News used to be a simple thing. People appreciated knowing what was going on. But somewhere along the way, it turned from keeping people informed to keeping people’s attention. The question shifted from, “How do we serve people by giving them what they need to know” to “How do we keep people coming back?”
You open a news app just to check one quick thing. Even as something as innocent as the weather. 10 minutes later, you’re on your third doom-story video, and you’re wondering if that might ever happen in your area. Your heart rate is elevated. You question your safety. You’ve had “enough” and close the app…but that feeling of looming anxiety and emotional exhaustion doesn’t go away. You’re scared, and if only you knew a little bit more…it might help ease your anxiety. Right?
This article might get me blacklisted from certain outlets. I hope not. But it’s informed by my own experience, and the experience of many others I personally know, and countless more that I’ve observed and interacted with online.
I chose to write this article because designers bear great responsibility in the feelings that foster in the users of our products. And this example sticks out because the news industry has become a UX disaster case study, and we should be paying attention. What’s happening to news isn’t just about journalism. It’s a preview of what happens when user experience becomes a game of monetary priority over the well-being of users.
The Psychology of Engagement Addiction
News outlets don’t optimize for informing you anymore. They optimize for your attention. They’ve turned human attention into a commodity, and they’ve gotten really good at harvesting it.
In reality, I understand why. When you consider their plight, they are struggling to survive. It costs a lot of money to make and distribute “the news”, countless alternative news sources have risen up, and the demand for viewership (or readership) is directly tied to the advertisers funding their enterprise. It doesn’t make it right, but it does put it into perspective. They need your attention to survive. And here’s how they get it:
Fear sells. Headlines are crafted to trigger your fight-or-flight response. “Crisis,” “disaster,” “shocking revelation.” Humans pay attention to threats, so news outlets have learned to capitalize on what sounds scary. Even mundane policy changes get the crisis treatment because fear keeps you reading. People have a deep desire to resolve their fear, and if we can remove uncertainty and learn what we need to, that fear might just go away.
Variable rewards keep you hooked. Just like slot machines, breaking news alerts create unpredictable rewards that are the foundation of addiction cycles. You never know when that next ping will bring something “important,” so you keep checking. Pulling to refresh. The constant updates, ever-ending email digests, and live coverage create an illusion of urgency that keeps you hooked.
Social proof manipulates you. Those “trending” labels and “most read” sections aren’t just helpful organization. They’re psychological nudges telling you what everyone else is paying attention to. It may be truly popular. If it’s popular, it must be important, right? I don’t want to be out of the loop with my friends. So I look for what’s popular so I can be accepted by my peers.
Infinite scroll eliminates natural stopping points. Remember when newspapers had edges? Or, remember “the fold”? Or, how about when we were the only way to get live news was to “tune in” at a specific time? Digital news removed those boundaries. It’s always on. There’s always one more story. There are more updates. There’s one more thing to pull you deeper into the cycle.
Outrage drives engagement. Anger is one of the most powerful emotions for keeping people engaged. Stories that make you mad oddly have high engagement. They attract more comments. They inspire more social rage posts (with links, of course). It’s a strange phenomenon, but outrage sells. So news outlets have learned to amplify the most divisive angles polarizing people, because calm, factual reporting…well…is boring.
Much of the “news” is preying on our humanity to increase engagement, which is tied to increasing exposure of ads on that content, which leads to increased click-rate, which is the revenue model of many news outlets today.
Brief Aside: I applaud the efforts of many news outlets to try and shake this ad-based model by offering subscriptions. I’m not sure it’s going to solve the core problem we’re discussing, but I am glad to see some level of ingenuity around this tough problem.
This is How UX Goes Wrong
So, why am I telling you all of this? Because if you’re a designer reading this and feeling uncomfortable, good. You should be. And if you’re not uncomfortable yet, hang with me…I hope you will be (in a good way).
Because this is exactly what happens in our products when we optimize for engagement over value. When we prioritize metrics over positive impact on the people that consume our product. When we hack human psychology for profit instead of serving genuine needs.
The news industry shows us the end game of user experience that serves business goals at the expense of user well-being. We end up with mentally exhausted, emotionally agitated users who can’t look away from something that’s actively harming them. But at some point, the game will be up. People can’t run on adrenaline forever.
Here’s where we point the finger back at ourselves. Think about the products you work on. Are you designing to genuinely help people accomplish their goals? Or are you designing to keep them engaged for as long as possible, regardless of whether that engagement is healthy or valuable? Does the “positive impact” you make have “negative side effects” that need to be considered? Have you removed optimized for engagement so much that it might make it difficult for people to disengage if they want to? Or have you stopped to ask the question “How might this harm the person using this?”
It’s easy to point the finger “out there”, but we need to be critical of what we produce. That’s where we can have the greatest impact on people.
Warning Signs You’re Heading Down This Path
As designers and design leaders, we need to recognize when our teams and companies are sliding toward this kind of thinking. Here are three example warning signs:
Missing value means features without purpose. When features get prioritized without a clear understanding of the value they provide to users, then what are you optimizing for? If the primary justification for a feature is “it will increase engagement” or “it will improve our conversion rate” without any consideration of whether it helps users accomplish something meaningful, you’re designing for revenue extraction, not value.
“Stupid users” syndrome dismisses genuine needs. If you start hearing phrases like “users don’t know what they want” or “they’ll get used to it,” pay attention. This is how teams rationalize designing against user interests. When the culture stops caring about serving users and starts treating them like a wallet to pick from, you’re heading toward dangerous territory.
Business desperation leads to moral compromise. When sales are falling and user bases are shrinking, the pressure to find quick fixes intensifies. Suddenly, those questionable engagement tactics start looking more appealing. “Just this once,” becomes the rallying cry. “We need to juice our numbers.” This is when integrity gets tested, and why it’s crucial to work for leaders and companies that have strong values when times get tough.
These cultural shifts can be subtle. They don’t happen overnight. It starts with little choices here and there. But over time, they compound, and before you know it, you’re designing products that harm the people they’re supposed to help because we need money.
Step Up, Don’t Play Victim
Here’s where I need to be direct with you. As design leaders, we can’t just shrug our shoulders and say, “Well, the business wants engagement, so that’s what we’ll give them.” That’s playing victim to business requirements instead of doing our job.
Our job is to bring harmony to user needs and business goals. Not to prioritize business goals at the expense of user well-being. When those two things come into conflict, it’s our responsibility to find mutually beneficial solutions, not to cave to short-term thinking.
This means learning to translate user harm into language that business leaders actually understand. Long-term retention versus short-term engagement. Brand trust versus quick wins. Customer lifetime value versus immediate conversion.
If you’re struggling with how to have these conversations with stakeholders, I’d recommend Ryan Rumsey’s free book “Business Thinking for Designers”. It’s a practical guide for making the business case to help you do right by users.
But here’s the thing: you have to be willing to have the hard conversations. You have to be willing to help stakeholders clearly see how it’s harming users. You need to be able to spell out the business consequences of these choices. You have to be willing to advocate for the people using your products, even when it’s uncomfortable. It doesn’t mean you need to become adversarial or pick fights. It means you have to do the work to patiently communicate clearly and intentionally. You have to put in relational work and use your human skills.
Let me be clear, users “not wanting something” is not the same as harming them. Be sure you’re barking up the right tree when you advocate for users.
What will you do?
Let’s head to action with some questions to reflect on:
When you look at your current projects, are you designing to help people accomplish their goals, or are you designing to accomplish your company’s goals regardless of the impact on users? Do you have a clear picture of what will even help them?
What would your users say about the products you’re building if they understood how those products were designed to influence their behavior? Would they cheer and be thankful, or would they be offended?
Are you proud of the psychological mechanisms your products use? Would you be comfortable explaining them to your users? Be honest.
And, if your product succeeded exactly as designed, would your users be better off? Would the world be better off?
The news modern industry shows us what happens when we get these answers wrong. The question is: are we going to learn from their mistakes, or are we going to repeat them?
The choice is ours. But we have to choose.
• • •
P.S. Need help? Maybe you read this article and you’re feeling trapped, overwhelmed, anxious, or defeated. I have been there. Not like you, because we all have different stories. But, I want to encourage you to seek out some help. There’s no shame in getting help. Here are a few options I’ve benefited from and, maybe they could lead to some help:
- Read Indistractable by Nir Eyal. It helps demystify the tricks that products and companies use to keep us Hooked. And provides practical ways to break away.
- Try a digital detox. It might be scary, but it’s worth a try. I’m free of my Apple Watch for 45 days and I’m all the better for it.
- Find a counselor or therapist. You don’t have to go alone. There are people who want to help. It might take some work to find them, but they are there.
You don’t need to be full of constant fear and anxiety. You don’t need the media to be human.
Thanks for reading. Take care of yourself.
(This article contains an affiliate link. I read the books and use the products I recommend. I use these links to help provide support for the writing I do. Thank you for reading.)