The Onlife Manifesto, “Being Human in a Hyperconnected Age , ” was published over a decade ago . Promoted by the European Commission, the document analyzes the social penetration of information and communication technologies and their impact on people’s lives.

Based on the premise that technology has ceased to be an external tool that we use at certain times for certain purposes, and has been integrated into our lives as another element of our human nature (hence the term ” onlife,” a life that takes place simultaneously offline and online ), the manifesto confirms the transformation of traditional frames of reference in these four aspects:

• The blurring of the boundaries between the real and the virtual.
• The blurring of boundaries between human, machine, and nature.
• The shift from information scarcity to information overload.
• The shift from prioritizing things to prioritizing interaction.

This transformation has occurred in such a short time and at such a speed that we lack clear concepts to define the new hyperconnected world in which we live. The world of things, of solid realities, of consensus has disappeared. Vast areas of our lives have escaped our control. Our data and many of our belongings are no longer here, but are coded and stored in a bunker in some desert.

From Plato to Ortega y Gasset

José Ortega y Gasset anticipated this “new and gigantic problem” in Meditation on Technique , first published in 1933, stating that “for a long time now, technology has been inserted among the inescapable conditions of human life in such a way that modern man could not, even if he wanted to, live without it.” Ortega defines technology as a “supernatural” force that man has created and in which he lives, whether he is aware of it or not.

Obviously, the Spanish philosopher did not experience digital technology, but he did witness the dizzying transformation of his time brought about by the scientific advances of the Second Industrial Revolution. When, due to a revolution (industrial or digital), the frames of reference of the known world vanish, it is understandable that human beings feel lost and distrustful of a future they are unable to foresee.

In Plato Against the Machines: Technology and Its Enemies from Writing to Artificial Intelligence (2026), Marcos Alonso, professor of bioethics at the Complutense University of Madrid and researcher in the philosophy of technology, traces the genealogy of a technophobia inherent in human beings. The author questions why the concept of artificial or contrived has a negative connotation, given that so many (artificial) creations have substantially and objectively improved people’s lives. His aim is to “unearth the prejudice against the artificial,” a prejudice from which—to be honest—this article is not entirely free.

Ubiquitous devices

Among the artificial realities that make up our online lives , digital devices stand out. The data leaves no room for debate: only 0.6% of households in Spain are without a mobile phone. Just under 100,000 out of a population of over 17 million. 97.4% of homes have internet access. 78 out of every 100 homes have a laptop or desktop computer. And 56.5% have a tablet .

This technology has permeated our lives to such an extent that less than half of all households now have a landline. Internet access is more than enough. There are practically no gaps left based on income level or location, and the age gap narrows every year . So, technology arrived and stayed without us realizing the unintended consequences that were just around the corner .

These figures may frighten us in an environment where we have finally become aware of a serious mental health problem— not only among young people , but throughout society —linked to the use of technology. The risks are enormous, and as a society, we face the challenge of not leaving an entire generation “orphaned” of digital literacy , a generation that is more adrift than afloat in the uncontrolled tsunami of dopamine-laden content available at the click of a button.

But are all technologies the same ? Does it matter which screen you use? Do all devices lead to the same level of misuse? Is this a problem exclusive to children, teenagers, and young adults? Do adults also succumb to the risks of new technologies? Let’s examine each device individually to understand the risks and set limits.

Computers (desktop and laptops)

It was our first encounter with technology. Those of us who come from the analog world associate computers with work because they were the solution to non-digital options, such as the typewriter and the notebook.

However, younger generations already used them extensively for video games and, in the early days, before the advent of mobile phones, for browsing the internet and accessing social media. Although there are slight variations between desktop computers and laptops , the risks they entail are very similar.

Risks:

• Multitasking. It was one of the technological solutions that emerged as the major selling point of the digital world. With the same device, you could do several things, even simultaneously. You could switch from one program to another, work on a word processor, browse the internet, return to the document, send it by email…But multitasking is more complex than we were initially led to believe. We now know that the brain cannot jump from one activity to another while maintaining the same level of concentration. We have the feeling that we can, but the reality is that the brain takes a significant amount of time, even if it’s just milliseconds, to regain focus on the new activity. The accumulation of these small breaks in concentration impairs our ability to perform. We feel like we’ve worked hard and at high speed, but without having finished anything properly. This generates enormous frustration. At the same time, we’ve become accustomed to the level of stress caused by switching between applications, and it’s difficult for us to refocus.
• Attention deficit. Attention is difficult to achieve. Many of the tasks we perform and the information we receive require almost no attention because we use an efficient but superficial primary system. However, when we need to complete a task with greater focus, we find it harder to maintain the necessary pace .Computers are designed to multitask and alert us when a task requires our attention, such as an incoming email or an urgent software update. This disrupts our attention span.
• Binge-watching. Although computers aren’t used as much for leisure as other devices, young people have become accustomed to watching TV series in bed on their laptops. This leads to what’s known as binge- watching . If someone is working on their laptop and is tempted to relax with a series, it’s difficult to resist if it’s just a click away .
• Gaming addiction. Although consoles have become the most common platform for games in recent years due to their high-definition graphics, some games are still played on desktop computers. The shift from one activity to another has similar characteristics to those that occur in the context of binge-watching TV series.

‘Tablets’

Tablets are of particular concern due to their introduction at very young ages for children’s entertainment with videos, music and some children’s games , and the adoption of digital systems in school environments where they are used as a work tool.

The biggest problem these devices pose compared to computers is that their use is very balanced between entertainment and productivity, whether in school or work environments. The significant technological advancements in tablets have allowed them to perform functions very similar to a computer, but they offer the advantages of portability, light weight, and ease of use in any situation.

Risks:

• Multitasking. In fact, a tablet’s navigation is designed to make it easy to switch between apps with just a swipe of a finger. This phenomenon is even more pronounced than on computers. Furthermore, it’s designed to attract and capture our attention whenever possible, bombarding us with alerts and notifications that disrupt our flow of thought. This creates a sense of stress for adults, teenagers, and young adults alike.
• Loss of the hand-eye-brain connection. Tablets are increasingly used for note-taking, whether in work meetings or in classrooms. However, recent research shows that handwriting creates more significant neural connections than typing. Therefore, using a tablet with a digital stylus for note-taking will not result in as much loss of these connections as using a keyboard .
• A false sense of digital literacy. For younger users, the rise of tablets gives them a certain feeling of being very familiar with the adult technological environment. But the reality is that they only navigate a handful of limited applications that are not usually the ones used in professional settings. Digital literacy is less adequate in these cases.
• Series consumption. In the same way as described earlier with the case of laptops, tablets are widely used to watch series, especially by young people, so the boundary between work and leisure on the same device is weakened and it is easier to encourage a loss of attention.

Mobiles

We come to the device that has generated the most controversy. While originally used for calls or text messages, it had a primarily productive or relational function, the emergence of smartphones completely transformed its nature.

Demonizing a device that has a near 100% penetration rate among the population, both adults and teenagers, would be to ignore the many ways in which available apps simplify our daily lives. From checking the weather forecast and reading the newspaper to answering emails and shopping online .

But it’s also important not to ignore the fact that some apps base their economic strategy on the time we spend using them, either by displaying advertising or by collecting data that allows them to create more complete consumer and user profiles. Just think of social media with its highly addictive short videos or endless screen games. Hence, we can’t overlook the ease of use .

In fact, the figures show that mobile phones are primarily used for watching videos (91.1%); for social media (88.1%); and for watching television (series, movies, programs) (85.5%). Only reading newspapers, at 81.2%, falls into the category of non-entertainment activities.

Risks:

• Preferred use for entertainment. While there are some productivity apps on mobile phones, they are used more for communication and leisure, for taking breaks from work. Our brains don’t perceive them as work tools, as obligations. And that makes us less attentive to the potential misuse we might be making of them. The problem lies in the fact that many entertainment apps are designed precisely to encourage their use and promote spending as much time as possible on them.
• Social networks designed for mobile devices. The social media phenomenon is generating the most problems related to the excessive or addictive use of mobile phones. This is not only due to the number of hours users spend on these networks, but also because of the consequences for their mental health from the type of content they consume. Social networks are designed to generate a dopamine rush that leads to the constant repetition of searching for new content.
• Technological solutionism. This term refers to supposed solutions offered by technology, but which were already solved in another way and which, nevertheless, encourage us to make more use of a device, thus fostering our addiction .

This phenomenon is particularly noticeable with mobile phones, since many of the actions they allow us to perform were already taken care of before, such as waking up, watching videos, listening to music, or reading books. But their ease of use leads us to use them constantly, especially when we’re not fully focused and it’s easier to fall into overuse.

Any digital device is an open door to tools that help manage daily life, whether in the workplace, academic settings, or for entertainment. But through that same door, some risks can creep in, causing us considerable problems if we aren’t vigilant and don’t learn to manage our time properly.

Author Bios: María Solano Altaba is Professor at the Faculty of Humanities and Communication Science and Ignacio Blanco-Alfonso is Professor of Journalism both at CEU San Pablo University (Madrid, Spain), CEU San Pablo University