If I have to listen to someone with zero of what people would call "external distractions" I'm barely going to remember any of it. But if I can poke on my phone while I'm listening, maybe look up some information relevant to the topic, then I'm much more engaged and retain far more of what's being said.

There's a difference between "eyes glued to phone" and "eyes looking at phone occasionally and then returning to the room". Too often, people see the latter, and it's like looking at a second hand on a clock. They take the initial glance, it looks longer than it really is, and so "eyes glued to phone" is their takeaway.

> I had a manager once who, if she would spot someone on their phone in a meeting, would put them on the spot and ask them a question relevant to what the team was just discussing. Some people would call that a "dick move" but I'm actually supportive of it. If you're supposed to be paying attention, get off your phone.

That manager would be flabbergasted when I answer the question. Unfortunately her takeaway would probably be "he could answer that while still not paying full attention? how can I make him pay full attention!" despite the fact that what she would call "full attention" would make my brain more likely to drift.

This is not like work meetings: 99% of meaningful policy work is happening behind closed doors. The publicly-televised sessions is where people give speeches for the cameras and then cast votes with (typically) pre-negotiated outcomes. So, I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to be upset if someone is browsing Reddit while an opposition politician is saying their piece.

A tip from the book The Charisma Myth: when you notice someone on their phone, just pause what you were saying, the sudden silence usually brings people back. If you also look at them when pausing, it will be very clear what’s going on without you even saying a word

This works both during presentations and conversations

Fully get it, and that manager was quite right to do what they did. I occasionally bring my phone to meetings, but it's because I run a company and sometimes I'll have interesting data that might be relevant at a given point in a discussion. It's more to help move the meeting or conversation along in a helpful manner. I generally bring pre-meeting notes in digital format, and then a pen/paper to actually take physical notes when I'm talking to people. People generally don't find it rude if I look down to write something important down versus looking at a hpone.

I'd like to be able to do this as well, but I might get pushback as most of the people I meet with are significantly younger than me (I'm 35 and do sales to health/wellness establishments, most of the time I'm dealing with 20-somethings).

>I really don't like how society has just normalized whipping your phone out in the middle of human interactions.

Agree 100%, however, in the context of biz meetings, there could be reasons for it. Perhaps I'm hard of hearing and want to record the conversation, for note-taking purposes, or perhaps, there's an interesting data point I might have in my digital notes that might back you up even more in a meeting. I'm just playing devil's advocate in a situation that is quite realistic. I personally hate when people are on their phones in meetings or otherwise important interactions.

Would you be happier if they were reading some piece of paper in front of them? That looks very official and serious, but their brain could be drifting away to anywhere else.

We have https://www.theyworkforyou.com/ in the UK, which is a fantastic site, listing everything your MP does in Parliament. But the truth is that most MPs always vote exactly how their party tells them, and rarely speak. The main chamber in Parliament is mostly national debate on how to run the country, and amendments and motions are put forward outwith that chamber, by teams of MPs communicating with the Speaker's office.

Most MPs in the Commons are just waiting their turn to speak, and they wrote their speech the day before. The rest only turn up at voting time, and vote how they were told to by their party, then leave again. They don't listen to speeches, it's not going to make them vote differently.

So perhaps we need all the MP's official emails and texts to truly scrutinize their activity. Their presence and focus in the chamber is of limited importance.

What's more useful, IMHO, are when MPs join the various Parliamentary committees and listen to witnesses, scrutinize legislation line-by-line, and such. Those are meetings where I'd like MPs to be fully focused.

Parliamentarians from all around the world gasp in shock and revulsion

Which meshes well with art, so maybe the OP, in fact, is an artist.

Doubtful.

I think that went out of the window a long time ago. All the shouting and booing - they're like kids watching a pantomime.

Can you elaborate on how this project is going to impact that? What change do you expect will come about from it?

If anything European politicians have struggled against the surveillance monopolies and enforced more online privacy protection than any other leaders on the planet. You can argue the effort hasn't been sufficiently successful and you're probably right about that.

For what purpose? What would you achieve by doing that?

Legislative / collective council discussion has probably always had some sort of quieter back channel discussion. The low tech solution might be a whispered conversation, or might be conducted via pages/runners when decorum puts moving around the room out of reach.

Mobile devices mean you can use technology instead of runners.

Reminds me of movies where le epic haxxor starts typing on two keyboards at once.

Anyway, if everybody's vote is a foregone conclusion and the debate is only for the sake of the process, I can't find fault with people getting bored and tuning out.

I have issues with auditory processing and attention. If you deliver information to me verbally in a format where I cannot rewind/playback, have no subtitles or text to consume alongside it, and demand my full attention, I will have objectively worse reception of whatever information you're communicating. The way neurotypicals demand adherence to these, to be blunt, ceremonies of conveyance is tiresome and interferes with the goals they espouse of communication.

In fact I would go so far as to say a lot of the time, the goal is not communication at all; it is a demonstration of one's power and authority over others. If your goal is actually communication, text is better in every way. Every reader can read at a speed of their choosing, re-read parts they missed, have a speech-to-text program read it to them if they like, stop in the middle and tend to something time sensitive, what have you. A live speech allows none of this.

So yes, I probably use my phone while you're talking. I probably have my AirPods in too, because the settings where they remove background noise and just give me the person speaking are phenomenally useful. I might even be watching or having my phone transcribe what you're saying, too. And if you're going to try and chastise me for it, fine, that's your prerogative, but then I'm probably starting a job search for a place that will appreciate my skills and not demean me for not being able to perform "good worker vibes" to your arbitrary standards.

While I agree, the legislation that the politicians passed says the opposite it true.

I obviously don't want politicians to be habitually slacking off, but everyone has good days and bad days. There are days where I spend half my time on HN instead of working (hello today), but I typically make up for it shortly afterwards by having a super productive day. The important fact is that, on average, I'm productive and deliver on my job duties.

Politicians should absolutely be held accountable, it's an important job, but I don't think they should be held to standards that we hold no one else to.