of the EU

Google's €4.125bn Android fine is final — and the Court says defaults extract

The Court of Justice dismissed Google and Alphabet's appeal against the 2022 Android judgment, fixing the fine at €4.125 billion and closing the case permanently. The reasoning matters more than the number: the Court confirmed the finding of "a status quo bias in favour of pre-installed apps," and that Google "had not demonstrated that user preferences or the alleged quality of their services alone accounted for the behaviours observed." No counterfactual analysis was required.

Why we logged it. A court accepting, as settled EU law, that default placement produces user behaviour that preference does not explain — the legal shadow of the claim this site makes about attention, stated in the language of Article 102. Caveat: the conduct concerns search distribution between 2011 and 2018, not advertising or attention markets, and the remedy flows to competitors, not to the people whose defaults were set.

Critique·Pluralistic

Doctorow — Technocarcinization: every platform is evolving into Facebook

Cory Doctorow borrows "carcinisation" — the way unrelated species keep evolving into crabs — to describe how Apple, Google, and Meta are all drifting into the same corner of his old grid: maximally surveilling and maximally controlling. Apple, once the "we don't spy" walled garden, now runs on-device ad targeting; Google, once the company that sent you out to the open web, walls searchers inside AI summaries and nerfs Chrome's ad-blocking. His claim is that the convergence is driven not by the people in charge but by a policy environment where surveillance and lock-in are the traits that survive.

Why we logged it. The extraction case stated as evolutionary pressure — "if you're not paying for the product, you're the product" is only half right, Doctorow writes; "even if you pay for the product, you're the product." Caveat: a polemical blog post, and the grid is a rhetorical device, not a measurement.

Regulation·Connecticut General Assembly

Connecticut bans engagement-extension design — and targeted ads — for minors

The 2025 amendments to the Connecticut Data Privacy Act (SB 1295) take effect on 1 July 2026. They impose a categorical bar on processing a minor's personal data for targeted advertising or any sale, regardless of consent — and, separately, prohibit using "any system design feature to significantly increase, sustain or extend any minor's use" of a service. Signed by Gov. Lamont in June 2025; the new impact-assessment duties attach to processing created on or after 1 August 2026.

Why we logged it. A US state writing the engagement-hold mechanism into statute and switching it off for minors — the design itself named as the harm, not merely the data taken or the hours spent. Caveat: a state law, limited to minors, and consent survives as a route for some essential-service profiling.

Research·Humanities and Social Sciences Communications

Excessive screen time, mental health, and the mediators in between

Now peer-reviewed in Nature Portfolio's Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, an analysis of 50,231 US children and adolescents (National Survey of Children's Health, 2020–2021) finds four or more hours of daily screen time associated with higher risks of anxiety, depression, conduct problems, and ADHD. Structural-equation modelling locates most of the association in what screen time displaces: physical activity is the strongest mediator (roughly 31–39% of the effect), followed by irregular bedtime and short sleep.

Why we logged it. The harm is real and large-scale, but it runs mostly through displaced sleep and movement — a more defensible claim than screens acting directly on the mind. Caveat: cross-sectional and parent-reported, and it does not separate advertising-driven feeds from other use.

Regulation·UK Information Commissioner's Office

The counter-current: the ICO loosens consent for "low-risk" advertising

While the regulatory current of 2026 mostly runs toward constraining platforms, the UK's data regulator has been moving the other way on consent. The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 introduced new categories of cookies exempt from PECR's consent requirement (in force 5 February), and in May the ICO advised the government on creating a "consent-free route" for low-risk online advertising — a posture that earlier saw it accept Meta's "consent-or-pay" model as capable of lawfulness.

Why we logged it. The near-photographic negative of the Conversion Dividend — rather than declaring a share of ad revenue owed back, a regulator is widening the circumstances in which attention can be taken without a consent step at all. Read against Ofcom's report of the same fortnight, the UK state is pulling in two directions at once. Caveat: UK-specific, framed as reducing compliance friction for "low-risk" processing, and a composite of several 2026 developments rather than a single dated action.

June 2026

8 entries
Regulation·noyb / US Supreme Court

The Supreme Court strips the FTC of independence — and the EU–US data deal loses its foundation

In Trump v. Slaughter (29 June), a 6–3 Supreme Court upheld the President's power to dismiss an FTC commissioner and held the agency's statutory independence unconstitutional. Max Schrems' noyb argues the consequence is structural: the EU's adequacy decision for US data transfers leans on the "independent" FTC 259 times, and EU treaty law requires independent oversight — so the legal basis of the EU–US Data Privacy Framework has collapsed. noyb has asked the Commission to withdraw the deal in an orderly way and says it will file suit.

Why we logged it. The accountability layer meant to police cross-border surveillance dismantled in a single ruling — the oversight the whole data pipeline was supposed to answer to, gone. Caveat: no immediate effect. The Commission's decision stands until it repeals it or the CJEU annuls it, and a court challenge could take two to three years.

Critique·Pluralistic

Doctorow — "Age verification" is not verification, it is mass surveillance

Cory Doctorow argues there is no such thing as "age verification" for the internet — what is sold under that name is mass surveillance, "so invasive and pervasive that it makes the ad-tech industry's commercial surveillance look like some kind of cypherpunk darknet pirate utopia." An age-check mandate would require everyone online to submit to fine-grained tracking of all their activity, handing the surveillance-advertising industry a world where avoiding tracking is illegal. The harms to children people fear, he writes, "all start with surveillance" — kids cannot be targeted or funnelled toward harmful content without the commercial spying that primes the funnel.

Why we logged it. The child-safety frame turned inside out — the surveillance sold as protection is the mechanism of extraction, and Doctorow ties it straight to the wallet: the data "is being used to raise the prices you pay and lower the wages you're offered." Caveat: a polemical post, and its sharpest claims — VPN bans, ICE misuse — are where the argument leads, not events that have happened.

Regulation·United Kingdom

Britain moves to ban under-16s from social media

Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced that the UK will bar under-16s from a range of social platforms — Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, and X — while exempting messaging services such as WhatsApp and Signal, and will block livestreaming and stranger-contact for under-16s. The government, calling it a "landmark" move, will bring measures to Parliament before Christmas, with protections expected in force next spring, putting the onus on platforms to keep children off and threatening large fines. A national consultation drew more than 116,000 responses; 90% backed a minimum age of 16.

Why we logged it. A national government treating access to the engagement-maximising feed itself as the harm — not the content within it, nor the hours spent. Caveat: announced, not yet law, and enforcement is the open question — Australia's parallel under-16 ban, in force since December 2025, is already struggling, and age verification carries its own privacy and free-expression costs.

Regulation·European Commission

The Digital Omnibus keeps moving — and the fight is over who may override your "no"

The Commission's Digital Omnibus Regulation (proposed 19 November 2025) would mandate a single-click reject with equal prominence to "accept," bar re-prompting for the same purpose for at least six months after a refusal, and require sites to honour browser- or device-level privacy preference signals. One carve-out has drawn fire: media providers whose revenue depends primarily on advertising would be exempt from honouring those signals — a carve-out France's Alliance Digitale is fighting, calling (21 May 2026) to delete the centralised cookie mechanism and the six-month re-consent ban.

Why we logged it. The mechanism by which refusal is registered — and who is permitted to override it — is the live battleground. A durable, machine-readable "no" is the precondition for any honest accounting of extracted attention. Caveat: a proposal, not law; GDPR and ePrivacy remain in force, and if adopted it phases in over up to four years.

Critique·New Media & Society

Lee — Brain rot: cognitive decomposition as a structural externality of attention assetization

Hera Hyeonseo Lee (Binghamton University) theorises "brain rot" not as cultural decline but as a structural condition: in the post-2008 turn from material expansion toward cognitive extraction, platforms "assetize" attention to stabilise their speculative valuations, inducing a rewiring that degrades the capacity for sustained thought. The argument is built from SEC filings and earnings transcripts of Meta, Alphabet, Microsoft, and Amazon — tying the architecture of corporate finance directly to systemic cognitive shifts.

Why we logged it. The extraction tied explicitly to share-price logic, and the resulting cognitive damage named as an externality — a cost the public absorbs so the firms can hold their valuations. The Conversion Dividend's moral premise, in political-economy terms. Caveat: a single-author theoretical article reasoning from financial documents, not a measurement of individuals' cognition.

Research·PNAS

Differentiation drives the erosion of positivity on social media

Analysing 2.05 billion comments across 2,150 Reddit communities, Hongkai Mao and colleagues find that discourse becomes measurably more negative over time — within individual threads and across a community's history — and that the trend is mediated by the semantic uniqueness of comments. The mechanism: users compete to say something new, negative information is more heterogeneous and counter-normative than positive information, so as a conversation fills up, the cheapest remaining way to be distinctive is to be negative. The negativity emerges without anyone intending it.

Why we logged it. The extraction argument in its purest form — a structural property of a scarce-attention contest producing a harm that no individual participant chose. The nastiness is not the users; it is the contest they are made to compete in. Caveat: observational analysis of one platform, establishing a robust pattern and plausible mechanism rather than a controlled causal test — and it concerns user-generated negativity, not advertising or platform design directly.

Critique·Pluralistic

Delusion as a service

Cory Doctorow likens the internet — and now sycophantic chatbots — to Disney's "Mission: Space" centrifuge: benign for almost everyone, but a machine for surfacing rare, dormant vulnerabilities in the few it harms. Applied to "AI psychosis," he argues chatbots supply "delusional reinforcement as a service, on tap, 24/7," and that even if they only amplify rather than cause delusion, mass deployment guarantees mass harm absent mitigation.

Why we logged it. Extends the extraction case from attention to psychological fault lines — engagement-maximising systems, run at scale, inevitably reach the people least able to withstand them. Caveat: its subject is AI-driven delusion, not advertising or the attention-tax framing specifically.

Regulation·Illinois General Assembly

Illinois passes a bill banning algorithmic feeds for minors

The General Assembly passed the Children's Online Social Media Safety Act (HB 5511) unanimously — 57-0 in the Senate, 113-0 in the House — and Gov. JB Pritzker has said he will sign it. The law bars platforms from using a minor's viewing history or on-device data to rank their feed: feeds for under-18s may show only what the user searched for, requested, or follows, and notifications are prohibited between 10pm and 7am. Enforcement runs through the Attorney General, with fines of $2,500–$7,500 per child.

Why we logged it. The cleanest legislative statement yet that the engagement-ranked feed itself is the harm — not merely the content inside it. For minors, the extraction mechanism is simply switched off. Caveat: it takes effect in 2028, and tech lobbyists have flagged First Amendment challenges.

May 2026

10 entries
Research·Nature

Brady et al. — the less extractive feed that users liked just as much

A large-scale field experiment altered the feed-ranking algorithm on Bluesky during the 2024 US presidential election. A "diversified extremity" algorithm — making feeds more representative of the actual population of users — reduced exposure to polarising content and produced more accurate perceptions of social norms, without reducing users' enjoyment of the platform. Both the experimental feed and a plain reverse-chronological feed surfaced less uncivil content than standard engagement-based ranking.

Why we logged it. The counterfactual the industry insists does not exist. The trade-off — engagement optimisation or a worse product — did not appear: if a less extractive feed costs nothing in satisfaction, then the extraction is a revenue choice, not a design necessity. Caveat: run on Bluesky — small, self-selecting, technically literate, and with no advertising business — so it does not establish the same result at Meta or TikTok scale. The full paper is paywalled; the Research Briefing is open.

Critique·Pluralistic

No honor among (ad-tech) thieves

Cory Doctorow uses the Cox Media settlement as the spine for a clean restatement of the case — ad-tech firms lie to users about what they take, and to advertisers about what they deliver. He cites the Procter and Gamble experiment, in which a $200m annual surveillance-advertising spend was zeroed out with zero effect on sales.

Why we logged it. The clearest May statement of the argument from the other side — if the extraction is largely waste, the user is owed the share the advertiser is being scammed out of.

Regulation·FTC

FTC settles with Cox Media Group over "Active Listening" ad targeting

Cox Media Group and two co-respondents will pay just under $1m to settle FTC charges that they deceived buyers about an AI-powered service that claimed to record and transcribe consumer conversations via smart devices for ad targeting. The action treats inflated ad-tech surveillance claims as actionable deception against the buyer, not only the user.

Why we logged it. A regulator finally punishing one ad-tech firm for lying to another about how much it surveils — proof the extraction is real, and the boasts about it are inflated.

Research·arXiv preprint

Generative AI advertising as a problem of trustworthy commercial intervention

Qiu and Mei (University of Michigan) argue generative AI changes advertising in kind, not degree. Rather than dropping a product into a slot, it intervenes on the model's output itself — shaping product mentions, information framing, behavioural redirection, and long-term preference through channels users cannot easily detect. Deployed systems and regulators govern only the most visible tier, while the influence most consequential for user autonomy goes unmeasured and undisclosed.

Why we logged it. Extraction moving from your attention to your judgement — the ask hidden inside the answer. A preprint, not yet peer-reviewed.

Critique·The Ideas Letter

Slobodian — Digital Bandung: stress-testing the language of extraction

Quinn Slobodian interrogates the now-ubiquitous register of "digital empire" and "data colonialism" — Zuboff, Couldry and Mejias, Hao, Crawford — and argues it too often "mistakes polemic for analysis." Subjecting the empire metaphor to the actual history of empires, he proposes three sharper concepts (the comprador, the creole, counter-colonisation) and insists that Global North users are not simply expropriated "digital natives" but "digital creoles," whose pension funds and portfolios are bound up in the very firms extracting from them.

Why we logged it. The most serious engagement with this site's own vocabulary in months — and it partly cuts against us. Its warning that "extraction" used loosely becomes an emotional rather than analytical category is a useful discipline for a movement built on a metaphor: naming a tax is powerful, but the name has to survive contact with how value actually moves. Caveat: a critical essay, not evidence — cite it as a sharpening counterpoint, not an ally.

Regulation·House Energy & Commerce

Pallone opens a surveillance-pricing inquiry into 25 retailers

Energy and Commerce Ranking Member Frank Pallone wrote to 25 major retailers and grocers — Amazon, Walmart, Kroger, Target, and Costco among them — demanding to know whether they feed individual shoppers' personal data into algorithms to charge different people different prices for the same goods, with answers due 26 May. The letters cite a Consumer Reports investigation into Instacart's AI pricing tests, and argue the absence of a federal privacy law is the gap that lets the practice spread.

Why we logged it. The extraction logic turned on price itself — your data harvested to set what you pay. A congressional record of the mechanism, before any finding. Caveat: a minority-party information request, not legislation or enforcement.

Regulation·European Commission

Von der Leyen commits to a Digital Fairness Act naming addictive design

The Commission President publicly committed to bringing forward the Digital Fairness Act, naming infinite scrolling, autoplay, and push notifications as "addictive and harmful design practices" engineered to maximise engagement. The Parliament's Legislative Train confirms the DFA as a Q4 2026 initiative targeting dark patterns, addictive design, and unfair personalisation.

Why we logged it. An EU institution naming engagement-maximising design as a harm in its own right — the mechanics of extraction, not only a privacy or competition problem. Announced, not yet tabled, and framed so far around minors.

Regulation·European Commission

EU draft guidelines on AI Act Article 50 transparency

The European Commission published draft guidelines on the AI Act's Article 50 transparency obligations, which become enforceable on 2 August 2026 and cover interactive-AI disclosure, deepfake labelling, and biometric categorisation. For advertising specifically, the draft confirms commercial speech does not get the artistic-expression exception — AI-generated influencer and celebrity ads must carry the disclosure. Consultation runs to 3 June.

Why we logged it. A forward dated mechanism for labelling synthetic ad content at scale, with penalties up to 3% of global turnover. The first real test of whether transparency can be enforced on the surfaces themselves.

Regulation·FTC

FTC v Kochava — the first ban on a US data broker selling sensitive location data

A stipulated final order prohibits Kochava and its subsidiary Collective Data Solutions from selling, sharing, or disclosing sensitive location data without affirmative express consent, ending a case the Commission filed in August 2022. The settlement requires a sensitive-location-data programme, supplier consent assessments, and a public-facing withdrawal mechanism.

Why we logged it. The first concrete enforcement on the data-broker layer of the attention economy — the layer that converts location, behaviour, and intent into priced inventory.

Regulation·Electronic Frontier Foundation

EFF tells the EU to regulate surveillance advertising, not "addictive design"

Ahead of the EU's Q4 2026 Digital Fairness Act, the EFF argues the law should target the root causes — surveillance-based business models and deceptive design — rather than pile more control onto users through age verification. It calls for an explicit ban on dark patterns, a direct attack on surveillance advertising and unfair profiling, a ban on pay-for-privacy schemes ("users should not have to trade their data or pay extra to avoid being tracked"), and mandatory recognition of browser and operating-system privacy signals.

Why we logged it. A leading digital-rights body framing surveillance advertising itself, not its symptoms, as the thing to regulate — the Time Tax thesis in policy language. An advocacy submission, not law; the DFA is not expected until Q4 2026.

April 2026

4 entries
Regulation·Maryland General Assembly

Maryland becomes the first state to ban surveillance-data price hikes

Signed 28 April 2026, Maryland's Protection from Predatory Pricing Act makes it the first US state to bar large food retailers and third-party delivery apps from using surveillance data or dynamic pricing to set a higher price. It lands on top of New York's Algorithmic Pricing Disclosure Act — in force since November 2025, which forces a blunt on-screen label: "THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA" — and the FTC's own study, which found intermediaries using signals as fine as mouse movements, browser history, and abandoned-cart contents to set individualised prices across at least 250 retail clients.

Why we logged it. The extraction argument made literal — the data taken from you converted directly into the price you pay — and the policy response moving from disclosure toward prohibition. Caveat: narrow and sector-specific (Maryland covers only certain food retail; New York is disclosure, not a ban), and there is still no federal statute.

Research·SSRN working paper

Yuan — The attention economy as extractive regime

Yongming Yuan argues that "attention economy" misleads if it implies attention only recently became scarce — attention scarcity is an old human condition. What is new is the declining threshold of extractability: digital infrastructure can now capture, measure, and monetise "sub-threshold attention fragments" — glances, pauses, scroll hesitations, interruption windows — that earlier media could not profitably organise. He proposes a minimal-threshold model in which an attentional unit becomes extractable once its expected return exceeds the marginal cost of capturing it, and closes with a class account of sellers, buyers, and protectors of attention.

Why we logged it. The closest academic articulation yet of the thing this site names — value extracted from attention so small the person never notices the transfer. Caveat: a self-posted working paper by an independent author — not peer-reviewed, fourteen pages — a conceptual contribution and a useful citation for the framing, not empirical evidence.

Research·Pew Research Center

Pew — Teens' Experiences on TikTok, Instagram, and Snapchat

Pew's first cross-platform teen comparison (n=1,458, fielded Sep–Oct 2025) finds that roughly 30% of teen TikTok users say they spend too much time on the app — and 44% of parents say so of their teen. TikTok users are also markedly more likely than Instagram or Snapchat users to report harm to sleep and productivity.

Why we logged it. The users say it themselves. Survey data Time Tax can cite when the argument needs voice, not theory.

Research·SSRN working paper

Catovic — Attention scarcity and builder saturation in digital markets

Armin Catovic models digital-market growth under a finite attention constraint and shows that the equilibrium attention available to each builder converges to a ratio of entry cost to monetisation rate. The paper formalises attention as a scarce, contested resource at platform scale, not as an unbounded externality.

Why we logged it. A formal economic statement of the premise the framework rests on — attention is scarce, monetisation rate is the lever, distribution follows from policy.

March 2026

3 entries
Research·arXiv preprint

Daily affect fluctuations in phone screen content predict anxiety and depression

An intensive year-long study captured a smartphone screenshot every five seconds from 145 adults — roughly 111 million images — and scored each for emotional valence and arousal with a deep-learning model, alongside biweekly mental-health assessments. Day-to-day shifts in the emotional tone of what people saw on screen predicted subsequent changes in depression and anxiety; stable between-person differences did not.

Why we logged it. Moves the case past "screen time" to the content of attention as the active ingredient — what platforms feed you, not merely how long. A preprint, not yet peer-reviewed.

Research·SSRN working paper

Chen, Li & Preuss — Algorithmic attention and content creation on social media platforms

The authors study the revenue-maximising allocation of attention on ad-funded social media, modelling the platform's choice to direct attention either to ads (immediate monetisation) or to creators (to grow inventory). The algorithmic feed emerges as a deliberate allocation against advertisers and creators — not a neutral surfacing.

Why we logged it. Useful citation for the Conversion Dividend argument — the feed is an allocation decision, and allocations are governable.

Critique·Politics & Society (Sage)

Mariani — Regulating the attention economy: the possibilities and limits of antitrust

A legal-scholarly argument that competition-focused antitrust is the wrong tool — more competition can intensify the race to capture attention and deepen the harm. Isabella Luisa Mariani calls for abandoning the price-based consumer-welfare standard, conceptualising markets for attention, and imposing ex ante limits on data-mining and behavioural advertising, with user autonomy as the governing standard.

Why we logged it. An academic case that the harm is the extraction itself, not market concentration — adjacent to the premise that the underlying relationship is non-consensual.

February 2026

2 entries
Research·Stanford Law Review

Newman — Attention Capitalism: the law and political economy of attention markets

John M. Newman (78 Stan. L. Rev. 415) argues that a wide range of legal regimes — antitrust, privacy, contract, and tax — have together funnelled human activity into "attention markets," where people trade attention for access to search, social media, and the like, and concentrated power among a few firms. The article proposes a broad overhaul of US law to deconcentrate those markets.

Why we logged it. The nearest formal legal scaffolding yet for treating attention as a market with measurable value — a scholarly cousin to the Conversion Dividend's premise that captured attention is value owed back. Caveat: its remedies are structural and doctrinal, not a revenue-return mechanism.

Research·SSRN working paper

Thomas — Taxing Attention

Kathleen DeLaney Thomas gives the attention economy a tax-law treatment, taking up the Pigouvian idea — taxing attention capture to internalise its social cost — and working through how such a levy would sit inside real tax policy, across social media and the broader market for attention.

Why we logged it. The closest formal cousin of the Conversion Dividend yet. Where the Dividend returns a share of ad revenue to the people whose attention produced it, this prices the externality of capturing that attention at all. A working paper — scope to be confirmed from the full text.

December 2025

2 entries
Regulation·US House of Representatives

Auchincloss introduces the Education Not Endless Scrolling Act — a digital ad tax

Rep. Jake Auchincloss (MA-04), with co-sponsor Rep. Maggie Goodlander, introduced a bill to levy a 50% excise tax on digital advertising revenue above $2.5bn and route the proceeds to one-on-one tutoring, vocational-technical schools, and local journalism. Auchincloss frames platforms as "attention fracking" children and treating youth "like products, not people," pitching the measure as part of an "UnAnxious Generation" package.

Why we logged it. The closest thing in live US legislation to the Conversion Dividend — it accepts that advertising revenue is built on extracted attention and proposes returning a declared share of it to the public. Caveat: it routes the money to public goods rather than to the people whose attention produced it, and remains a single bill at introduction stage with no clear path to passage.

Research·Psychological Bulletin

Feeds, Feelings, and Focus — a meta-analysis of short-form video use

Lan Nguyen and colleagues (Griffith University) pool 71 studies and 98,299 participants and find heavier short-form-video use moderately associated with poorer cognition — the strongest effects for attention and inhibitory control — and weakly with poorer mental health, including anxiety, stress, and sleep disturbance. Notably, addiction-scale measures of compulsive use predicted harm more strongly than time-on-app alone.

Why we logged it. The largest synthesis yet behind the claim that the engagement-optimised feed degrades the very faculty it harvests — attention. Caveat: the associations are correlational, and most of the underlying studies are cross-sectional, so causation is unproven.

In press 2026

1 entry
Research·Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 179

Fournier et al. — Attention hijacked: how social media notifications disrupt cognitive processing

A Lyon team ran a Stroop task on 180 university students while delivering notifications, and measured a transient cognitive slowdown of roughly seven seconds per ping, driven by perceptual salience, learned association, and inferred social relevance. Crucially, the magnitude was predicted by interaction frequency — notification volume and checking behaviour — not by total screen time.

Why we logged it. A measurement of the tax in milliseconds, and a pivot from "time on device" to "interruptions per device" as the design lever that matters.

No entries match — try a different term or clear the filter.

The chronicle is curated by The Editors and updated on Mondays and Thursdays. Submissions of regulatory rulings, peer-reviewed work, and primary documents are read on a rolling basis — write in via Contact & correspondence. Selection criteria — first-hand sources where possible, links that work, claims described as narrowly as the source warrants.

The longer-form annotated library lives at Evidence. The framework lives at Glossary. The policy proposal lives at Dividend.