Using digital platforms is increasingly the only option to manage our daily lives, from filling out forms at the doctor's office or government offices to ordering food, booking a cab, paying taxes, banking, shopping or dating. Often, people are coerced into using apps or online platforms by the absence of any other options.

Our social lives are equally entrenched in social media platforms. While the availability of services and opportunities on digital platforms may offer easier access or create an impression of wider connections, it also potentially harms our well-being.

The adverse impacts of digital use have grown since the pandemic, as social isolation has increased dependence on these technologies. Impacts of excessive use of digital technologies range from physical problems such as increasing eye strain or dry eye to emotional concerns such as social media dependence. This in turn could trigger mental health issues due to online comparison and trolling.

Other effects of platform dependence involve data privacy concerns with artificial intelligence and digital fraud. Likewise, social media comes with peer pressure, including the fear of missing out or social ostracism for not following digital trends. These affect our physical, mental, emotional and financial well-being.

Recognizing and managing digital problems can improve our digital well-being.

For some, digital autonomy refers to being in charge of personal data or having the right to withdraw consent from digital platforms. For others, it may be the ability to turn away from digital use and access non-digital options.

Digital independence

Choosing to reduce or eliminate the use of digital platforms might seem like a feasible option. However, the coercive nature of these systems limits the availability of non-digital alternatives.

For example, Meta's refusal to share Canadian news media content had real impacts, highlighting people's dependence on platforms for important news.

The question of our autonomy as digital users is complex, as seen in the current conversation around smartphone use and its potential ban in classrooms. This touches on issues such as the relationship between self-regulation and government regulation.

Another example emerges in the choices of how schools integrate digital learning—access versus screen time for example. Schools sometimes provide devices to students, and although this bridges the digital divide, it raises the question of whether students should be constantly available on digital devices?

What alternatives can there be to digital platforms? How can we create an environment with varied choices while providing non-digital alternatives to accommodate individuals prone to digital addiction? Conversely, how might individuals averse to digital platforms or those lacking digital accessibility avail non-digital opportunities?

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.