The failure of screen-time tools isn’t that users don’t understand the harm; it’s that nothing meaningful happens when they ignore the limit.

So I built a small iOS app that turns excess screen time into a financial penalty. If I exceed my daily limit, a few dollars are automatically donated to a charity I pre-select.

A few observations after running this with ~120 users and +6,000 overrides:

• People override limits constantly when there’s no consequence • Even a $0.5–$1 “loss” dramatically changes behavior • Users want friction • Donation beats punishment

And it seems to be working, which is awesome. We’ve had an overall screen time reduction of ~28% which I think is pretty meaningful.

This is basically a commitment device layered on top of Apple’s Screen Time and Family Controls API suite. We found a novel approach to screen time UX by connecting our backend directly to app shield actions, automatically registering time limit extensions under the hood (even without internet connection!). The hardest part wasn’t engineering but actually getting Apple’s approval for App Store distribution was impossible because of guideline 3.2.2, but we found a way after endless calls with Apple support and reconfiguring the whole app design/flow. I think many people run into the 3.2.2 problem, even for registered 501(c)(3)’s like ourselves.

Building the app has raised one uncomfortable question: Why are most “digital wellbeing” tools designed to be ignorable?

I’m curious whether others here have tried commitment contracts, loss-aversion mechanics, or anti-engagement products and whether this feels like a slippery slope or a missing primitive.

App is called Scroll Toll btw