The inherent sadism of N-to-1
How did anyone ever expect "N" organizations treating individuals as though the only thing a given individual had to do was receive, digest, and (hopefully) interact with a perpetual stream of news/notifications/alerts/faux-concern-about-not-having-logged-in-lately/etc. to possibly work?
Let us try a little math, shall we?
(WARNING: it might actually be merely pseudo-math)
Individuality, well... that basically means - or implies - "one", right? Sure, some people (peoples? :-) ) allegedly have more than one, and of course these days there are seemingly endless ways to identify with one or more of them... but you kind of get the idea there might be a somewhat singular nexus of attention down in there somewhere, and have probably noticed that so-called "multi-tasking" is in fact not ever doing anything simultaneously, but context switching between perceived tasks fast enough to give the appearance of simultaneity.
So we've got basically "one" on one end of an imaginary equation.
The other end? Well, let's have 'G' represent "number of organizations", and 'N' represent some number of units of news/notifications/alerts/faux-concern-about-not-having-logged-in-lately/etc.
Does "G times N" ever result in "one"?
Guess who takes up the slack?
<pauses for those still hating on Donald Trump to catch up>
And, of course, one of the interactions with such an organization might be to adjust - possibly even disable - such attention-undermining sends.
But isn't that just telling them you're "there" and have at least *some* time to blow on their useless information in ancient times said to maybe drive your imagination? Might that not simply led them straightaway to an "aha moment" wherein they devise another attention-undermining strategy? (Maybe a dash a machine learning here.. a pinch of blockchain-leveraging claims there....)
Write a reply