Ask HN: What things has tech made worse in your life?

305 points by avgDev ↗ HN
Growing up I always enjoyed tech and was excited for all the problems tech can solve and all the improvements it can make and has made in my life. However, recently I had to check-in into a doctors office using a 3rd party software and the process is incredibly worse for the patient. Normally, I walk in, tell them my name and sit down. Now on my phone, I have to enter my DOB, answer a few questions, "Accept" some consent forms every time. They will not see me if I don't use the system. Then, at the end I am greeted with an advertisement for a medication.

Another one, recently had to call comcast as they were charging my parents $70 for what they are offering for $20, I play the call of "i want to cancel it is too expensive, AT&T cheaper". They recently "improved" their phone bot and added some "amazing" features. I am saying I want to cancel service/speak to customer service, and this thing goes and tells me it is restarting my modem.......then for the next 15 minutes I cannot reach anyone at comcast because my modem is restarting, every time I call I was getting, "We are restarting your modem call us back later GOODBYE!"......I swear things like this just make me want to go live off-grid somewhere.

497 comments

[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 332 ms ] thread
The consent forms were introduced separately. If it wasn't an app you'd have to fill those out with pen&paper, they'd have to keep or scan them for permanent record.

Like your AT&T example I hate any kind of unskippable ads. Even with (real human) operators they now have to try to upsell you if it makes sense or not. And if you have time or not. Some are honest "I have to tell you about some products now"

Not so sure about the consent forms. I started seeing a new doctor back around 2019. The first time I went we did have to spend ~15 minutes per person answering questions on a tablet. But since then we can either check in on our phone - logging in and then answering a bunch of questions and accerpting a bunch of forms - or by saying "hi, I'm <name>, I'm here for my <time> appointment with <doctor>" to the receptionist.
Your two examples are prime examples, but honestly, before the interactive phone systems, I would wait on hold for hours to talk to a person, so it has improved things a lot, but it is still SUPER aggravating and feels like a step backward.

But both of those things are only occasional inconveniences. The real place tech has made my life worse is just how completely dependent I am on it for 95% of my life. From the psychological dependence on knowing what my friends are doing, or how my crypto "investments" (read: gambles). Also needing internet connectivity to play various "single player" games even though I'm just a casual gamer and NEVER play with others.

Advertising. I know this is an extreme view, but I think any advertising other than a spec sheet style ad (just facts) should be banned. I feel like it steals your attention and mindshare day after day. The ads I see on TV now (rarely, as I don't watch live TV much) are just so horrible. Dripping with emotions and trying to tug on your heartstrings to sell some toilet bowl cleaner or some other garbage.

Social media. I feel like if it weren't for these algorithms that prioritize "engagement" over facts and polite content, my country would be a bit less polarized. I think that social media will turn out to be like cigarettes and someday we will discover that it has an extremely bad outcome; at least how it's implemented today. I have come to enjoy HN a bit more lately, as I just don't engage with the trolls or the horrible people that have opinions I disagree with vehemently. The people I think are horrible, at least, because it's a personal opinion, and other's might view me as a horrible person. I have also learned that it's best not to judge someone by one or two views overall, here, and that helps. I wish more social media could be like HN and allow a diverse set of opinions, but ban the name-calling and such that really take things into a bad place.

Most products today are less durable and are generally worse than "yesterday", in my opinion. Perhaps it's the old man in me coming out, with a rosy view of yesteryear, but I think that the quality of things are just lower, in general. I do think that things "look nicer" and are more consistent, but at a lower level of quality. 20 years ago, I had only 5 or so choices for any given product, maybe a curtain rod for example (because I just bought some). Today I can go down to several stores and pick from hundreds of curtain rod designs that look really nice, but half of them break after a few years or less. I still have some shitty looking but sturdy curtain rods from 20 years ago, no joke. Electronics are worse in some ways, but faster and more complex, so maybe that complexity is the source of the decrease in perceived quality. I can say that computers are way faster now, and it's easier to do many things, but I have less freedom than I had with older computers for sure.

This is just about the end of my old man rant. Thanks for listening.

"The important thing was that I had an onion on my belt..."

> but half of them break after a few years or less

One of the biggest downsides is that these type of things contribute to pollute our world twice: when they are made, when they need to be trashed away. Brands that have products that in average break after a very short time should be banned or shouldn't be sold at all.

That’s a good way to ensure that everything in the world is made by a very few monopolies. It took brands like Vizio ten years before their TVs broke down all the time but now they’re pretty good quality, should we have just shut them down at the beginning and never let them improve?
Maybe not advertising completely but at least targeted advertising. Many problems and borderline unethical business models stem from targeting.
> Maybe not advertising completely but at least targeted advertising.

Non-targeted advertising is still distracting.

Why not ban it completely? Or perhaps allow dedicated advertising places, so everybody can be happy.

I used to think that too but a complete ban probably doesn't work well. What else would you be banning? Bumper stickers and logos on cars (get rid of the Apple logo on the back of your Mac), yard signs for political campaigns, newspapers, I mean there's a lot there. And then once you start selectively allowing it then you also create hyper-competitive scenarios for the ads that are allowed and I'm thinking if you do that then the ads that are allowed become crazy addictive and effective because the cost to advertise would be so high.

Really what is the purpose of advertising in an ideal world? I'd say it's local, and lets people know what your business is and what services you offer. So if you run an inn in a small town, having a sign hanging outside of your business to let visitors know you're an inn and open for business seems pretty good. People have been doing that for hundreds of years.

The current model though is, as you say, at a minimum distracting. But I think we can grab some low-hanging fruit. If I were dictator I'd ban targeted advertising in any form. No collecting personal data. And I'd ban billboards and other large signs. Idk if this is exactly a good thing to do but I'd also explore banning in advertising in which you're not paying for the service. So if I pay for cable TV and they want to advertise to me, that's fine because I'm engaging in an interaction with the company. I shouldn't have to be subjected to ads that I don't agree to see. It's kind of a form of mind-violence IMO. Question is just where do you draw the line.

I think the problem is that we allow any kind of advertising unless there is some problem. We should turn this around: ban all advertising unless there is something for society to be gained.
>I'd say it's local, and lets people know what your business is and what services you offer.

>I'd ban targeted advertising in any form.

Aren't these at odds? Genuine question, I just don't see how you can ban targeted advertising in any form while allowing people to advertise locally on the Internet for one thing. Then, similarly to TV ads, no targeting skews the advertising pool to huge players that can overspend (I swear half the ads on TV are car companies) and companies whose product are used by everyone (consumer products, restaurant chains, etc).

I don't have a mind made up with what's the solution. I too see clear problems with targeted ads when it comes to privacy and manipulation, I also have expunged ads from my Internet, but an outright ban has other issues. If you are an SMB with a niche or local product you simply can't afford advertising to everyone and hope the 1% subset you are aiming converts enough to make it viable. Maybe I'm wrong but I think there's a large amount of SMBs and self-employed jobs that would straight up not exist if it wasn't for targeted advertising, that has societal value in and of itself.

I'm ambivalent overall. On one hand I wouldn't mourn the death of all advertisement, on the other I'm not sure how you make a product, service or SMB known without it and I doubt most of my friends' product, service or SMB would exist without online targeted advertising for finding customers. IMO the solution is more akin to giving more privacy rights and options than an outright ban, granted I have no clue if that is enforceable or how to implement.

When I say local I'm thinking like, you can have a sign on the sidewalk for your business or you can have a sign in front of your store or something. I wasn't clear on that - my bad.

I so far haven't seen any benefit to me personally from targeted advertising. A lot of companies take information about me and my activities without a true way to consent and then use that to send me ads or try and find ways to make me addicted to their products. If they got rid of targeted ads I think there'd be 0 detriment to my own life and lots of benefits. Certainly open to other arguments though.

> on the other I'm not sure how you make a product, service or SMB known without it and I doubt most of my friends' product, service or SMB would exist without online targeted advertising for finding customers

Yea personally I wouldn't care at all. It's like if you made a business that depended on selling nicotine or selling cigarette filters and then we banned cigarettes. I'm not saying we should or shouldn't here, just that if as a society we decided X was bad and shouldn't be sold, then people who sell products related to X I mean we shouldn't keep something bad around just for that reason.

> IMO the solution is more akin to giving more privacy rights and options than an outright ban, granted I have no clue if that is enforceable or how to implement.

I think this can work on the web or Internet technologies, but I'm also concerned about things like billboards, or the newspaper ad section that even when I call and ask them to stop I still get tossed into my yard or on the sidewalk. I don't want to see the billboard yet I'm forced to. I don't want people to throw newspaper ads on my front yard but I'm forced to. At least with the web though I can just turn on ad blockers and use technology to fight it. I can't do anything about the newspaper stuff. I fantasize about saving them for a year or something and then giving them back. It pisses me off because these things end up all over the street and get washed into and clog up sewer drains too.

The benefit I highlighted is rather geared towards being an enabler of entrepreneurship, I myself dislike ads enough that I barely ever see one (outside Facebook, great HTML obfuscation there) so I can't pretend I'm a fan of it for product discoverability or what not.

>It's like if you made a business that depended on selling nicotine

Targeted advertising is not the reason why the modern Internet is addictive so the nicotine argument is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned, those are separate issues. You could say, IMO rightfully, that profit motives are the incentive that pushed Internet companies towards addiction-optimization, but it would be equally true if you couldn't target-advertise.

>I'm also concerned about things like billboards, or the newspaper ad section that even when I call and ask them to stop I still get tossed into my yard or on the sidewalk. I don't want to see the billboard yet I'm forced to.

Not saying this is a good or bad idea, but if you ban targeted advertising and then all forms of IRL advertising, how do you even develop a new product or make your service known if you don't have access to a lot of capital to spam ads on TV, carpet bomb untargetted ads or buy/rent prime real estate for a store-front (assuming you have a store-business in the first place)? As much as I dislike both online and IRL ads too, arguably the latter more as I can't block it out of my eyesight, but I recognize/believe they are useful to foster SMBs and self-employment which seems, in my book, crucial for social mobility and a democratized capitalism.

Where I'm getting at is that I think (could be wrong, I'm no expert and am speaking from intuition) that expunging advertisement from our lives or making it extremely prohibitive (which I think would be the result of the rules you'd set) would simply further concentrate capital in the hands of large corporations or individuals with high means. I'm not saying your take is invalid but I'd be more inclined towards regulating the deleterious effects of advertising (privacy, advertising drugs or toys, intrusive or excessive panels, height and location limitations, ban some manipulative behaviors, false advertisement, right to opt-out or opt-in by default, etc) than outright banning them all, as much as I hate being advertised to.

> The benefit I highlighted is rather geared towards being an enabler of entrepreneurship

Yea it's like so many things a cost/benefit analysis. But do we want to rely on selling ads to fund entrepreneurial endeavors? Idk. I think someone could argue that if you can't survive without selling ads then you shouldn't start that business. (Let me know if that's not what you were getting at with that comment). I also advise a lot of college age students looking to start companies and whenever they talk about ads I make them create a business model that doesn't involve ads. It's a good test and if nothing else gets them thinking about alternative business models (ads are lazy thinking in this space).

> Targeted advertising is not the reason why the modern Internet is addictive so the nicotine argument is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned, those are separate issues. You could say, IMO rightfully, that profit motives are the incentive that pushed Internet companies towards addiction-optimization, but it would be equally true if you couldn't target-advertise.

Sorry my point wasn't to draw a comparison between nicotine and addictiveness of ads on the Internet but to draw a comparison between a potentially harmful product (cigarettes or targeted ads) and then downstream industries or businesses that rely on those harmful products. It's like saying "well don't ban cigarettes, how am I going to sell Nicotine patches".

> Not saying this is a good or bad idea, but if you ban targeted advertising and then all forms of IRL advertising, how do you even develop a new product or make your service known if you don't have access to a lot of capital to spam ads on TV, carpet bomb untargetted ads or buy/rent prime real estate for a store-front (assuming you have a store-business in the first place)? As much as I dislike both online and IRL ads too, arguably the latter more as I can't block it out of my eyesight, but I recognize/believe they are useful to foster SMBs and self-employment which seems, in my book, crucial for social mobility and a democratized capitalism.

Yea it's easy to pontificate as I'm doing and then like you said you get some company they just plaster ads all over storefronts and we're just dealing with other negative externalities. The thing I see though is that we're kind of in a somewhat neutral equilibrium with advertising, but if it starts to "get real" we're going to be in big trouble because companies like Facebook, Google, others aren't just going to sit around and watch their business collapse as people fight against tracking and ads. Long story short it's not that big of a problem right now, but it could be.

> I'm not saying your take is invalid but I'd be more inclined towards regulating the deleterious effects of advertising (privacy, advertising drugs or toys, intrusive or excessive panels, height and location limitations, ban some manipulative behaviors, false advertisement, right to opt-out or opt-in by default, etc) than outright banning them all, as much as I hate being advertised to.

Yea totally and I get where you're going. The thing I worry about is like so many regulations the more we add the more we have to maintain and the more like tech debt they are.

With respect to your question about how to develop a new product or make your service known I'd just say tons of small businesses really do that right now with 0 capital for ads on TV or anything. Almost all of the best products or services I have used have been from word-of-mouth, research and trying to find just good and unbiased product reviews, and just seeing stuff. I think in America in particular we're so used to so many ads and we're subjected to so much advertising because we live in suburban homes, don't walk past any coffee shops or small businesses on the way to anywhere, and we drive so they have to create these giant billboards and McDonalds si...

> I know this is an extreme view

Doesn't mean it's wrong!

I've thought a lot about what plagues our modern world and I've come to the same conclusion. I'm at a loss for what can be done about it though.

We can't very easily ban advertising. Any regulation has to be lightweight because it's nearly impossible to enforce at internet scale (as we've seen again and again).

Curious if you've thought about any ways to fix the problem we're in.

My life is as close to advertising free as possible. The only thing that I can't really do much about is advertising signs by the roadside, but other than that it isn't a problem.
I'm sure I remember reading about a city (somewhere in south america I think) that banned all billboards, and it was like the city was reborn.
They're banned on some stretches of interstate (maybe where they cross federal land? Not sure) and damn, it's nice. Even relatively dull and shitty landscapes are so much better without that blight.
Me too, ad blockers and all my media on Plex, etc. For me it's only when I watch live sport that I see adverts now, which I quite like, it's like a little window into what most other British people are seeing when they watch TV all week.
PLEX really makes me feel like I’m living in an awesome future, the one I imagined as a kid on the early internet where I can watch whatever I want whenever I want. Then I go to YouTube and am grossed out by all the ads and the sponsored portions in every video.
How do you navigate around sites that insist on you removing the ad blocker?
A. F12 and remove the div that says so or one of it's parent.

B. find another website that offer the same thing.

C. give up and temporarily disable adblock for that website until you do what you need to do and enable it again

what I find really annoying is website that tangle login to their ads, so when you have adblock software enabled it just silently fails.

the most recent example I encountered is https://www.edf.fr/ a government owned company, I couldn't get electricity for my new house unless I disabled ublock.

How many of those are there? I've never encountered more than maybe one or two. Even illegal premier league streaming sites don't mind adblockers.
Curious to know, how did you manage to get to an advertising free life?
It sounds like the steps are pretty simple. I live in the suburbs of a US city, and billboards are banned, so unless I go into the city proper (a few times a year) I hardly ever see advertisements.

1) move to the countryside or at least outside a major city, or a place where billboards are banned

2) Don’t own a TV

3) use uBlock Origin/Adblock on all your devices

No TV, big sticker saying 'no print advertising' on my mailbox, adblocked and jsblocked to the hilt on all computers in the house (I see that as a sanity and a security bonus as well), no physical newspaper. It's as good as clean now, every now and then something slips through and then my first response usually is 'surely people can't be that stupid'.
I don't know if this is unrealistic, but a couple of months ago I had a thought

As soon as AR Glasses start being usable and affordable, I want to buy an open-source model and try to develop a RL-Adblocker. I guess it would need AI, because I still have to see traffic signs and other actually useful things.

If AR Glasses allow me to replace every billboard with a picture of a family member or someting else, I will be happy. Hopefully we will get to use open-source ones to play around with.

Personally, I just "ignore" those big problems, as I have no authority to fix them. I focus on what I can do: help my family when they need it, teach my kid(s) to be good and intelligent people (for my and my wife's definition of good and intelligent), and work in industries or on technology that will have a positive effect on the world (like distributed energy resource/load controls, currently). I can only affect my little part of the world, so why worry about those big issues that are above my paygrade? I just vote for whom I think will help most (hard to find these days), raise my voice when I see something I don't like (like when someone is being rude to a clerk at a store), and the rest is up to fate/the universe/god(s)/whatever.
This is a good point and it is something we can all do. Don't go work for companies in industries you're opposed to, no matter how much money they want to throw at you. For this discussion, that would be adtech, marketing/pr, etc.

Most of the time people think about how to stop corporate behavior they don't like, and it comes down to shutting off their cash flow by not buying their stuff, or by regulation. But workers are also required, and just based on numbers I'd say withholding talent is a lot more impactful than withholding cash.

I basically don’t encounter any ads in my day-to-day life, digital or physical. I have no TV, and use uBlock Origin (including annoyances lists) on laptop and phone. I live in a tiny rural town so that practically the only advertising posters within a 35km radius are first-party advertising on two or three Telstra public phone booths, and in the decent-sized towns 40km away in either direction there’s barely any more. The nearest billboard ads of any sort would be over a hundred kilometres away, in Horsham, Ballarat or Bendigo, and not much at that.

When I go down to the big smoke (Melbourne) I find the prevalence of billboards, side-of-bus ads, &c. physically distressing—and then they make it worse by using screens for them so they can change their contents, make them glary, &c. and it’s just awful. And it becomes ever more and more intrusive; Melbourne’s trains used to be safe spaces, then they put billboards on the platforms, then scrolling billboards, then ads in the carriages, then animated billboards on the platforms, then billboards with speakers on the platforms, and I wonder just what they’ll come up with next. I really dislike the city. There’s a reason I moved out into the country.

As for television ads, ugh! Maybe once every year or two I happen to be in the same room as a television that’s turned on, and how anyone can stand to watch the stuff when such ads are part of it, I don’t know. Maybe if you grow up with it you don’t realise quite how obnoxious it is?

I have concluded that display advertising is just fundamentally bad and that our society would be better if it were outright banned in all its forms. I would even sympathise with vigilantes that went round demolishing and vandalising billboards on principle.

Advertising is cancer and should die, but billboards and real-world display advertising is probably the least bad version of it. I'd prefer if online advertising (and the associated data collection and privacy violations) were nuked first.
I do agree that the privacy invading stuff is a more urgent problem. But I want to add a counterpoint about the physical ads. I remember when they banned all the billboards in São Paulo and the city ended up looking much better after it. The change ended up being highly regarded by the residents.
I can't think of a less bad alternative to billboards, so I don't disagree with your claim, but I'll say that I didn't realize how much billboards suck until I spent time driving in Vermont, where they're banned. (I'm originally from Wisconsin, where the freeways have billboards for sex shops, CBD, fireworks, and fetuses every few hundred feet.) The driving experience is so much better without them that I'm pretty confident in saying that their negative externalities are dramatically higher than their economic value and the only reason they exist is that those externalities are externalized.
That's a pretty dramatic change, as far as billboards go. I think most of the rest of the northeast still has billboards, but they are for, like, normal products.
Pretty much none of the country has billboards for "normal products" these days. They're either advertising a local establishment (i.e. "McDonalds! next exit!"), or they're advertising something that the TV networks/AdSense/Facebook wouldn't allow them to (i.e. CBD or sex shops or random religious nutjobmania).
No. The northeast has plenty of anti-abortion, sex shops, fireworks, CBD/marijuana (MM is legal in PA - any state with legalized dispensaries will have these billboards.

Don’t know what you consider a normal product but for truckers and people coming from NY adult stores and fireworks are “normal”

(comment deleted)
It's absurd that we're so dedicated to the god of Capitalism that we've had to invent a special term ("negative externalities") to describe the basic premise of ethics - "being selfish is bad".

The "economic value" of billboards shouldn't even be a question. It's self-evident that billboards benefit the owner of the billboard at the expense of everyone else. Nobody looks at an empty patch of sky and wishes there were an advertisement there instead.

That would destroy 90% of the tech industry.
It would destroy 90% of the current version of the tech industry.

I find it hard to believe that a better version isn't possible.

the AD industry. it would destroy the AD industry.

they've been so successful in their advertising they've just managed to get people to call them "tech".

tech would probably be untouched, and who knows, might even flourish a bit once people stop wasting their time and paycheques to make the world a worse place.

Sure but there's probably a downside as well.
fucking lol. I think it'd suck for us have our SWE salaries crash down to non-tech levels. Making $140k after 10 years of experience at Google, oof. Tech VC's drained, how will I start my dog therapist app? But yeah, massive net benefit to society. Housing returning to normal levels, cities with blended cultures of white/blue collar and art workers.
Counterpoint:

You can escape online advertising by walking away from the computer.

There's nowhere you can walk to escape physical advertising. Maybe the desert.

Online advertising stalks you even if you're not looking at the ads. Opting out of online advertising basically means you need to go live in the woods and never interact with modern society again. Every interaction you'd have with technology will have something to do with ads one way or another, even if just buying paid products in a physical store thanks to Bluetooth/Wi-Fi MAC address tracking, face recognition, not to mention loyalty cards (but at least you can opt-out of that one).
>Opting out of online advertising basically means you need to go live in the woods and never interact with modern society again

No, it just means you need to not open a web browser, or install an ad blocker. Opting out of physical advertising literally means this. I'm not saying that online advertising isn't bad, but physical advertising is inescapable. Your very food packaging is covered in it. The real world has primacy here, because you live in it and can't turn it off.

You'd fall into a fit of hysteria in Tokyo! Advertisements as far as the eye can see in the city center. Oh yeah, and everything talks...the bus, the vending machines, the constant jingles in the convenience stores, and if you can understand what it's saying -- well take a guess about what it is.
Lived in hopetoun VIC for 1.5 year, left 6 months ago, what a beautiful area. Love the Grampians.
> I basically don’t encounter any ads in my day-to-day life, digital or physical.

The only ads I encounter are physical. Adblockers don't work for billboards. :D

> As for television ads, ugh! Maybe once every year or two I happen to be in the same room as a television that’s turned on, and how anyone can stand to watch the stuff when such ads are part of it, I don’t know.

This I realized when I was 19 while on LSD and it was a revelation. I put the TV in the closet and never had one since (or, well, one that I only used through HDMI so it was a monitor rather than a TV).

If you consume any media, you're still getting hit by plenty of ads, they're just more subtle.

Product placements in TV and movies continues to grow each year, and an increasing proportion of seemingly organic social media posts are bought and paid for by companies, though never disclosed. I have a friend who has basically spent the last ten years helping brands to pay influencers to promote their stuff in subtle ways (first on YouTube, then Instagram, now TikTok), and her business has never been better.

Thoroughly agree about adverts. Have you read Tim Wu's "The Attention Merchants"?

On the social media thing, I find they are always better when they just show you the things you've asked to see, in chronological order. It's all this algorithmic "hey, your aunt's brother-in-law's gardener just commented on a post by someone you don't know" bullshit that causes the problem. If I just look at Twitter posts from the people I follow it's fine, it's just my friends talking about stuff, the moment I make the mistake of following a trending topic link it's a cesspit.

And yeah, a lot of things seem to be cost engineered to the point where they are designed to look ok, but not last or take much punishment. But that's less about tech, and more about us as consumers, we seek to minimise cost and so that's what manufacturers go for.

The reason behind the algorithm is again advertising. A chronological timeline makes it super-easy to tell when you've caught up. An algorithmic one can recycle posts endlessly in a different order, making you spend more time trying to make sure you've caught up - this means more opportunities for them to insert ads.

The problem with social media isn't "social media", it's advertising and the fact that money is made out of "engagement". You kill that disgusting industry and so many problems would disappear overnight.

It’s also the well studied slot-machine effect of “intermittent reinforcement” - sometimes when you refresh the page you get nothing new, sometimes when you refresh the page you get what you want - this releases more dopamine and is therefore more addictive then simply getting what you want every time.
Advertisements are violent, they are invasive and manipulative. Agree, they should be illegal.
How do you discover information you’re not actively looking for?

Eg maybe being environmentally friendly is super important to you. You don’t even realize that today the detergent you’re using isn’t as such. Advertising allows for someone to educate you that products exist that you’re not aware of that align to your needs/wants/desires.

If it's super important to me, I'll actively look for it.

Opt-in advertising is another option, I have no problem receiving advertising I've specifically agreed to receive.

Governed advertising and education channels would be an answer to this
>Advertising allows for someone to educate you that products exist that you’re not aware of

This thin edge of a wedge doesn't justify more than the tiniest fraction of what the advertising industry does.

You don't need to hold onto these stock answers for quieting cognitive dissonance. I've found it a huge mental relief to stop lying to myself and just admit to anyone who asks that I'm morally complicit in abusing the worlds collective psyche for money.

There's a fundamental conflict of interest here in relying on the competitors of products you currently use to educate you on why their products are better aligned to your preferences.

If this is important, subscribe to something like Consumer Reports or join a community group of environmentally concerned citizens who share recommendations with each other, which I suppose will work until the group members start getting sponsored by vendors to give paid recommendations.

Outside of that, the tried and true age old method is trusted third parties. Friends, family, people you share hobbies with and have known for a long time, will give word of mouth recommendations when they know you're interesting in something and have knowledge of products you don't. It's like Ask Hacker News, but instead of asking random anonymous people on a website, ask people you know.

I see the environmentally friendly alternative on the shelf next to the Tide, where are you buying your detergent that alternatives are not apparent?
Let’s experiment then, and go for a couple years where all advertising is banned. Then we can regroup and decide if our needs are still being met without ads.
Agree. I particularly hate advertisements in public spaces. I often consciously try to avert my eyes, it's like pollution to me, just visual/mental.
> Most products today are less durable and are generally worse than "yesterday", in my opinion.

People forget how (relatively) expensive products used to be. Example: my family had a very early VHS video recorder. I believe it cost ~$1000 in the early 1980s. I may be misremembering. But that was a lot of money then. So of course it was worth repairing. Labour was considerably less expensive in terms of percentage of outlay costs. That's why it was justified.

Computers came along and you had a bunch of chips on a board, some of which were worth replacing. But each interconnect costs money. Each external package costs money. We've seen the rise of complicated SoC chips that basically do everything in one chip. These are overall cheaper to fab (compared to 2+ chips) and have lower build, integration and interconnection costs.

The downside? If it stops working, you just throw it away (or at least replace the entire SoC). And if the SoC is relatively cheap, it's not worth paying someone to order a replacement and replace it (with or without soldering).

So really what you're missing is tech being very expensive. Personally I prefer what we have now.

There are other downsides to modern tech (eg Internet-connected TVs to insert advertising) but durability just isn't one of them.

Today's tech can be cheap and repairable.

Buying a PC in parts is not that more expensive than buying than a box from a retailer. The framework laptop is completely competitively priced with laptops of equivalent specs. DIY audio enthusiasts can buy speaker kits that have amazing performance for one third of the price of the "ready" one, and if a speaker or the amp goes bad, they don't need to buy a whole new kit.

It's consumers themselves that got that into that mindset that is not worth to invest time into building and repairing things. We need to start attaching a cost to disposing of obsolete tech, and you can bet they will quickly remember that they too are capable of doing things.

I mean, it won't be, but it CAN.
I bought a low-end Chromebook for $92.44 delivered last week. Other than the charge adapter or USB-C cable, there's literally nothing that makes any economic sense to attempt to repair. Even something as bounded as replacing the battery is likely to make no sense several years down the road.
Because everything is integrated, and like I said you are not paying for the cost of disposing it. If electronics are getting to the point that they are as disposable as a plastic bottle, perhaps we should start treating them as such.

In Germany, every recyclable (plastic/glass/aluminum) container has a surcharge of a few cents, which you get back by returning them to any supermarket. Imagine if we made something similar for consumer electronics. A tax on electronics products, it being higher in correlation with the level of integration, the difficulty to repair. Your chromebook would be taxed at 100% if sold as a whole package, but if Google decided to produce modules that are independently sold, the tax would drop.

Suddenly the whole equation changes for everyone. Manufacturers will have the incentive to produce less integrated products and consumers will have more choice to upgrade/replace only parts of their equipment. Your first-time cost is "higher", but onward you realize that you can upgrade the every three years and the board for $20, the screen last 5 years and costs $40, the battery is $15, etc.

There's also the same price but more complex issue.

Hybrid engines and washing machines are far more efficient but significantly more complex. Prices are roughly the same +inflation but the added complexity reduces lifetime and repairability.

> Most products today are less durable and are generally worse than "yesterday", in my opinion.

Much of this, I feel, is survivor bias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias) and I totally agree with your thoughts on it.

Anecdotal story from my grandfather which occurred circa 1955:

He purchased a "name brand" television in 1955, when TVs were still very new and rather expensive (I don't know the brand, sadly, and he's long since passed to ask him). Got the TV home, plugged it in, and almost immediately the vacuum tubes in the television burned out.

Called a repairman to service the television. Repairman came out, replaced all of the vacuum tubes, ran a few checks on the electronics to see if everything checked out. It did, and the serviceman took care of the billing and left--all the while, the television was on and operating.

As the serviceman was leaving the driveway, the tubes burned out again.

I would say your grandpa was a true broadcast/electronics enthusiast.

Lots of the less enthusiastic technology lovers still only had radios at that point.

Regardless of the electronics or the decade that spawned it, the unfortunate terminal behavior of that TV set was characteristic of what is known in electronic assembly as a "birth defect".

Quite possibly a single marginal key component or miswiring mistake, and from your account most likely not a vacuum tube itself and very much more unlikely the entire set of original tubes or replacements.

I wouldn't rule out a bad socket though.

Seems to have gone down in history as one of the most ridiculously premature failures people would always remember.

Anyway it did seem to perform normally for a short while before it just up and died, both times, and I think that modern electronics having an equivalent assembly goof-up probably would not even make it once.

So that may speak a bit about a preference for overly-robust engineered electronics that could be lost for decades now.

Entirely unfulfilled with this fateful TV, I know the feeling well but I think it has gotten much worse in the 21st century.

Even if only one tube socket was the cause of the failure, those sockets were what made it much more possible from the beginning for users to keep their own electronics running if they were so inclined, simply taking their own tubes to Radio Shack for testing at a minimum could accomplish a lot.

Not everyone would do this back then but it would be kind of equivalent to those who would rather not add extra memory to their PCs themselves. Neither one should you be doing willy-nilly. More of an upgrade here than a repair but you're still putting components in sockets.

Well a good bit of user repairability was once assumed because there was not any ingrained kind of disposable society, and the devastatingly senseless losses and massive-scale waste of World War II had still not dampened the spirit of Americans for things that last.

Then in the 21st century when digital TV broadcasts took over from analog using the same proven radio frequencies, power levels, and antennae, this was the first time a higher resolution picture was possible since way back when analog TV was standardized by NTSC. The picture's capable of being as perfect as cable when you have an interference-free signal, but that's a certain additional requirement for near-perfection that was however not met often enough.

Seems engineers "forgot" that analog TV was based on radio and the further you got from the broadcast station the worse your picture got until there was nothing but audio for a number of additional miles away from the antenna.

With digital you lost it all, abruptly, beyond a much smaller range.

Ever since.

And TV channels take a lot longer to change, the difference between zero latency and some latency is most uncanny. Like many things defying the type of expectations people had for progress after 1955, that were futuristically anticipated to be realized during the 21st century.

Yes all forms of advertising should be banned. But, it will never happen. So, better not to get too excited with the idea.
I bet you'll love these before-and-after photos of Sao Paolo after their outdoor advertising ban: https://99percentinvisible.org/article/clean-city-law-secret...

Anti-advertising was one of the pet causes of Generation X, back before more pressing things like "the war on terror" and a financial collapse and health care crisis took the stage. And those are bigger deals, but man, advertising is just awful too.

That’s absolutely amazing. In reading that, I had to ask myself several times if it was real or not. No one seems to make such bold and decisive decisions for good anymore.
Getting a bit off-topic now, but I'm reminded of the song Logos by Faded Paper Figures looking at the photos of empty signs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO_e7Qq2WKg

Signs on every mountain side, Line highways, stitching desert thread ... My soul goes with your logos, There's no place left to dream tonight

This is what jumped into my mind:

I think that I shall never see

A billboard lovely as a tree

Indeed, unless the billboards fall

I'll never see a tree at all.

Ogden Nash

I love that!

Here where I live in Canada, billboards aren't allowed except on indigenous land. While I totally respect it, it's a horrible eyesore.

Kelowna?
Those fuuuuuucking flashing LED billboards on the WFN as you approach the corner to the bridge. So surprised no one is sabotaging those on the regular. Can’t believe they are legal.
Signs are ugly, but I don't think it's right to tell people they can't have a sign on their property. Property rights and freedom of speech are worth tolerating a bit of eyesore.
Disagree. We have regulations for noise levels emitting from people’s private property, for example, for the sake of public interest.
A person shouldn't be able to have signage above their business to indicate what it is, the phone number, etc? Not billboards, but literally a sign that says "Johnny's Bakery"
This seems a bit disingenuous. It's an advertising ban, not a ban on any and all forms of signage. In the pictures of Sao Paulo you can clearly see that businesses still have small signs out front, presumably with the name of the business on them.
We frequently limit property rights and speech when it pollutes, disturbs, or otherwise negatively affects others.

Is this a limit on property rights or an expansion of viewshed rights? It all depends on perspective.

Note that there currently exists a line that prevents auditory distractions - the farm on the side of the road can put up signs but they can’t blast music or AM Radio from a loudspeaker. IMO it’s still about as distracting to the senses.

I think the real difference is a whole generation who is used to linear TV has convinced themselves they can somehow tune it out. This isn’t true, but they’re much more likely to be against restrictions since it “doesn’t effect them” that much.

Does advertising (as a form of speech) have any societal value?

If not then I think it's reasonable to restrict (time, place, and manner restrictions are recognized as being consistent with 1st A).

But maybe you can think of some value I can't.

Excuse me, some photons appear to be leaking off your property and onto mine.
If you happen to live in or visit the SF Bay Area, and drive on the 280 freeway between San Jose and San Francisco, you'll notice it feels a bit...odd. That's because billboards are banned along that stretch [1], and all you see is the beautiful green rolling hills.

[1] https://www.kqed.org/news/11805469/why-arent-any-billboards-...

It seems strange to me someone would be allowed to put up billboards to begin with along public property. I assume the freeway is public property correct? It should be illegal to begin with without approval from the public.
This may not be obvious, but the public land (Right of Way) for a freeway is very small compared to the visual range of a driver in a car, and the scale of "things you see while driving" is much larger than you would think. (Go stand next to an ordinary residential stop sign and then think about how big and high up it actually is compared to your mental model of it.)

I'm not aware of any bill boards that are on public land (though some probably exist). Rather almost all bill boards are built on private land, or atop private buildings, as a revenue generator for the property owner. Anything within 500 feet of the road is viable, or even further away assuming a large sign. So for billboards to be prohibited there has to be land use regulation that says property owners can't build large signs.

That is actually less trivial to enforce than you might think, because the line between a straight up advertising billboard and, say, the sign that lets you know there's a McDonald's at the next exit, is a little fuzzy. There's enormous pressure from business owners to permit large "marquee" signs so that drivers can spot their business from far back enough that they can easily get in the right lane, slow down, turn, etc. without missing it.

There's also enormous pressure from the public to be able to find things, especially in the case of... you know, a McDonalds on the interstate with people driving by who are from the other side of the country. ;)

I don't think most people have a problem with honest ads. The issue is the billboards that tell you "There's something amazing ahead!" and you pay $10 to get in and it's a stupid doll. Or the collections of a billion billboards for different things on a single building. Or the TV ads that use every trick in the book to try and manipulate you into buying a crappy product.

Sadly businesses seem to be moving more and more towards "just spend all our money on marketing" rather than "just spend all our money on the product". (I'm looking at you, Plex.)

I think that logo signs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logo_sign) are sufficient for helping the public find things.
Agreed, although those aren't present in all states (or even at all exits within states that use them).

Edit: actually... IDK. In some states they're just useless too (you get off the interstate and then you find the business that was on the sign is 10 miles down the road, away from the interstate). At least the "this far to <business>" and "this way to <business>" part on billboards is usually accurate ;)

When I was driving around Maine I never saw a billboard (I assume banned) but they had little signs a bit bigger than a regular road-name sign that indicated in which direction various kinds of shops and restaurants would be with distances. Like a sign might point right and say "McDonald's 0.5 Miles ==>".

It wasn't necessarily as good as a giant golden M visible from a mile or more away, but it was sufficient. I think the logo signs + small directional signs once you're off the highway would do a good job in most areas. Plus once you're on the main drags that hold most of these things you'll be hard pressed to miss them. It didn't take long to get used to looking for them when driving around either.

Tasmania in Australia has pretty strict rules on billboards and other signage. It's lovely.
Yea, in my home state, all big signs are banned; billboards, store signs, etc. Only a smallish sign is allowed for any given building or whatever. It's really nice.
Those photos remind me of the contrast in software too. Compare today's Lemmings, with any other Lemmings that didn't run on an ad-based business model. Level design is significantly worse to allow it to run as many ads as possible.
> Advertising

I get a lot out of using Search, Youtube, Maps, Gmail, Drive and all of Google's other services for free. Advertising probably comes out as a net positive for me if you take all of those into account.

(comment deleted)
I think it’s glossed over that people are neurologically different, and some people are actively distressed by advertising. I consider it a matter of accessibility, as soon as some block of color moves on the side of the screen, my attention is stolen from me. Maybe that’s a disability on my part, but it makes the web feel actively hostile.
Yeah, I hate ads too, but don't think Google products or any other big internet companies would exist at the scale they do if ads went away.
Wouldn’t that be a good thing?
What? How can Maps, Google Search, and Youtube becoming worse be a good thing?
“What’s good for General Motors is good for the country.” Or, in other words, monopolies have benefits, but also have a cost. And, usually, at least in the long run, that cost outweigh the benefits.
We don't know what sorts of other free (volunteer-led) or paid services would replace these, if they went away.

For maps in particular, it seems to me providing high-quality mapping and traffic data should be a government service, with any competition being mainly over interfaces or add-ons to that. The basics of it seem like infrastructure—and also something the government should have already, in one form or another—and not something it's helpful to have lots of companies competing to achieve, or smaller companies being locked out of doing something cool with it because they don't have the resources to generate all that themselves and can't afford to license it.

It's really easy to avoid intrusive ads these days: don't waste any time on TV, sign out of social platforms, use Brave, or any browser with adblocking - you're 99% done with it. As for more subtle kinds of advertising, banning it would require killing media, publishing, entertainment, and even large swaths of education.
> Advertising. I know this is an extreme view

I think your view isn't too extreme enough, frankly. I feel like if I took the time I could compose a lengthy essay showing that we can directly blame advertising for a significant portion of societal ills. Advertising promotes narcissism, selfishness, and entitlement; it convinces you that you need things you don't need, happiness can be bought, you what you have isn't good enough; it lies to you, it lies to you about lying to you, and it makes you think this is normal. And that's all when it isn't trying to outright scam you.

> Social media.

Mostly bad because of advertising.

> Most products today are less durable and are generally worse than "yesterday", in my opinion.

A bit more of a stretch, but since advertisements lie and tell you the product costs less and is 'just as good', it leads to a race to the bottom.

> Most products today are less durable and are generally worse than "yesterday", in my opinion.

Planned obsolescence is pervasive - it's hard to have endless growth when you've reached market saturation. It's also incredibly hard to go against the grain here, as it's really difficult to judge how long something will last without intimate knowledge of the product.

Just last night I was thinking about how much of my life is wasted watching advertising on TV. 15 minutes is worth more than a few dollars to me.

I was watching a movie on the Roku Channel. Because the channel is free, it's got commercials. The more I watched, the longer the commercials got. At some point I gave up and turned it off. The movie is 132 minutes long and there are 10 stops for commercials. The last commercial was 2 minutes.

I'd rather pay for a subscription than watch commercials and I will definitely not pay for a channel AND watch commercials.

We need to start a collective action where audiences punish advertisers. How can we lower the ROI on advertising as a society? Harass customer service lines with complaints about the advertisements? Organize focused boycotts of worst offenders? Form a journalistic non-profit that investigates unethical and illegal business practices, ordering targets by ad spend?

Maybe we should mock friends and acquaintances that purchase things that are advertised in annoying or manipulative ways.

Ads are stupid, and being influenced by them should be socially embarrassing in the same way that participating in MLMs is.

IMO The only plausible way to do this is stop consuming media that has ads present.
I guess contacting sales as a merchant with questions about why products aren't meeting expectations set by commercials could help, but it'd have to be a lot of people calling to make a dent. I doubt CS calls will amount to anything, they'll just add more computer voice layers.

Maybe sending activist investors to company meetings would get headlines, but I dunno if anything substantive would come of it.

We could try to make competitive web services that are not funded by advertising.
I like trade shows. “Pull” advertising, not “Push”. As an engineer and a professional, I appreciate trade shows as a form of advertising in a symbiotic sense. We need great vendors. Vendors need great customers like us.

The collaboration between suppliers and customers is the bedrock of how the world works. Without some form of advertising, it would be stagnant, dysfunctional and basically dead with vendor lock-ins and monopolies. Advertising allows exposure and enables a free market economy.

That said, most consumer advertising is toxic and pushed down the throat. But it works otherwise Google wouldn’t exist.

Ads are pointless. No matter how much human capital was invested in making targeted ads possible, only very rarely I see something that I might be interested in buying. And I can't remember a thing that I bought due to ads. They are a better signal of what to not buy.
Buying the product is the primary goal, but they don't expect you to act right away. It's about impressions. You see 1000 Coke ads and product placements a year. When you finely decide you want a sweet fizzy drink, well the decision has already been made for you.
I would be very, very surprised if this sort of subliminal effect was strong enough to make advertising worth it.
I've had some work in this field -- it is as far as the marketing teams are concerned.

One of my previous employers (international mega company) spent millions on advertisements each month, with no clear way to measure their direct impact. But they did it for the impressions.

Luigi’s Pizzeria hires three teenagers to hand out coupons to passersby. After a few weeks of flyering, one of the three turns out to be a marketing genius. Customers keep showing up with coupons distributed by this particular kid. The other two can’t make any sense of it: how does he do it? When they ask him, he explains: "I stand in the waiting area of the pizzeria."

From https://thecorrespondent.com/100/the-new-dot-com-bubble-is-h...

The problem with this logic is that although I see all these Coke, etc., ads, is that (a) I rarely drink soda, and (b) when I do it's almost always the cheap store brand. The same goes for most grocery items that aren't produce or meat. I almost never buy the branded products unless I know it's better. e.g., Cascade dishwasher detergent is noticeably superior to the store brand.
It can backfire. Recently Coke pushed a cringe ad to Twitch and I have seem a lot of people in a diverse set of channels complaining about "not being able to tank the Coke ad". The impression left not always is positive for the brand. Even Jesus, the best brand ever, couldn't please everyone. But I see myself still being influenced by impressions left decades ago in my mind when I used to watch TV as a kid. And smart kids nowadays probably use an ad blocker but there wasn't much they could do to avoid it in my age.
I feel the same way, but given that the largest companies in the world are advertising companies, they must work on someone, right? Also, perhaps they're good enough that they're working on us without us consciously knowing. Afterall, you must buy some things. Why do you choose which products to buy?
Could be said that they profit from management FOMO.

As a consumer I spend more time than I should thinking about what I buy. I'm heavily influenced by reviews and opinions which I know to be biased and not always authentic but is still the best way to discover hidden issues in a product. I frequently think about the characteristics that I like to see in the product and compare it with similar products. But sincerely, trying to approach a rational decision has become time costly if not counter-productive due to lack of reliable information and strong noise. Pay and pray might be a better strategy.

No matter how much human capital was invested in making targeted ads possible, only very rarely I

There is the issue. "I." You may be one in 100,000. Also there is a trickle-down effect. A brand will spend enough dollars to attract a certain number of fans, then those fans attract others organically. Many will say you "Ads do not work on me," but unless you know exactly why you choose product X or Y, it is difficult to say with confidence.

Yes, I know I'm probably an exception and there's the problem of the observed being the observer. What I can say is that I haven't seen ads of most of the stuff I bought recently. I don't see companies with good and afordable products spending much in ads.

I'm stunned when I see it but I agree that the average person is heavily influenced by advertisement. Influencers and ads can implant ideas in the minds of people that they replicate with absolute naturalness without thinking about it ever. Like: "X is the best Y". Which reminds me of Venus Inc.

I really hear you on the product quality, but that is more the result of business systems.

I find it so frustrating that I struggle or fail find quality products - for everything from forzen pizza to jeans. For some cases (frozen pizza) I just opt out. Others, I just give up and accept that I'll have to replace my jeans every 2-3 years. I try to buy recommendations from Wirecutter and do slightly better, but still so annoyed that everything is made so damn cheaply.

I came to say Advertising as well

I doubt it has the effectiveness that people say it has when they are everywhere.

(comment deleted)
I know this is an extreme view, but I think any advertising other than a spec sheet style ad (just facts) should be banned.

It's not an extreme view at all; some cities (like São Paulo) have essentially banned billboards, for example, with decidedly positive effects.

I'm quite confident that we'll eventually come to see rabid, out-of-control advertising (which is about 90 percent of it) as akin to smoking, leaded gas or asbestos - and that eventually it will be regulated accordingly.

yup. We should be able to opt-in instead of having to opt-out of the slew of digital ads we see daily.
I don't think we can ever rid ourselves fully of advertising (even acknowledging that it's annoying for users and makes the web experience markedly worse, it ultimately is useful for companies/marketers). What we can and should get rid of is targeted advertising, i.e. the more effective, invasive variety.
Recently, I've been buying more stuff from non-Amazon retailers. I bought a pair of basketball shorts from Macy's, and a reading light from Home Depot. I'm tired of getting burned by those weird Chinese brands (with ALLCAPS brands) on Amazon. The physical stores gave me a few choices (that were all pretty decent) and I got to inspect the product before buying, rather than roll the dice with an online order. So I'm rediscovering old shopping.
“Advertising may be described as the science of arresting the human intelligence long enough to get money from it.” - Stephen Leacock, long before computers, much less the internet, were a thing.
I'd just like to point out there was a lot of easily broken crap back in the day, too. Durable items from the past are over represented in both our memory and in the physical world.

Furthermore, truly durable items still exist. One of my favorites are my Osprey packs, which I have had for nearly a decade and expect to last for another few decades.

I agree with your sentiment, and I think that having profit incentives tied into fucking everything is actually a horrible idea and makes many things worse for living in society
I work in digital advertising. I manage several billion impressions a year in ads spend and over $15M a year. I think it's easy for engineers to undervalue the importance of advertising. Without marketing, many many well-engineered products would never be discovered. This is why marketing is considered a core function of business. It speeds up the integration of new products and technologies into the general society. It seems like you're lumping all advertising for all products into the same category. It's more likely you just don't like seeing ads for products you don't like. And this is the goal of contemporary digital ads: To only show products to users who are likely to purchase them.

Human beings have ideas that organize themselves into formal groupings that need to be formally promoted in order to sustain the cost of the business. Products need to rapidly scale. And marketing/advertising makes that possible. Hating advertising is like hating the dollar for being necessary to exchange value in society.

We need advertising to make the products you engineer viable business ideas. Without advertising, 99.9% of good product will never be discovered.

(comment deleted)
Advertising is needed to protect good products from the advertising of bad products?
99.9% of products aren't needed in any way by anybody.

90% of products are created to fill an artificial demand manufactured by advertising in the first place.

these products and their manufacturing comes at a massive carbon cost for meaningless gain.

i also worked in digital advertising. for some of the biggest brands out there. i quit.

In a free market, we don't dictate what someone needs or doesn't need. We believe the individual has a right to choose amongst options that are presented with truthful claims. If someone pays for it willingly, they needed it. If we start attempting to break down all the extrinsic motivations for purchase decisions, we'd see almost ALL of them are dictated by social acceptance, comfort, and convenience. This is a feature of a wealthy nation, not a bug, that we can seek out goods and services beyond basic food/water/shelter/safety needs.
Spec sheet advertising, that's what I have been rambling about to anyone who'd listen. I would also add that the advertising should go ibto a catalogue of sorts, so if you're specifically out to buy things you pick one up (look it up online?) and look for tjings to buy. But you don't get pestered to buy anything when you're just out and about doing anything else, I think along with manipulation that's one of the main problems with modern advertising.
Constant traceability and contact. It's getting harder, and harder to just step out of society for a while.
I reach for my smartphone the microsecond I have idle time. I can't read things longer than 280 characters.
Thanks for this comment. It will make me put down my smartphone. (After writing this comment of course.)
TL;DR. Could you make that into a meme?
I've had that problem as well. The one thing that helped was getting rid of all social networking on the phone. That means no apps and I don't even log in to HN on the phone.
Yeah, I need to work harder at just leaving the damn thing alone. It's become like a nervous tic :/
I had, or rather still have, this exact problem.

The way I could cure this a bit is by starting to read books again. Now when I'm in the train I just read a book instead of scrolling through Reddit.

I've also deleted Youtube and Reddit from my phone, which also helps. But brains adjust quickly, so now I start visiting Youtube via browser instead of the app. But I do feel better about that whole situation, now that I started reading again.

The problem is, that I only feel like reading while travelling to work or elsewhere. When I'm at home, the temptation to sit in front of my PC is just too high. While working from home, I'm in front of a screen for like 95% of the day...

Just turn it off sometimes. It really helps.
even an hour with a turned off phone can make a noticeable difference. just some time to breath without any notifications is wonderful
I think many of us here struggle with this. Some may not even be aware or ashamed to admit, it's a problem.

I can only imagine the vicious circle of decreasing attention span it creates.

It's not a new point but for sure tech has ruined my attention span. I was once lucky enough to get away from major needs to use tech for a few months (which I spent reading) and it really showed me how much these things affect the brain and how unfortunate it is that there seems to be near no other option than to use it because of the career arms race that you need to participate in in order not to die.
I wonder sometimes if I have just gotten more ADD in my middle age or if it is a general trend many struggle with today.
(comment deleted)
These discussions always bother me a bit because I was diagnosed with ADD last year. Now every time I read such discussion I wonder if I was misdiagnosed, if I'm an impostor etc.
It's bad enough that I'd say 75% of my joy from vacations to even very nice places is that it nudges me to all but completely stay off the Web for a few days. The rest of the time I hardly go an hour without looking at a glowing rectangle for one reason or another.
I really miss not having a smart phone. I'd totally buy a locked down android that only had maps, sms, and calling.
At least on Android, it's pretty easy to uninstall all the bloatware and leave only what you need. Why are you not doing it if you miss it?

All you need is to enable developer options, enable adb debugging, install adb or Android developer tools on the computer, connect phone with USB and do a bunch of "adb shell pm uninstall --user 0 some.package.name" for a bunch of packages.

Ok, now that I wrote it, it's not that simple, especially knowing what to uninstall, but it's not rocket science either.

Not true on most phones. Samsung and a lot of other manufacturers package a lot of non-removable apps and customizations to make the OS "theirs". Although I do find Google's line of phones to be relatively bloatware-free. (Although I still can't remove Google Assistant, obligatory voice-to-text, or a few other unwanted features.) Motorola's phones were also pretty good until their recent acquisition. Now they're getting just as spammy as other Android manufacturers. OnePlus is relatively good, but I can't remove Google Pay or their stupid gaming app for some reason.

Does anybody know of any other relatively bloatware-free manufacturers?

Its hard to have a conversation when they're trained to divert their attention when their phone beeps.

Phones were a mistake, letting commoners on the internet was a big mistake. Smartphones created the era of Eternal Whatever, and there's no coming back from it.

Companies have grown beyond reproach.
In the last few years I feel like we've reached "notification hell". Technology used to be a tool that was used when needed, now it constantly demands our attention.

I feel like something is always beeping at me across countless services and just stresses me out.

Windows beeps every time I click anything now, every app wants to spam notifications every our, Jira, countless chat apps, email, even the credit card machines at Target have gotten more aggressive...

Do-Not-Disturb mode on all your devices, 24/7. It stops all notifications, messages, dinging, buzzing, phone calls, everything. Huge, instant, and permanent quality of life improvement. I've been doing it for a few years, now, and I could never go back to life with my phone dinging and lighting up like Reno ever few minutes.

A lot of people think they can't do it (OMG what if I miss that one important call out of thousands?), but I lost that anxiety after about a month. So nice to use my phone on my own terms and review my missed calls when it's convenient for me.

You should be issuing commands to your computer, not the other way around.

I’m militant about disabling notifications. My phone is on silent 24x7 except for certain contacts that bypass DnD. I’ll get to it when I get to it.
I'm also this way: but I can easily see how it's easy to not be.

It feels like every app asks to display notifications; and sometimes I think of how the functionality of the app could be negatively affected. (Uber, for instance, could notify me when my cab is nearby)- but once the power is given they can spam you with self-promotion.

iOS has something called time sensitive notifications which when allowed solve that issue, at least for me.
did not know i can bypass select contacts through DnD. this will help greatly
DND and similar only delay the problem - the notifications still pile up in the background.

Instead, treat the problem at the source by preventing these notifications from originating or reaching you in the first place. Don't sign up for accounts unless absolutely necessary, don't install apps if possible and if you do then deny notification permissions, and for emails that are technically necessary but don't require your attention set up some email rules to automatically archive them.

I have it that way (especially Messenger, Slack). Otherwise, I would go crazy (literally, I get meltdowns from sensory overload).

The problem is that people EXPECT an answer soon-ish. Otherwise, they assume the lack of goodwill. Furthermore, nowadays less and fewer people use longer emails.

In a few workplaces, I committed to answering emails. I clarified that I might not read Slack unless for a pre-arranged meeting. Each time they considered it bizarre yet accepted (since it was a hard requirement from my side).

I hope to set a path for other neurodiverse people who lack such chutzpah.

And, in the company I run, Basecamp is the primary communicator to create an email-like asynchronous communication culture.

The problem is that in a lot of cases, technology shifted from a model where it solves a problem and the user pays for it to a model where it's either an ad delivery mechanism and the advertiser pays for access to the user's eyeballs, or a future ad delivery mechanism currently funded by VC money but that will in the future turn into the former.

Even paid products that you'd think would have nothing to do with ads are affected, as there's still someone on the inside whose salary depends on increasing "engagement", I guess since anything could eventually be turned into an ad delivery mechanism and they're keeping their options open.

I'm less able to really sit down and focus on longer-term projects because of constant notifications and an endless amount of media able to be consumed.
Zero attention span, social isolation, information overload, fears of dystopia.
Pandemic response: tech has continued to distract society from simply learning its needs and creating covid bubbles large enough to meet everyone's needs within the bubble so people don't have a reason to leave the bubble.

Instead, we have mass isolation, instead of population-density diminishing tactics that respect human needs, and mandates for behaviors.

So much for freedom.

Anyway, where's the app for building a big covid bubble or quickly joining one after following quarantine procedures for that bubble?

What do you mean by "covid bubbles"?
A COVID bubble is a group of individuals that are trying to limit their chances of contracting COVID by restricting contact with others outside the bubble, but within the bubble there are no restrictions.
I would guess self-sufficient units of people with little interaction outside of it.

Be it a housing block where everything is within walking distance or people choosing to only interact with a small and static group of friends. But within such a block, there are few restrictions.

Unnecessary tech in kitchen appliances. Ovens, dishwashers and washer/dryers. I spend most of my time battling the user interface or dealing with obscure bugs.
My favorite microwave oven is one my Grandma owned for decades, probably purchased in the 70s or early 80s. Two dials. No buttons. Pull to open the door, not even a button for that. Didn't even have the spinny-plate thing (did OK regardless, and I find I have to manually move stuff around halfway through even with the spinny plate, so it's kinda useless).

Put power dial where you want it. Put timer dial where you want it. Timer starts ticking down and the microwave turns on. Loud ding (from a physical bell somewhere inside it, not a speaker) when it's done. That's the entire thing. No buttons, no clock (god, why do you need a clock on your microwave?!) none of that shit.

Heavy, good-feeling dials that you could feel physically operating something underneath, from the clunks of the power dial to the subtle scrape of the timer dial. Great feel on the door handle. All-around solid. Nothing to learn. Just use it.

This is the one I ended up getting when my previous microwave broke. It has one dial to set the time and no spinny plate. Pull to open. Happy with it so far but we'll see how long it lasts... https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B00ZTVIPZ2/ref=ppx_yo_dt...
I do wonder why simple products are often expensive. I think our microwave cost like $30-40 new, but it's got probably 20 buttons and a clock and the spinner and all that junk, and at the time I couldn't find any cheap options that were simple, only ones that were (like this) several times more than the cheapies. You'd think the one with nothing but a dial and no spinner (so, no motor, simpler design for the interior, no extra material cost for the glass plate, and so on) would be as cheap as it gets, but no. Microwaves don't even have the "because spying and ads offsets the price of more-complex sets" excuse that TVs do.
Same with restaurant or bars. More and more use some scummy third-party platform that requires an account, asks for more personal information than necessary and will no doubt use said information for nefarious purposes such as spam.

Similarly, since the pandemic, paper menus have been replaced by a stupid QR code that often loads a bloated page or PDF and may contain trackers. Doesn't help that phone service is usually terrible, and Wi-Fi (if it exists) has a captive portal with its own set of problems.

Worse, some venues actually did ordering over the mobile website, so what used to take 10 seconds of telling the barman what you wanted now takes a minute of trying to load a terrible website, filling out a form with way too much personal information, waiting for the payment to process, etc.

Carry cash and leave your smartphone off and your payment cards at home (this is what I do). A lot of these systems fail open if you say "sorry, I don't have a SIM card in my phone" or "my service is shut off" or "I don't have a credit card".

You also make it easier for the next person.

(comment deleted)
Anything proximate to human communication.

That people in the West communicate largely over platforms controlled by entities with economic interests has been highly destructive. Beyond mere vitriol and "misinformation", there's the accelerationism of human social functions powered by instant communication and full of perverse incentives on the part of the platform controllers. There are also lots of incentives for individuals that are harmful to society in the aggregate.

To me, this kind of thing is the primary cause of the western malaise.

Everything requires a telephone number now, and many (due to spam/abuse/whatever) don't accept VoIP/disposable numbers, so it's basically like a universal tracking cookie.

I have like six phones to keep my various identity facets separate. It's gross and annoying, and I worry about everyone else who just has one number and uses it for everything and links their accounts everywhere together; most people in the world are going to become very easy to blackmail/coerce/extort in the coming years.

And there's no good way to decouple things once they're tied together. I can't get my personal phone number out of some lists from projects years ago that I can't even remember. The spam calls are constant, probably one call every 30 minutes from different "Scam Likely" numbers. Our government does absolutely nothing about it, either.
Plus anyone with more than one phone is treated like a pervert/cheat and/or drug dealer.
No, everyone makes the drug dealer joke, but the presumption/stereotype of someone carrying around 3+ iPhones of recent generation (~$1k each) and dressed well is usually not "street criminal", in my personal experience.
Why would anyone want to carry around 3+ iPhones?

Anyone rich with 3+ iPhones would rather have an assistant carry the 2 other phones.

(comment deleted)
Novelty

Watching places and people on instagram/youtube for the first time takes away the awe factor of what could have been possible in real life. Imagine seeing the Pyramids for the first time in person vs watching them through a travel vlogger. Or visiting Japan in pre-internet era vs now when you have already read hundreds of blogs on what cultural differences to expect even before landing in the country.

I know it's still a wonderful experience to see things in reality. But I am sure the experience is dampened due to the endless dopamine consumption we saturate ourselves with.

On the other hand (I know this is supposed to be a bitching thread, sorry):

Imagine all the people who can now see these things who would never have been able to travel and see them in the past. I don't even think I could travel to half the places I want to see due to time constraints and my personal life choices (kids, etc.). I love being able to watch some videos of people walking in different cities or whatever, since I know I have maybe 2 overseas trips left in me.

Having been to plenty of places in my youth, though, I can say that seeing the Eiffel Tower on video and climbing to the top (twice in two consecutive days; man my legs hurt) is way way different, but for someone who couldn't go there, it's probably great to see the videos. Also, maybe if people saw the wonders in their own backyard, that would be a good idea, versus watching other wonders on video.

More than anything I have the internet to thank for getting the initiative to travel abroad, which by extension made uprooting everything and moving to a different state a lot less daunting later on.

While there’s I saw no shortage of depictions of travel in movies and TV, the idea of traveling myself remained very abstract until I started reading on the internet about the country in question and what needed to be done to stay there long term back in the 2000s. While a vagueness remained until I actually did it, the internet helped a great deal to shape a faint idea into an actionable plan.

Could I have done that prior to the internet? Sure, if I had taken enough interest to make visits to the library and borrow books on the subject. That‘a a significantly higher bar to clear, though — the internet is much more whim-friendly. I could see myself never having traveled of this timeline took place a decade or two earlier.

Not for me (I'm in LTR), but casual dating life. Tinder is distorting the market making it "winner(s) takes it all" type
It's always been that way. While I have never used Tinder (Been married during its existence) but when I talk to men that have used Tinder successfully and unsuccessfully, their stories sound just like my pre-Tinder dating life. To me, Tinder sounds like it just increased the velocity of success or failure.
One recurring topic on HN is how miserable people here feel reading about crypto-billionaires, IPOs, cool projects , etc. The common response is that internet made it possible to marvel at 0.0001% people in their respective fields, which wasn't so easy in the past so we shouldn't feel too bad. This advice doesn't work, of course - we are not wired to internalize it properly. The very same thing happens with dating apps - you can see the most attractive people of your city and they are just a swipe away!

Robin Hanson has touched this very dangerous topic a bit https://quillette.com/2019/03/12/attraction-inequality-and-t...

I've noticed it's not just 'casual' dating - but also relationships.

Much like when the landline phone and personal automobile increased access to cheating partners..

technology / social media especially - increases access to 'better rung (like a ladder)' sex partners, relationship, social status, money, etc. - all a click / tap away, and likely coming to you via dms/pms..

I'll add that these auto-filters on cameras seem to make a lot of people, (especially girls from what I have seen, anecdotal for sure) - think they are more attractive than they really are.. which increases attention they get via insta/tik/fbk, whatever.. but also gives them false sense of where they could be in the ladder.. which leads them to discount 'average guy is good' -

ads make this worst too many times.

There is much more to add to this - but these things are noticeable in the data as well right? isn't like 80% of women only trying to attract the top 20% of men.

with tech making it easy to have 'a grass is greener here' profile to attract, it's harder to keep a relationship in general than it used to be, even if they don't run away, I think women are less happy / take it out on the average man when they don't have the kardashian/insert reality whatever here, type of life they see others 'living their best life' on reality-social.. I don't mean to say similar affects don't occur with men vs women - I'm just pointing to what I have seen a lot of.

Signal-to-noise ratio.

There is just too much stuff going on, information, news, good/bad tech, entertainment, people doing their things, the list goes on.

We were blissfully ignorant of all the information that exists in the world. It's impossible to keep up with everything that's happening, you're always behind, even finding out when/how to care or where to look for actually good content is hard.

Everything has to be generic enough to account for everything, so market expansion is as fast as the snap of fingers, even if it doesn't matter.

Today I woke up feeling like an old man, I know.

I think there is an 'optimum' level for technology of all kinds, below that you really want more and it is clear that there is room for improvement. But once the optimum has been reached any further additions will degrade the experience.

Examples:

Car controls:

  pre: direct taps and gauges plumbed into engine parts and such, real switches and levers. 
  optimum: does what it should, not more, not less, more reliable than the old stuff, easy to fix and relatively cheap to fabricate
  too much: touchscreens. For everything.
(ICE) Car electronics:

  pre: carburettors, bad winter starts, bad fuel consumption, pollution
  optimum: EFI, highly reliable, aftermarket parts interchangeable between brands
  too much: DRM on everything, parts won't even fit same model a year older, are ridiculously expensive and unreliable to boot
TV:

  pre: two channels, black and white, bad image quality, crappy small screens
  optimum: 20 channels or so, in a way already more than you can consume, good quality color image, fairly easy to see screens (say, up to 3' across).
  too much: wall-to-wall screens that intrude on your privacy every chance they can, inability to build up your own collection of content (DRM), pay *for ever* for the same stuff
  way too much: youtube.
CPUs:

  pre: 8 bits, too slow for many applications, nice and better than an abacus though
  optimum: 1990s OS, very little eye candy, just enough to take the edge off, fast, and enough horsepower to do meaningful work
  too much: 2020 OS, nothing but eye candy, reduced functionality, telemetry, spyware, forced updates that are just as likely to improve things as they are to leave you stranded
and so on, you get the idea.

Technology has and always will have a place in my life. But my car is a 1997 model that doesn't phone home to the factory, has buttons instead of menus, my phone is a Nokia, and so on. Technology is my slave, not my master.

Do you think it's possible that what you call optimum are exactly the state of things in your late twenties / early thirties? And anything more you just call "too much"?
FWIW I'm currently in my late twenties / early thirties and I also think the tech of 10-15 years ago was optimal.

Hypothesis 1: The 90s-00s really were the peak and it's not just a generational effect

Hypothesis 2: The nostalgia I currently feel is bad enough but oh god it's just going to get worse isn't it?

I remember doing an annual complete disk reformatting, Windows reinstall in the early 2000s (restoring all my data from backups, took hours), and scandisk + defragging on the reg, and manually compiling a kernel on my Slackware box. I remember using public terminals that were crippled by adware and viruses. Good times.
I've just hit 40 and think tech now is far far better than it was in the 90s. Same with media, I loved things like TNG growing up, hell I'm currently wearing a "Make it Snow" christmas jumper, but it really shows its age now.

What we do with that tech is another story. Tech is weaponised against us in every way, but that's not the tech's fault.

> Tech is weaponised against us in every way, but that's not the tech's fault.

Yes, it is. Because the tech was specifically designed for it.

There was definitely spyware and bloatware in the 90s. Remember popups? Or winrar? Remember how illegal copies of windows (that never got security patches) were used in DDOS attacks (and more recently ransomware attacks)?

I agree there is too much eye candy, especially in phones.

I don't think we can have 'too much' CPU or RAM. The stuff I'm working on as a single software consultant, give me a budget of 100k and I can put out software using .Net Core and Angular that you would have needed a 10 million dollar budget in the 90's to make due to code being tied up around the restrictions of hardware. The productivity improvements from fast CPUs and large amounts of RAM are enormous and enables small businesses to use or make custom, niche, high-quality tech for next to nothing, just get someone who knows HTML and javascript well enough. It really lubricates society making us all less rigid and dependent on huge corporations and their access to capital and investment to produce social change.
Sure, $100k, plus another $100k for the latest and greatest hardware every few years (or worse yet to rent a small chunk of not-latest-or-greatest hardware for a year), plus another $100k for the software licenses...
Most Win95 applications were way snappier than any recent Webapp I've used or developed.
Another automotive 'advancement' is headlight bulbs you can't replace yourself - what used to take a few minutes now requires a trip to the dealer, so they can presumably dismantle the front end

Unlikely both would blow, but I'm a little surprised more fuss hasn't been made about it from a safety standpoint; considering being able to see where you're going tends to be important - I believe in France you can get a ticket for having no washer fluid.

What makes/models do that?
iirc it happened on a friend's 6th gen Ford Fiesta

I doubt there's a big list somewhere as it isn't something the manufacturers are proud about

What? Not sure what years are in that generation but my gf owned a 2014 Ford Fiesta (the final generation) and replacing headlights was a 5 minute job. I did it several times...
I have a 2005 FF...never replaced the headlights (gf has a 2007 fusion - similar): and you say 'several times'?
Strange - possible I'm misremembering, as this was about a decade ago

I just looked it up and seems like you have to remove the entire headlight from the car, so maybe he took one look at it and decided it could be someone else's problem

Lots, apparently.

Search r/JustRolledIntoTheShop for "headlights".

Some of the first few matches:

Ford Fusion: https://reddit.com/r/Justrolledintotheshop/comments/pw1n0e/t...

Tesla: https://reddit.com/r/Justrolledintotheshop/comments/pvyq3u/y...

Having to take off the bumper is pretty bad.

On the other hand, taking off a tire takes perhaps a minute.

I just found it surprising, because I've changed lots of bulbs on my own cars, and it was never that hard a job.
they probably do it so people don't replace the lamps with the wrong shape bulb which can be very dangerous
Very selective memory... You've picked the most streamlined from each older generation, and compared it to the noisiest of the current generation. Though driving a car (I'll assume a manual that you can maintain, not an automatic with the monstrous blackbox analog computer) that is a quarter-century old and using a flip phone in 2021 is legit boomer cred. [thumbs up emoji]
What you are seeing here is the natural pro(re)gression of all technology. It only gets worse, it doesn’t get better. They will always be abused by the worst of society.

And then we did new technology to “fix” the old technology. Kind of a ponzi scheme if you ask me.

>too much: 2020 OS, nothing but eye candy,

I wish. Clearly you missed the early 2010s, with skeuomorphic/glass design everywhere. I would have preferred that over the flat/featureless designs we have today.

Do you recognize that this is subjective? YouTube is way better than TV, imo.
Maybe being better than TV was a bit of a low bar to shoot for. Youtube has super good stuff but it's like with email: there are very good emails and then there is the spam. But there is no youtube 'spamfilter'. Hm... idea?
Subscriptions are basically that. A curated feed of only creators you're interested in.
Honestly... it depends if you have an ad-blocker.

I would prefer TV to Youtube any day, if I had a TV ad-blocker, simply because the content is far more likely to be reasonable quality rather than a 20 minute clickbait video with 30 seconds of actual content.

Are you sure? When I used to watch Battlebots on Discovery channel it was basically 6 minutes of action wrapped in 10 minutes of fluff and 15 minutes of ads. Discovery Magazine had 3 sections per half-hour; comparatively speaking any science channel in YT will have way more content, and a lot of it really good for specialized audiences. Travel YT are way more up-to-date and useful than TV travel documentaries used to be.

There's a ton of really good Youtube channels, and the level of information density is astounding.

I never said all content on TV was good. Similarly, not all content on Youtube is bad. But the most hyped/advertised content on TV tends to be pretty entertaining (and usually fairly accurately advertised), while the most hyped/advertised content on Youtube (i.e. frontpage) is 90% clickbait and 10% people I'm subscribed to.
When I go to youtube, I'm looking for something.

But I will see the front page of crap in my peripheral vision and wonder about the millions of people who click on that garbage. Sometimes I'll even look at the names for a second and think how it's the same few names always, and how crazy that they somehow get all the attention in the world for some nonsense.

For that matter, now I see people use the word "influencer" as if it sounds perfectly respectable to them, and it shocks me every time.

> nothing but eye candy

IMO, the real problem is the number of abstractions we've created, not the nice graphical stuff. The tech companies would be wise to start throwing truckloads of money at hiring game engine people and get help with the performance problems we have everywhere.

I'm not denying that things are more complicated now than in the 1990s, (unicode, high DPI displays, etc.), but we've completely abstracted over hardware to where it is no longer a concern of software developers.

> implying "game engine people" are good at fixing performance issues
I think this resonates with your point: https://idlewords.com/talks/web_design_first_100_years.htm

Basically, for the first 50 years, airplane technology advanced at an amazing pace. And people thought it would go on to supersonic aircraft and space travel, and they tried to make that happen, but it just didn't make practical sense, and today we use jumbo jets very similar to what was introduced 50 years ago, and they still work better than the more advanced alternatives.

The big difference is that the advancements of the past came with an increased energy usage.

We have essentially reached a plateau in terms of energy costs and available energy; sending a rocket to space or making a car go round are limited by fuel consumption. Technological advancements in those areas are now devoted to either fuel efficiency, safety, and rent-seeking.

Ivan Illich has a similar idea about technology and people becoming slaves to technology instead of the other way around, starting at some "threshold".
> CPUs [...]

you can pry my 16 core Threadripper and its 64GB of RAM from my cold dead hand.

Some of us use computers for things where more CPU cycles per second and more RAM are always good things.

But you don't have more CPU cycles per second. And the software you use takes several times as much resources to let you do... basically all the same things you could do a couple decades ago.
I couldn't do physically modelled audio synthesis in real time on ANY processor of that era.

Now I can do a ton of it, though not enough to represent a full orchestra.

And I could not compile 600k lines of C++ in 4 minutes on any processor of that era.

Now I can.

The fact that desktop environments have gotten "heavy" has essentially zero impact on the compute-heavy tasks that are important to me. If I was a video editor (I'm not), the same "progress" would apply there too.

(comment deleted)
I mean, kinda, but for many types of work the volume and quality of what can be handled by even a consumer machine has improved immeasurably. A 13” MacBook Air today is far better at audio/video authoring, 3D, and code compilation among other things than a 90s machine that’s highly specialized at just one of those things. A modern workstation tower is practically an entire room of prohibitively expensive 90s workstations plus a render farm in one box, which is pretty amazing.

Of course there’s some things that modern tech really isn’t better at. Is a Ryzen 5950X RTX 3090 tower any better than a Dell Dimension 4100 running Word 2000 or even a Mac Plus running MacWrite for writing a novel? Probably not, but people aren’t buying top end machines for those tasks, and some stick to their old machines where they can.

Touch controls. I hate that I cannot turn off my hob in dim light as I have to see which of five barely visible areas I am to touch.
Algo-paranoia.

Every time I interact with a remotely "clever" system, I keep thinking how my input will feed some machine. How fast do I scroll, what is in my viewport. What do I listen to and when. Is this an A/B test? Will something I do on a whim affect that machine to predict something incredibly stupid tomorrow?

It only became obvious recently, as I was readying an actual, physical book. The relief to realise that the publisher won't optimise the font based on how fast I turn the pages. And the disgust at that aspect of tech.

And to what end?

It should be reassuring to know that most of the things you interact with are actually too bandwidth constrained to care about those things, and the algos you interact with are fairly obvious and explicit (Feeds, curated things, etc)
I used to think this, until I happened across FullStory. With that tool you can replay a website visitor's exact session as if it was recorded live on video -- everything they typed (even if it was cleared and never sent in a request), where/when clicks happened, the contents and response of every request, etc.

As a backend engineer, I had no idea that frontend monitoring was this advanced, but apparently it is. So now we all have to be extra paranoid, because _any_ website could be using this tool to "spy" on everybody.

Of course, it _was_ very helpful to us in tracking down some issues (ever tried to tell a customer how to send you a HAR?). And I assume that operating with an adblocker and blocking nonessential cookies will prevent or hamper the output for us more technical types. Even so...

> everything they typed (even if it was cleared and never sent in a request)

Okay, wow, that sounds rough...so in a way, phishing attacks don't even require you to login anymore, just typing the password or maybe 75% of it is enough to get you.

That's not new, is it? You could always have an onchange/oninput handler on the login fields and send it to your server.
Back when Facebook made their huge update to convert to a one-page-app, it was pretty obvious they were doing this because on tenuous connections the interactions with the text would be very strange, as if they are caching your text and operating on it server-side using commands sent from client-side.
Uhh... yeah, just typing the password (or letting your password manager autofill when you get cache poisoned or whatever) has always been enough to get you. onkeydown has existed longer than phishing.
It's not and even if it were it could be pre-processed locally as to reduce the data volume. It's safe to assume that everything you do on Instagram, Tik Tok is taken into account. Those are spyware and will intrude on the filesystem, on the clipboard history and wherever else they can.
This isn't reassuring at all. People also said the gov didn't have the bandwith\storage\processing to record every call. Then we found out it was also happening with our emails too
Honestly, almost everything. More and more i want to see it all torn down for the multiple reasons like those you outlined.
1. Information hoarding, distraction and FOMO

The Internet has generated in me an habit of information hoarding. At the beginning I would bookmark useful information and then take notes on paper of the useful things; with the passing of time distraction has started to creep in: more and more useless information, more and more FOMO.

2. Omnipresence of tech and privacy concerns

An increasing number of actions require emails to get done, this rises privacy concerns. When I was 14 enrolling in high-school meant filling a form in pen and paper and bring it to the administrative office. 11 years later, my sister needed an email and personal information on the net. I really don't like it.

3. Affliction due to envy

I haven't used social media since I was 19 but HN and reddit are not really better: there are a lot of thing that I just wish I could forget and fill me with envy that I would have never felt if I had never read about that particular thing. It is obviously irrational being envious of something that you didn't event wanted in the first place, but the irrationality of that feeling do not make it less real and painful. Sometimes I do a 30 day diet and I do not visit HN or reddit, but the feelings never really go away.

4. Ephemerality

I still have some books passed by my great-grandmother belonging to my great-grandfather during the Second Italo-Ethiopian War. I still have all my books from middle- and high-school. These required passive maintenance: just put them on the shelves far from fire and done. On the other hand I've lost entire years of data (photos, books, notes) during a single incident that rendered my physical back-ups useless.

>Information hoarding, distraction and FOMO

You know, I used to jump from one thing to the next never giving anything enough time. I would attend digital conferences, watch PARTS of courses on Pluralsight, LinuxAcademy (RIP) and youtube, hoard books, bookmark websites etc.

Something happened a few years ago where I was able to just turn it all off. I deleted all my pdfs and removed all my bookmarks. I began focusing on single thing at a time (usually in reference to certifications or new skills), and it made such a difference.

It's funny that you say this, I've been meaning and trying to go through the various pdfs and other ebooks I've stockpiled. I usually look at a book's title and go "oh, that looks incredibly useful" after having briefly skimmed the contents and unless I'm immediately working with it, I shelve it.

It's peace of mind that I have the material, but I've noticed that various items in there are either old or not as good/useful as I had thought prior. Your comment has given me a bit more impetus to try to focus on deleting stuff (pdfs, ebooks, bookmarks).

I did the same thing.

Used to hoard data, bookmarks, pdfs, etc.

Then I put all my data on an external drive and into some bin in the garage, deleted all my bookmarks and stopped saving them. And then realized... I don't need any of it. It's all just mental baggage.

Nowadays if I find an interesting article and don't have time to read it I might leave it open for a day, but then I just close it. I discover new interesting things to read every day, no need to bookmark something I probably won't ever get to.

Yep, I agree with your last point especially. I try to read the thing right away now but I don't save something unless it's necessary. It's a mental tax that I never end up paying off.
I actually got the motivation to delete everything except what I need daily. I had more than 19000 e-books: more than 280GB. I've decided that I will now download a book or an article only if it is part of a larger project instead of junk collecting.