How We Communicate
A quarterly account of how this site communicates and how it performed. A site arguing for transparency about persuasion techniques should be transparent about its own.
This page also demonstrates the approach it describes. Tap any underlined word to see its precise definition, and open the "Deeper" box for the full cognitive-science citations. The main text works on its own.
Current quarter
Data published quarterly. First report forthcoming after launch.
What we publish quarterly
Hooks used. The specific headline variations tested and what each produced in terms of reach, click-through, and newsletter conversion. If we used an activating headline, we say so — and we note whether we think it was justified or crossed a line.
What we do not do. We do not use outrage hooks — headlines like "This is destroying your children" or "The shocking truth about Facebook" — even though we know from the research documented on this site that they would perform better. We do not buy followers or engagement. We do not use dark patterns to inflate newsletter sign-ups.
Corrections. Every factual error corrected is logged publicly. Original claim, correction, date, and reason. See the corrections log in the public repository.
Moderation. Comments held for review, comments deleted and on what grounds, coordinated hostile patterns observed, and factual corrections extracted from hostile comments and addressed separately.
How we explain complicated things
This site documents how attention-optimising platforms work. The mechanisms are real, but they are not simple. We face a design challenge: how do we explain a complex system to people with vastly different knowledge and time?
Research in cognitive psychology shows that presenting everything at once causes cognitive overload — the facts do not land. But oversimplifying is equally harmful: unnecessary scaffolding actually worsens understanding for people who already know the topic. So there is no single correct level of explanation. It depends on what the reader already knows.
Cognitive load
The amount of information working memory is handling at once. Working memory is small and easily swamped; when a page demands more than it can hold, comprehension collapses — the facts "do not land." Cognitive load theory (Sweller) is the basis for keeping the main text spare and pushing detail into optional layers, so the reader chooses when to spend the capacity.
Sources
- Sweller, J. (1988), Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning, Cognitive Science 12(2).
We solve this with three layers:
Layer 1 — the main text. Every page explains the core idea in plain language, short sentences, and concrete words. You can understand the entire argument from the main text alone. No jargon, no parenthetical asides.
Layer 2 — term definitions. Where the main text uses a plain word for something with a precise technical meaning, that word is underlined and tappable. Tap it to see the academic term, a rigorous one-sentence definition, and sometimes a reference. The plain word stays in the prose; the precision is available without cluttering the page.
Layer 3 — evidence and depth. At the end of each section, collapsible "Deeper" boxes contain dense exposition, peer-reviewed research, contested points, and how we know what we claim. You do not need to open them to understand the argument. But if you are fact-checking or teaching, they are there.
The science behind this. This approach is grounded in cognitive load theory (Sweller et al.), advance organisers (Ausubel), and scaffolding research (Bruner, Vygotsky). When you read the clear main text first, you build a mental schema. That schema lets you integrate details without overload. For novices, the spine is enough; the depth is available if needed. For experts, the spine is quick to read, and the depth is where rigour lives. No single level works for everyone — but this structure serves both.
Advance organiser
A simple framework given before the detail, into which the detail can then be slotted — Ausubel's idea that you learn complex material better when you first have a mental "map" to hang it on. The plain-language main text (Tier 1) is the advance organiser for this whole site: read it first and the depth blocks have somewhere to attach.
Sources
- Ausubel, D.P. (1960), The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material, Journal of Educational Psychology 51(5).
Deeper — the cognitive science, and why one reading level can't serve everyone
The reason for layering rather than picking a single reading level is a specific, well-replicated finding: the expertise-reversal effect. Kalyuga, Ayres, Chandler and Sweller (2003) showed that instructional support which genuinely helps novices — extra explanation, worked detail, scaffolding — becomes redundant and can actively worsen performance for people who already know the material, because processing the now-unnecessary support consumes working memory they would otherwise spend on the task. So "write it simply for everyone" is not a safe default: it taxes experts, while "write it rigorously for everyone" overloads novices.
Layering resolves the dilemma instead of splitting the difference. The Tier 1 spine is the advance organiser (Ausubel) that lets a newcomer build a schema; the Tier 2 terms and Tier 3 depth are there for the reader who wants or needs them, and invisible to the one who does not. This is the broader cognitive-load-theory programme (Sweller; Paas, Renkl & Sweller, 2003) applied to a public website rather than a classroom. It is also why we resisted the obvious "simple version / expert version" split: that forces every reader to self-classify and still serves each badly at the edges.
Sources
- Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P. & Sweller, J. (2003), The Expertise Reversal Effect, Educational Psychologist 38(1).
- Paas, F., Renkl, A. & Sweller, J. (2003), Cognitive Load Theory and Instructional Design: Recent Developments, Educational Psychologist 38(1).
How to use this site
If you have 5 minutes: Read the main text of one page. You will get the core argument.
If you have 15 minutes: Read the main text, and tap underlined terms that confuse you. The definitions will clarify.
If you are fact-checking: Start with the Sources block at the foot of the page. Every claim is sourced to a primary document you can verify.
Our engagement policy
We welcome: factual corrections (always, regardless of how they are delivered), genuine questions, substantive disagreement including from researchers who think we have got something wrong.
The objections we hear most often are gathered and answered, in public, on the Yes, but… page.
We do not engage with: personal attacks on the people running this site, coordinated harassment, comments that are factually false and decline to engage with evidence when it is provided, content using the manipulation techniques this site documents.
Why this is not censorship: this policy is published in advance and publicly reviewable. Anyone who believes a moderation decision was wrong can raise that here or via the corrections email. The published policy applied consistently is what distinguishes this from the opaque, algorithmically applied moderation this site criticises in platforms.
Why batch review, not real-time: monitoring comments in real time would subject the people running this site to exactly the environment they are documenting. A weekly review session, conducted when alert and not reactive, produces better decisions and protects editorial quality.
On using social media to discuss social media
This site uses social media platforms to share content about social media's harms. We acknowledge the irony. We do it because that is where people are. The argument for selective, informed use is more honest than abstinence. We try to demonstrate this in practice: using the platforms, understanding what they are doing, being transparent about the choices we make while doing so.
Sources
- Sweller, J. (1988), Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning, Cognitive Science 12(2).
- Ausubel, D.P. (1960), The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material, Journal of Educational Psychology 51(5).
- Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P. & Sweller, J. (2003), The Expertise Reversal Effect, Educational Psychologist 38(1).
- Paas, F., Renkl, A. & Sweller, J. (2003), Cognitive Load Theory and Instructional Design: Recent Developments, Educational Psychologist 38(1).
- Bruner, J. (1978), The role of dialogue in language acquisition; Vygotsky, L. (1978), Mind in Society — scaffolding and the zone of proximal development.