On October 26, Qin Shuo, a media man, quoted the data in the report of Nomura Securities, and put forward in the article that China's Internet is entering "byte time". The next day, Li Liang, vice president of Tiktok Group, retorted that this characterization was "extremely imprecise and totally nonsense", and formed a confrontation about data caliber, industry pattern and even the motives of critics.

The data caliber, accuracy, and conclusions drawn from the Nomura Securities report can be distinguished. Nevertheless, public expression should not be lightly attributed to speaking for whom. A rational and constructive discussion may be more helpful in answering the question behind the controversy: as competition for attention becomes increasingly fierce, do companies need to consider taking on more social value to compensate for the occupation of social costs. Especially those platform enterprises with advantageous resources and strong capabilities.

A market economy typically assumes that companies pursuing their own interests can drive social progress. This judgment has sufficient basis. Better products, lower costs, and higher efficiency often benefit both businesses and consumers. But sometimes it is not natural for commercial value to match social value. The health risks brought by industrial pollution and tobacco both indicate that private benefits may be accompanied by social costs that are not fully priced.

The question arises: What should be done if the commercial value and social value are not consistent? The digital economy has brought this old problem into a new field: attention.

For the platform, user stay time can be converted into advertising display, interaction, and revenue. Optimizing recommendations and improving retention are reasonable business practices. Short videos and micro dramas do indeed provide opportunities for entertainment, knowledge, and new content industries. The problem is not why people watch short dramas, but what the collective outcome of competition will be when all platforms are striving for more attention.

If every company finds that instant feedback and continuous recommendations are more likely to prolong user retention, and competes to add relevant content and optimize similar mechanisms, then each company's choice may be rational, but the overall distribution of attention in society may not necessarily be better as a result.

We have no reason to demand that everyone spend their time on studying or working, and entertainment should not be seen as a low value activity. But if all platforms are competing and constantly directing more attention towards similar content, will this world be as we wish?

Worries are not unreasonable. As users entrust more and more time to the platform and a large amount of idle time to algorithm scheduling, they are also relinquishing some initiative and time that could have been used for outdoor activities, companionship, learning, socializing, and rest. The academic community believes that this is a risk of attention mismatch worth testing, and further research is needed to prove its possible social harm.

Economics has two reminders about this. Firstly, reasonable choices at the individual level do not necessarily converge into the overall optimal outcome. Secondly, if some of the costs of commercial activities are borne by households, users, or society, but do not enter the decision-making process of the enterprise, private benefits may be higher than the net social benefits, and the overall social benefits will be negative. The former suggests that collective outcomes may deviate from individual interests, while the latter explains how this deviation occurs.

The platform can accurately measure how long users stay, but it is difficult to equally accurately measure what users give up as a result. Clicking, retention, and conversion are easy to become business indicators, while long-term satisfaction, attention autonomy, and opportunity costs are difficult to quantify. When competition primarily rewards the former, the market may overlook the latter.

Opponents may argue that adults have the right to decide how to use their time. This is an important principle of freedom. But the right to choose does not mean that the product environment has no impact on the choice. Proactively deciding to watch a two-hour short drama is not exactly the same situation as originally wanting to watch only ten minutes but constantly extending the viewing time. Whether the latter is related to product design requires evidence; If the ability of users to act according to their own wishes is indeed weakened, the discussion cannot be ended solely by users voluntarily.

Therefore, this question is worth exploring: what if attention mismatch does exist?

It's not about asking companies to give up profits, nor is it about regulators deciding what people should watch. In addition to pursuing retention, platforms should also value the value of people, including paying attention to users' long-term satisfaction, providing controlled and transparent recommendation settings, and effective time management tools. Of course, regulation cannot turn unverified concerns into one size fits all restrictions, but it does require appropriate responses to verifiable damages and clear risks, especially issues related to the protection of minors.

This means that we need to measure business success more comprehensively. User duration is a useful indicator, but it may not necessarily be synonymous with user benefits; Market share can indicate competitive advantage, but it may not necessarily be fully linked to social contribution.

If this is acknowledged, companies that have been racing for attention all the way should seriously consider their own answers. This determines the choices of every enterprise and ultimately defines its success or failure.

(Author's Commentary)