People aren't as unique and individualized as one might think. A half dozen channels, and thus permutations of outrage content is likely plenty enough to capture the overwhelming majority of the population's attention.

The psychological manipulation is based on the same principles, it's just the application is less refined.

It is and it isn't, but mostly, it isn't.

The relentless Skinner Boxing which Facebook and similar platforms engage in has no parallel in broadcast media, which can't be algorithmically tuned to harm the victim as much as possible.

TiVo monetized hyper-personalized broadcast TV, by interposing ads based on all sorts of calculated data, into recorded broadcast TV streams, though.

So it's more continuous a transition i suspect than people consider.

TiVo allowed you to skip ads. Was there an earlier or later version?

You own the recording... I know there's still 5-15-30sec skip.

Hulu, Roku, et al do of course insert their own ads because they're ad supported.

Do you care to elaborate? Why do you say it's specious?

Well engagement implies a certain amount to decision making and real-time action. TV watching is pretty much passive, and I just have a hard time believing the brain is impacted similarly but such different types of activity.

I don't think that qualifies as "specious" because I'm not trying to deceive anyone. You missed the part where I stated TV isn't interactive. I tried to pose a question in good faith. Did I fail? I am interested in information. Using the term "specious" incorrectly, deliberately or accidentally, is a judgement of the basis of my argument, which is actually specious.

Strawman argument then? I'm simply disagreeing that cable TV has a similar kind of mental health impact referred to in the article, just because there are similarities in how they operate as economic/social entities. I have no reason to believe you are trying to deceive anyone and specious is a great word :)

> and specious is a great word :)

Lol, it is. :)

> Strawman argument then?

How about I rephrase, "Does 24-hour news have similar effects on viewers as this study shows social media has on kids, despite not being interactive?"

Yeah, I see your point. Apples and oranges. Still interested in that study.

I think "engagement" in the discussion here is more of a term of art, and it's not really a question of what it implies.