Controlling attention is more effective than banning options

Evidence

The most direct and obvious way authoritarians abridge freedom is to limit or discourage or ban outright certain options—NO CHOCOLATE, for instance. The State might ban alcohol, for example, as the United States once did and a number of Muslim nations still do; likewise it might outlaw certain political parties or bar certain individuals from seeking office. But such methods are blunt and intrusive, as well as imperfect, which is true of any restriction requiring enforcement. It is therefore more effective for the State to intervene before options are seen to exist. This creates less friction with the State but requires a larger effort: total attention control. — Tim Wu, The Attention Merchants, 421

Categorization

• XREF: Directly parallels the attention-economy thesis: platforms shape the choice space before users see it, rather than banning within it — connects to Wu’s broader argument across the book. — connects to: Attention is a filtering mechanism that shapes decision-making — Thomas Davenport & John Beck, The Attention Economy: Understanding…, 12; Attention-maximizing technologies can reduce rather than increase user control over attention — Tim Wu, The Attention Merchants, 635; Attention can be deliberately wielded, not just reclaimed (+1 more)

Broader Connections

• Attention-maximizing technologies can reduce rather than increase user control over attention #complicates (0.85) — Tim Wu, The Attention Merchants, 635
• Attention can be deliberately wielded, not just reclaimed #corroborates (0.85)