Why the medium is still the message

As CEO of Yondr — maker of the anti-distraction, lockable cellphone pouch favored by Bob Dylan, Rihanna, Chris Rock, and a growing number of high-school head teachers worldwide — Graham Dugoni exposes the core of one of our age’s most pressing questions: How can we get the most from technology while minimizing the downsides? How can we convert the immense promise of the mobile digital landscape, at the dawn of AI saturation, into something universally beneficial, while also avoiding its many perils, from mass anxiety to ever-more fractious polarization.

Dugoni began his company by selling door-to-door from the back of a Toyota Dolphin RV — the Yondr Pouch is now one of Time magazine’s best inventions of 2024, with millions of users in 27 countries. His views on our technological present and future combine exceptional business acumen with an under-girding of philosophy and media ecology, connecting the work of thinkers such as Marshall McLuhan and Kierkegaard with ideas on the nature of progress and behavioral psychology.

Big Think asked Dugoni for his thoughts about all of the above and more.

Big Think: Paying attention to the effects of media was pioneered by philosopher Marshall McLuhan (1911-1980) — how have McLuhan’s ideas shaped your thinking?

Dugoni: McLuhan’s insight that “the medium is the message” expanded my understanding of how technology shapes our experience of the world. Rather than focusing solely on content (what we read, watch, consume), he examined the medium itself — hieroglyphics, a book, and these days, TikTok — and how it shapes our relation to and engagement with the world around us.

It’s easy to see how much our ratios of perception have changed even in recent times. Just watch an Alfred Hitchcock film and you’ll notice a stark contrast between his measured, dialogue-driven scenes and the quick, hyper-visual frames in blockbuster movies today.

The ongoing debate about social media and its impact on mental health isn’t (solely) about the content we see on social media. It’s also about the medium (the platform) and how its inherent characteristics reshape our modes of perception. When I look at young people’s communication patterns, the rapid-fire texting instead of complete thoughts and consistent exposure to hyper-visual stimuli, it’s easy to see why long-form reading and concentration have become more difficult for students in the classroom. And that’s a consistent theme I’ve heard from teachers around the world for the past ten years.

Try Big Think+ for your business

Engaging content on the skills that matter, taught by world-class experts.

Request a Demo

Big Think: McLuhan often expressed an intention to explore or “probe” the media environment to expose patterns, rather than impose judgments — do you think we need to be more proactive in addressing effects, such as “technology addiction”?

Dugoni: I do think it’s fair to make some value judgments regarding the impact of technology on us as humans. McLuhan lays out parts of the equation incredibly well but doesn’t really offer a perspective on what these technological developments mean for the human experience. And he doesn’t offer a way to navigate through any quandaries that might arise. Looking at the dramatic rise in rates of anxiety and depression in the developed world, it’s certainly worth asking: have people changed, or have the tools we use every day changed?

To me, there’s no doubt that modern media is reshaping our perception and experience of the world around us. The bigger question is whether that reshaping is pushing out valuable aspects of human experience and development that we would be wise to protect. My answer to that is ‘yes,’ and I’ve spent the last ten years building a program that creates spaces to let people directly experience the difference between screen-mediated and unmediated human interactions.

Big Think: Have post-literate technologies like the cell phone taken us beyond a tipping point?

Dugoni: My primary concern isn’t necessarily whether or not traditional literacy is dying but that digital technologies are shifting us from active intellectual engagement toward passive consumption. In this shift from thinking to consuming, we’re quickly losing the habit of active, deliberate intellectual engagement that literacy helps cultivate. You can see it in how kids interact with the world through platforms like TikTok — their perception is shaped by hyper-visual, rapid-fire content that more closely mirrors ancient hieroglyphic understanding rather than linear thinking. 

There’s room to debate that one is a natural progression from the other, but it’s tough to debate the cognitive effects. Reading brings the reader into a theater of the mind and active participation in a ‘world.’ The visual and auditory amplitude (and speed) of newer mediums solicits more instantaneous and polarizing snap responses. I think the internet as a medium generally supports that pattern. It could be one of the reasons so many things have become so polarized in recent times.

Big Think: How has your interest in other philosophers shaped your thoughts on technology?

Dugoni: Kierkegaard’s analysis of the printing press’s social impact remains incredibly relevant. His concept of the “phantom public” — where everyone and no one simultaneously becomes the audience — foreshadows today’s social media dynamics. The shift toward a universal, anonymous audience has profound consequences on human behavior, and it does not breed accountability or moderation.

He also saw how mass media has helped shift societal values — ushering us from an “age of action” into an “age of reflection” — where we’ve shifted from rewarding direct, bold action to celebrating performative displays. I see this amplified in many ways today. Rather than doing, we’re increasingly absorbed in documenting, analyzing, and commenting on what should be done. Just watch an NFL game and listen to the commentators debate the existential nature and definitions of pass interference on any particular play. You’ll see what I mean.

Big Think: Do you run up against the perception that if you want to restrict cell-phone access you must be somehow “anti-progress”?

Dugoni: Who defines progress? If you define progress as making everything cheaper, easier, and more available at all times, then there’s no doubt society is on that path. In general, I see most things as tradeoffs. When something new comes into our lives, it pushes out something else — that is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is worth examining the consequences. The decisions we make are clearer when they are centered around what we value. Does a specific technological innovation enhance or detract from the things we value most? In some instances, I think technology can impede the kinds of individual practices and collective experiences that root humans in our existence.

As an example, we can appreciate that cars revolutionized how we move around in the world, but we still create pedestrian zones in cities because we recognize the value of spaces where people can walk, gather, and connect without the noise and activity of vehicles. The same idea underpins the creation and maintenance of our National Parks. Yondr and phone-free spaces is a similar idea. When we create phone-free spaces, we’re not rejecting technology; we’re being proactive about preserving valuable aspects of human connection and development that tend to erode in the presence of devices. That’s a chief societal goal everyone shares.

Big Think: What are some of the ways humanity can live more harmoniously with our powerful-yet-mundane technologies, without losing the potential benefits?

Dugoni: Technology doesn’t knock at the door and ask for permission to enter. Once it’s present in a space, it tends to dominate that space and constantly solicit our attention. It has its own rules of engagement — that’s why the physical boundaries that Yondr creates are so important. This is especially challenging in the working world today, where everyone is expected to be available at all times. I’m not convinced digital technology will naturally find its proper place or equilibrium in our lives; it’s probably similar to capitalism in that way.

Big Think: The effects of which other technologies (in addition to the cell phone) are you paying close attention to?

Dugoni: I try to pay attention to technology in every form because it all follows a similar pattern. In general, as information moves more and more quickly, we desperately need critical thinking rather than just faster information retrieval. Building a structure of knowledge demands critical thinking — and that faculty is not necessarily developed or fostered by instant access to endless, easy information. The key isn’t to resist technological progress but to be intentional about preserving the valuable process of learning and development.

Big Think: Have you been considering some of the ways in which AI is likely to affect human behavior?

Dugoni: As with any technological shift, we need to thoughtfully consider what might be gained and what might be lost. When people have two pathways for getting information — one requiring effort and engagement, the other offering instant results — it’s human nature to take the path of least resistance. But there is a crucial distinction between accumulating knowledge and developing understanding. Understanding comes from incorporating information into how we live and make decisions, not just collecting decontextualized facts. When we work through problems ourselves, the answers become truly ours, rooted in our own experience and constellation of ideas. I think that’s how people develop a structure of knowledge and coherent worldview. AI certainly brings new possibilities, but there are many unknowns as it relates to that process of learning and development.

Big Think: What should be some of the priorities of tech-industry leadership in the current device-dependent environment?

Dugoni: Just as the creation of the National Park System acknowledged that the wilderness has intrinsic value beyond resource extraction, it’s important to acknowledge that there is value in human experiences that stand beyond the realm of pure efficiency and constant connectivity. The tech industry often operates under the assumption that if something can be done, it should be done — with leaders defaulting to “if we don’t do it, someone else will.” But I think there’s still individual responsibility involved as well. 

Leaders need to seriously examine whether their innovations align with what they value and their impact on people. Many of these developments aren’t just product decisions; they’re large thought experiments being played out in real-time. And they will impact the lives of billions of people. But there are encouraging signs that society is beginning to recognize what we at Yondr have believed for a long time: that creating intentional spaces for human connection and presence isn’t anti-technology — it’s an important part of life in modern times.