Bad for engagement
Better for thought
Subject to Change is many things. It's a response to an increasingly digital world, where strategies designed to drive engagement and maximize revenue have been imposed on us with little regard for their consequences. These methods are often manipulative and harmful, yet they've become so deeply embedded in our daily lives that opting out is rarely a real option. Subject to Change is a hypothesis: IF we create technology that is useful and pleasant to use, without using deceptive and addictive methods, THEN users will respond positively and use products on the basis of need and genuine support.
This site is for hosting my process, observations, and resources that influence my values and projects. The project I am launching, Subject to Change Labs, is an experiment that began as a tool for only myself after being frustrated by all the other habit-trackers on the market. I'm getting my hands dirty to see if there's another way to make and interact with technology, one that invests more time and thought into cultivating motivation from within rather than relying on extrinsic motivators like points systems, streaks, and social pressures. I am not a coder and I am not an academic, but I believe my colorful history will aid me in my mission. From where I'm standing, what I'm seeing in the tech world is a lack of nuance, thoughtfulness, and empathy.
I am optimistic but not 100 percent confident that any of this will take off. I grew up learning to use a computer and I didn't have a smartphone until my teens. It could be my nostalgia, but I remember things being very different. Technology had a better balance between utility and entertainment. Nowadays, at least for me, it feels as though companies are holding my attention and my wallet hostage. However, I look around and see people who are, like myself, deeply unsettled, frustrated, and angry with the way things are. Whatever my findings may be, whether I discover a community of others who feel similarly, or whether we as a society are too far gone: I hope I find something interesting.
These are my values, my contract:
-
IndustrySymmetry
Users should have autonomy. Both users and creators should have a more equitable share of responsibility. The relationship between users and companies is asymmetrical, as many tech industry professionals believe that users are ultimately responsible when it comes to their relationship with technology, but I believe that companies have a bigger role in creating these relationships than they are willing to admit.
-
RevealingRevenue
Money should be more transparent. If Subject to Change were to make a TON of money, I think users should know where it's going. If you're reading this, you probably are also in a place of "Oh wow, these tech moguls have so much money. Where is it all coming from? Where does it go?" I personally think $300,000 in 2026 is more than enough for me (no kids, three cats), so I would be capping my own income at that.
-
The Business of Restraint
Not all businesses should need to infinitely scale. To be honest, I'm still grappling with this one. I think that constant growth is unsustainable and creates conditions that no longer benefit users. Engagement Design advocate Nir Eyal proposes in his popular book "To hold our attention, products must have an ongoing degree of novelty." (Hooked: How to Build Habit-Forming Products, p.97) Can we accept that some digital products have a shelf life? What do we lose when we reject the temporal nature of human needs and desires?
-
You Should Belong to You
Your money should be currency. Your attention should NOT be currency. Your information should NOT be currency.