I’ve noticed that everything at the top of Reddit is about how important screen time is.
I’ve also noticed how your standards for hangout buddies skyrocket when you spend time alone.
I think the lesson here is that we’re not getting enough good solitude, and chasing that situation with bad solitude, but I’m not sure what the line looks like yet.
But I think the point is that good solitude is time in nature, time writing or reading (but, an actual book), time spent in meditation or working with your hands.
Bad solitude when you’re physically alone but perhaps engaging in fake togetherness activities— online gaming, social media, work zoom calls, dumping memes into five different group chats.
>> I’ve also noticed how your standards for hangout buddies skyrocket when you spend time alone.
I love your comment. I remember the pressure in my early 20s to "go out" into the city, etc. I dont mind socializing, but I found it odd that people would socialize with others they didnt respect, sometimes even back-biting others. What is the point of spending time if you dont truly like the people you spend time with? I especially see this behaviour amongst wealthier colleagues who "go out" almost as habit with seemingly no satisfaction coming from it.
Once solitude is an option, it is a great hurdle level to evaluate how else time might be spent. I no longer feel socially awkward to opt out socially and just spend an evening reading a book. But I equally love spending hours at a cafe if it is with people I respect and like.
> What is the point of spending time if you dont truly like the people you spend time with? I especially see this behaviour amongst wealthier colleagues who "go out" almost as habit with seemingly no satisfaction coming from it.
They're probably trying to cast a broader net, but I agree most people don't do it right and keep fishing in the same spots.
I think people grossly overestimate the amount of real human beings embroiled in these online communities of niche collectivism outrage. Developers are not immune to this either, because they are chronically online and whether they like it or not, they're catching wind of the exact same volume of clickbaity activity.
Joe Rogan is notorious for this, as he vehemently believes every single thing he sees or hears from Twitter as being reflective of the state of the rest of the real world. This is because he, ultimately, is actually sequestered from real society,
operating in a tight little bubble of an elite privileged few.
And this is no different from other small, vocal, and ultimately isolated communities of people who spend all day together… Just online.
I live in a suburban part of Southern California, I deal with regular people of all shapes and sizes and ages and races daily basis in person. 99.99% of them have absolutely no idea about any of this nonsense. not a single thing from this article would even register on their personal radars. unless it was served up to them on a platter by which ever partisan news network they happen to check in with once in a while.
and don't even get me started on the fact that the vast majority of this Internet activity is ultimately bots, bored trolls, and paid schills.
also: why is this article focused on modern mass media? Simply look thousands of years ago at the original mass media mind prison called religion.
This is absolutely the psychosis of today and tomorrow. Just watching my own father in isolation in algorithm walls on twitter and Facebook is astonishing
This is it. I never got into Instagram reels, fb shorts, whatever it's all called until I had a period of unemployment this year. I got sucked in because I was absolutely fascinated by how disconnected this online world is from real life. It's an onion of strawmans and hypotheticals that didn't actually happen that people are getting outraged over. People are frothing over the mere idea that someone would have a thought or carry out an action that they deem unethical.
It's pure insanity and I really believe the source is Russian and Chinese cyber ops. I'm liberal as fuck, but the stereotypical blue haired anti-gendered person raving about communism isn't real, per se. It's like a few hundred people that got pushed to the top. And people lose their shit over it. It's brilliant.
I don't think that's the same thing. There is war and famine happening in the world. You don't see it Bill? Turns out other countries exist. I like some of Bill Hicks stuff, but I think that's a lazy take.
Move to Somerville MA. You will find that stereotype walking the street. Not everyone, but a surprisingly high percentage have swallowed the Woke agenda whole.
Keep downvoting me all you wish, but just as there are unreconstructed Trumpists dominating some areas of the country, there is a Left contingent dominating others.
> I really believe the source is Russian and Chinese cyber ops
Here in Colombia we got something that went to be known as bodegueros: People hired by the (then right-wing) government and their allies (and sometimes using public fundings) to mass spread misinformation to make it seem the opposite parties as the "baddies". Blatantly enough they went to the point to claim it is the opposite party who is doing such practice.
Facebook and Twitter are full of fake accounts posting/sharing/retweeting whatever strawman and sensationalist "content" en masse to provoke outrage. At the point I went out of Reddit, even r/Colombia was going the same course - even at least a couple "colombian" subs went this way, like r/ColombiaReddit and r/ChomposCol, but all with that same pattern.
The odd thing is that r/ChomposCol came as a Reddit extension of what is/was a group on Facebook that originated on a private university that actually did hate acts in real life, like harassing a student or menacing a teacher with physical violence.
I have a handful family members now getting suddenly mad in the middle of conversations because they had an intrusive thought about “Pelosi” or “Hunter” and make a sharp turn into rageville. These are people who have never been interested in world events or politics but now the specter of “Pelosi” haunts their thoughts in the middle of breakfast.
A majority/totality of my IRL friends has a problem with spending too much time in front of a screen. Regardless of the political/liberation parts of the article, it is hard to argue against social media being designed to be addictive, and all forms of digital entertainment encouraging binging, from Youtube to Netflix to videogames.
Boredom, I think, is a key motivator for fulfillment. Anecdotally, I find myself in a city where I have very few IRL friends; you could say I'm lonely, and yet I am not seeking out activities or "third places" where I could meet more people. I think it's plausible to say that's because digital entertainment keeps me busy enough, but that's a (very) local maximum
So what's the "nonsense" these people have not heard about? Maybe "terminally online" evokes images of reddit and 4chan hardcore users, but it should also include people who spend hours a day scrolling instagram, tiktok, and what have you. The _average_ screen time per day among internet users is almost 7 hours [1]; of which 3 hours on average spent on social media (which does not include entertainment such as youtube/netflix) [2]
The amount of "real human beings embroiled in online communities" is extremely high. They might not be engaging in niche collectivism outrage, but that's only half of what the article is about... I took it to be complication, an additional stake: if you _do_ care about, say, liberation, then note: this is also controlling you in that specific regard.
Most of the problems the author is worried about simply go away when you switch off the computer and phone and go out and “touch grass.”
Real Life doesn’t care what someone on Reddit (or HN, to be fair) is posting. Real Life doesn’t care who’s being canceled on Twitter. Real Life doesn’t care about whatever the latest ragebait is being shared and passed around. Real Life doesn’t care about 4chan or QAnon. If people would just log off, spend some time with their families, with their neighbors, with their community, all the pointless shit author is writing about would simply disappear.
This article is really not helping by labeling something like half of the US as bigots.
I actually believe that mainstream media is more balanced nowadays compared to a few years ago. I think that they've caught on to the fact that trust has eroded in recent years and are adjusting. However critics have not yet realized that.
Funny to get flagged by people who don't have anything to say in response by the way. Whenever politics are involved I take it as validation.
>I actually believe that mainstream media is more balanced nowadays compared to a few years ago. I think that they've caught on to the fact that trust has eroded in recent years and are adjusting. However critics have not yet realized that.
It's not that the critics haven't caught on, its that the same people/orgs/editors who weren't trustworthy last year aren't trustworthy this year just because they're trying to appear more trustworthy - it should make you more suspicious that these shrieking propagandists are trying to earn your trust, not less suspicious.
I'm not saying you shouldn't view mainstream media with suspicion anymore, but coverage is definitely more balanced than it used to be (not everywhere, but in some of the traditionally trustworthy publications like the New York Times). Conversely, social media networks are increasingly divisive and radical, so if that's your alternative I don't recommend it.
If I have to make a recommendation, the Wall Street Journal has been consistently high-quality in my experience.
the thing with social media is that you don't have to take everyone's word as equal, or believe everything you read on it. Usually people who use it intelligently have discovered a handful of people who report relevant news on social media who they have found to be somewhat trustworthy.
I don't trust the wall street journal or the new york times. They are mouthpieces.
I don't think the changes in behavior have anything to do with mass media. People don't really follow mass media these days. People simply default to maximizing comfort (minimizing effort), which leads them to all these choices. It's unfortunate that maximizing comfort does not maximize happiness, which inevitably leads humanity into increased unhappiness. Someone should really invent a way of life which aligns comfort with happiness.
> People don't really follow mass media these days.
Hm, I would call a large portion of media on social media "mass media". Even though it's distributed in a new form, I do think a lot of people follow what I would call "mass media".
Mass media might mean large traditional TV, Movie and Newspaper organisations but I take it to mean also Google, Meta, X, Netflix, Reddit and so on.
Your other points I agree with.
But I believe you cannot be happy without discomfort. That is less from Taoism perspective but more
to so with how the brain and body actually work.
A lot of hip remedies (medicinal psychedelics, ice baths, weight training for wellness as opposed to vanity/sport) are based on pain followed by gain. As opposed to alcohol, doom scroll etc. that are the reverse.
> Someone should really invent a way of life which aligns comfort with happiness.
They have: Consumerism.
(You could also argue Hedonism if you equate pleasure with dopamine, but I feel like hedonism has a stigmatised "grossly self-indulgent" connotation that hasn't yet been applied to merely consuming things.)
Has consumerism really aligned comfort and happiness?
I guess with a short enough time scale maybe, but most people don't seem happy to me. The sheer number of distractions (and pharmaceuticals) in our lives seem to be a symptom of deep unhappiness that we are consciously or subconsciously burying.
I'd argue that those distractions and pharmaceuticals are specifically designed to keep/make us happy for that exact reason.
However, I agree with you: I don't think people engaging in Consumerism in this way are _actually_ happy. (I.e. I don't consider the happiness Consumerism provides on the time scale you mentioned to be happiness in the sense we're talking about).
I just think that Consumerism is the cause and not the symptom. I believe - and admittedly this is a leap - that people who "follow Consumerism" do consider it happiness. The promise of happiness after consuming (what sellers and advertisers exploit) does come true for that short time after consumption. When that time runs out, people consume again, and the cycle continues.
(I'm coincidentally reading Brave New World at the moment so I'm a little down the rabbit hole here. And I think I'm mostly arguing semantics on a point we agree on.)
One argument is that realizing all worthwhile things take effort is the essence of adulthood. Realizing that cheap, fast, easy-to-obtain things - whether it’s food or content or careers - is unlikely to lead to happiness and fulfillment.
Growing up, a lot of kids just get things handed to them. Not just normal stuff like their meals made and laundry done. But school has been dumbed down a lot to make it less stressful. Computers magically work and it’s effortless to be plugged into nonstop entertainment. Friends are just the kids you live near and went to school with for a decade. You just assume life will be easy.
Then the real world hits. Maybe not even in college for those with easy majors, but certainly after college. Life isn’t fair. Maintaining your friends takes effort. People you think are less deserving than you are far more financially successful.
Some people never realize what it takes to attain happiness. You can lead a horse to water but can’t make it drink.
Happiness is a life full of effort and relationships. You need to put in effort to stay physically fit. You need to strive towards your goals to achieve meaning. Short cuts will not get you to where fulfillment resides.
> "In-person interaction is hazardous to your body, mind and reputation. The only truly safe space is at home, in front of a screen."
> This is the one conspiracy theory I truly believe, that mass media’s relentless “stranger danger” propaganda serves the same purpose as a cult’s rules against fraternizing with the heretics. And it’s the worst kind of conspiracy in that I don’t think the conspirators have any idea what they’re doing.
Great insight.
All mediums promote themselves so they can remain competitive against other mediums. 'Stranger danger' is a powerful way to promote, it hijacks our natural inclination to focus on data that helps us assess risk.
We've seen this grow from having like 3 tv news stations to 24h cable news and now to UGC video. As production & distribution tech has increased adoption (from 100s of producers to billions), it's increased the quantity and quality of content that can deliver this stranger danger message. Meanwhile our paleolithic emotions remain unchanged.
Whether it's cults, media, social media, politics, etc, the incentives of maximal extraction are always to divide & conquer. Our isolation and a lot of our strife is the product of our extractive economy slowly winning out over our agency.
Why is this surprising? These systems are doing what we programmed them to do: maximize engagement with media by selecting and prioritizing the most engaging content.
(That happens to be the craziest, most divisive, most triggering stuff because we are wired that way, but the algorithm doesn’t care. It just followed gradient descent and found a local minimum and gave us Qanon and cancel mobs.)
This comes at the expense of friendships, relationships, hobbies, and self care. It has to because people have only so much attention and time.
So it’s ruining our minds and destroying society, but at least people click ads.
Acting like this is a surprise is like “this machine gun perforates things with bullets when I point it at things! How is this happening?!?!” Well, it’s because that there gun was… uhh… designed to do that…
People don’t want to admit that this was a deliberate choice.
These days, what's the difference? It's not like the messages you get in your feed are much different from some-or-another nightly news. Mass-personalized algorithmic media is everywhere.
>> Mass media is not the problem. Personalized media is the problem. Mass media fosters consensus while personalized media fosters divergent views.
I'd say Mass Media is a huge problem if you happen to not be a member of the majority. Think about being a PoC in the 1980s where every villain in mass media looks like you. Think about being a PoC parent in the 1980s and having your children see people like you be vilified.
The implication being that Mass Media villains inevitably tended to be African American, Russian, or Arab. They were often portrayed as speaking English poorly, uneducated, and klutzy. Speak to an African American child of the 1980s and, yes, they notice this. Not sure why you would find this funny, this was a very serious issue where Mass Media decided to centrally write and cast only a handful of minority groups as villains.
In the Jim Crow era, black people were called "colored people." You would see "whites only," and "colored" written on signs everywhere. It was and is generally considered a racial slur. It fell out of favor after the Civil Rights era for good reason. I find it really peculiar and unfortunate that term has been reborn today, albeit slightly modified in the term "People of Color."
You’re not the first, but I don’t recommend dying on this hill or giving it much more attention even. Call people what they want to be called and try to move on.
No, I'm just amused by the absurdity of it. I could just imagine a bunch of professors coming up with the term in a room who either forgot their history or just decided to mess with everyone. I can't imagine all the labels that didn't make the cut.
Anyway, I prefer to call people Sir and Ma'am; universal and respectful.
I’m the most calm and happy I’ve been in a long time. I threw away almost all of my social media and news consumption.
The more I’ve come to stand outside of it, the sillier and more crazed the culture has seemed. We really need a collective break and some wisdom building work.
Laron Lanier’s book, Ten Arguments for Deleting your Social Media Accounts Right Now, is still a great read and one I often recommend to my friends. I think now that we’re mostly dealing with socially acceptable forms of addiction, and the sooner we realize that and start treating it like a public health crisis the better off we’ll be.
Suuuuper hard second. Getting of the facestagramitter was possibly the single kindest thing I've ever done for myself.
Came with a news blackout, and as it turns out you can stay more or less exactly the same amount of informed because people will happily burst that bubble every time the rage machine hits critical mass. Not mad about it, any more.
I do sometimes wish there were things to talk about that didn't come from the internet.
HN is the last open-forum-ish place I can't really bring myself to get rid of, and I'm not sure I want to. Doesn't have the same stank as the rest, at least not bad enough to jump ship.
> Came with a news blackout, and as it turns out you can stay more or less exactly the same amount of informed because people will happily burst that bubble every time the rage machine hits critical mass. Not mad about it, any more.
So, you're essentially relying on other people taking the toll on being on social media to keep yourself informed. No offence intended, but isn't this similarly selfish with being an antivaxxer? I.e. believing you have some sort of personal epiphany, while in reality you are just enjoying the benefit of everyone else being involved in a moderately risky activity?
Again, I do not wish to be judgemental, everyone have their own tolerances that they are entitled to manage and keep personal. Just saying that if everyone gets off social media tomorrow, I don't think it will be for the best of humanity, even though social media do have the potential to be individually harmful.
> I do sometimes wish there were things to talk about that didn't come from the internet.
Before the internet discussion topics would just come from the news (TV or printed). However, TV and printed press have degraded so much in the past decades, that relying solely on them to set our discussion agenda would be a catastrophe. Social media, as tolling as they may be, seem to be the only thing that makes us aware of a global descent to a dystopic future.
> So, you're essentially relying on other people taking the toll on being on social media to keep yourself informed. No offence intended, but isn't this similarly selfish with being an antivaxxer? I.e. believing you have some sort of personal epiphany, while in reality you are just enjoying the benefit of everyone else being involved in a moderately risky activity?
I should clarify - there was a little sarcasm in there. The massive bulk of stuff that 'breaks' the collective pressure barrier isn't stuff I consider important to know. I just end up hearing about whatever Trump said that was dumb lately and feel worse off for it occasionally.
> Before the internet discussion topics would just come from the news (TV or printed).
Nope. You can talk about ideas, life, experiences, all kindsa shit that doesn't come from media. 'Keeping up with the times' is a nice thing to do just a little bit but these days it's gotten way out of hand. This is just my opinion, of course. YMMV et al etc. The point here being that fewer and fewer people have headspace for that stuff and I dunno, I kinda think that sucks.
I agree for personal usage, but I'm struggling to justify throwing away social media for work-related usage. A lot of opportunities and connections in my life have come from being active on social media.
However, regarding this in your comment: "I’m the most calm and happy I’ve been in a long time. I threw away almost all of my social media and news consumption." -- I'm a former, but trained journalist, and during some dark transition phase in life, I had a ~2 year period where I consumed very little news. The result? I did feel "happier" -- or at least I thought I do for sure. After some more time passing, I started to realize that I don't quite understand what's going on in the society any more. Couldn't follow internal affairs, didn't bother to notice changes in the cabinet of ministers, etc. (I live in a small country that ranks in the top 10 of the World Press Freedom Index [1], so our journalism is considered quite good as compared to the average of what human beings produce on planet Earth -- so balanced news sources definitely are available over here.)
In other words, while I surely did gain deeper insights in some fields of my preference (due to being very selective in what I read, and where from -- focusing on some geekier forums, etc), I slowly started to lose a kind of "general grasp" of how the society works. I was witnessing a kind of Marxian alienation [2] or smth happening with myself. I was becoming my own echo chamber.
After realizing this, I slowly started to read more news again -- preferring the most neutral venues (our Public Broadcasting is very good IMO), but also understanding the importance of media diversity. I don't have to agree with everything that e.g. some certain private media venues write, but they still produce different angles to societal problems, even if they make mistakes occasionally. Also, there is something that regular news consumers don't quite grasp (and maybe don't have to): investigative journalism is very expensive, in particular in a smaller society -- so all venues that even occasionally produce high-quality investigations produce a huge value to the society.
Long story short: would it be even possible to function well in a society in the long term when you read no news whatsoever? I actually doubt that. Newsrooms aren't perfect, but I do think human-filtered news, produced by creatures with an organic, not robotic brain, is still the best that we have, and it probably always will be. Good human-driven journalism is just as valuable as the scientific method -- despite occasional flaws, this, too, is the best we have. ("All models are wrong, but some models are useful" -- this also counts for journalism.)
I did delete all of my social media accounts just recently, though -- admittedly, being heavily influenced by the arguments of Jaron Lanier. And I do feel much better; much less internal anxiety or anger. But if one doesn't want to become alienated from their society, a moderate daily dose of high quality news is a must IMO.
After all, we do have to understand that because the world itself is not always nice, the purpose of news can also not be making you feel "happy". Good journalists try really hard to offer a balanced, well-investigated understanding of the world as it really is, or seems to be, to all of us. Let's not forget giving them the respect they deserve for this. It is really-really hard work.
I don't think it's the mass media. I mean, the media - especially social networks - play a role, but ultimately it's people who make it the hellscape it sometimes is. It's not some feature of technology or business or "capitalism" or anything - it's ultimately people being shitty to each other, again and again. If anybody wants to make it better, that's where they should focus their effort - not introducing regulations to have screen time limits, or banning certain algorithms or media sites, or introducing large print warnings on social media sites (I am not sure if anybody proposed it yet but I'm sure they will) - but trying to push cultural norms towards being shitty to other people is bad. It's much harder to pull off, but I think it's the only hope.
Another opportunity on Hacker News to recommend Niel Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death". Best book I've read in the last 5 years and goes deep on this issue as it presented ~40 years ago with televised mass media. The books has aged pretty flawlessly - still 100% applicable to the internet age.
A few comments here revealing a core point: It is a feature, not a bug, that people don't consciously realise it's happening to them.
Seconding Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death," for its prescience, and I would also recommend Alfie Bown's "Candy Crush and Capitalism," as it makes a connection to how our notions of distracting ourselves acts as a way to emphasize the importance of our work, whatever it may be.
The problem is corporate media which runs as a wing of the US State Dept. If we had state run media that identified itself as such it basically wouldn’t be different.
Definitely. Two things come to mind. 1. Weapons of mass destruction. 2. TikTok only becoming a real issue once they were publishing the 'wrong' kind of propaganda re the Israel Palestine conflict.
Politics will always be politics. We can't expect politicians to stop playing the game, especially when its a requirement to get to the highest levels of office.
The more news you watch, the more insane you get. The more news the world watches, the more insane it gets. Notice that I am not saying that insane people obsess over the media, I am saying that people who obsess over the media go insane. To be even more clear: social media is making you unhappy. It is not making you aware of your unhappiness, it is causing it. It isn't pointing out how bad the world is, it's making the world bad.
there are wellbeing studies, is the proliferation of news / social media visible on these graphs? (do people settle into a new worse baseline too fast for these studies to pick this up? does this insanity show up on psychiatric stats? IIRC the data for young girls shows that their mental health got worse the more time they spent on social media, is there something similar for other cohorts?)
probably it's time to look for natural experiments that could show how big of a radicalizing effect certain channels/videos/outlets have.
80 comments
[ 4.3 ms ] story [ 126 ms ] threadI’ve also noticed how your standards for hangout buddies skyrocket when you spend time alone.
I think the lesson here is that we’re not getting enough good solitude, and chasing that situation with bad solitude, but I’m not sure what the line looks like yet.
Bad solitude when you’re physically alone but perhaps engaging in fake togetherness activities— online gaming, social media, work zoom calls, dumping memes into five different group chats.
To have or to avoid? I'm OOTL on this.
I love your comment. I remember the pressure in my early 20s to "go out" into the city, etc. I dont mind socializing, but I found it odd that people would socialize with others they didnt respect, sometimes even back-biting others. What is the point of spending time if you dont truly like the people you spend time with? I especially see this behaviour amongst wealthier colleagues who "go out" almost as habit with seemingly no satisfaction coming from it.
Once solitude is an option, it is a great hurdle level to evaluate how else time might be spent. I no longer feel socially awkward to opt out socially and just spend an evening reading a book. But I equally love spending hours at a cafe if it is with people I respect and like.
They're probably trying to cast a broader net, but I agree most people don't do it right and keep fishing in the same spots.
Joe Rogan is notorious for this, as he vehemently believes every single thing he sees or hears from Twitter as being reflective of the state of the rest of the real world. This is because he, ultimately, is actually sequestered from real society, operating in a tight little bubble of an elite privileged few.
And this is no different from other small, vocal, and ultimately isolated communities of people who spend all day together… Just online.
I live in a suburban part of Southern California, I deal with regular people of all shapes and sizes and ages and races daily basis in person. 99.99% of them have absolutely no idea about any of this nonsense. not a single thing from this article would even register on their personal radars. unless it was served up to them on a platter by which ever partisan news network they happen to check in with once in a while.
and don't even get me started on the fact that the vast majority of this Internet activity is ultimately bots, bored trolls, and paid schills.
also: why is this article focused on modern mass media? Simply look thousands of years ago at the original mass media mind prison called religion.
It's pure insanity and I really believe the source is Russian and Chinese cyber ops. I'm liberal as fuck, but the stereotypical blue haired anti-gendered person raving about communism isn't real, per se. It's like a few hundred people that got pushed to the top. And people lose their shit over it. It's brilliant.
Relevant Bill Hicks (1991) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGjuPJskNRE
So what? It's not my responsibility to participate in that. That just sounds like “The White Man's Burden” with extra steps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Man%27s_Burden
Here in Colombia we got something that went to be known as bodegueros: People hired by the (then right-wing) government and their allies (and sometimes using public fundings) to mass spread misinformation to make it seem the opposite parties as the "baddies". Blatantly enough they went to the point to claim it is the opposite party who is doing such practice.
Facebook and Twitter are full of fake accounts posting/sharing/retweeting whatever strawman and sensationalist "content" en masse to provoke outrage. At the point I went out of Reddit, even r/Colombia was going the same course - even at least a couple "colombian" subs went this way, like r/ColombiaReddit and r/ChomposCol, but all with that same pattern.
The odd thing is that r/ChomposCol came as a Reddit extension of what is/was a group on Facebook that originated on a private university that actually did hate acts in real life, like harassing a student or menacing a teacher with physical violence.
I suspect there are many more shills living in our imagination, than are on the payrolls in reality. Do you have any evidence one way or another?
Boredom, I think, is a key motivator for fulfillment. Anecdotally, I find myself in a city where I have very few IRL friends; you could say I'm lonely, and yet I am not seeking out activities or "third places" where I could meet more people. I think it's plausible to say that's because digital entertainment keeps me busy enough, but that's a (very) local maximum
So what's the "nonsense" these people have not heard about? Maybe "terminally online" evokes images of reddit and 4chan hardcore users, but it should also include people who spend hours a day scrolling instagram, tiktok, and what have you. The _average_ screen time per day among internet users is almost 7 hours [1]; of which 3 hours on average spent on social media (which does not include entertainment such as youtube/netflix) [2]
The amount of "real human beings embroiled in online communities" is extremely high. They might not be engaging in niche collectivism outrage, but that's only half of what the article is about... I took it to be complication, an additional stake: if you _do_ care about, say, liberation, then note: this is also controlling you in that specific regard.
1: https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2023-global-overvie...
2: https://www.statista.com/statistics/433871/daily-social-medi...
Real Life doesn’t care what someone on Reddit (or HN, to be fair) is posting. Real Life doesn’t care who’s being canceled on Twitter. Real Life doesn’t care about whatever the latest ragebait is being shared and passed around. Real Life doesn’t care about 4chan or QAnon. If people would just log off, spend some time with their families, with their neighbors, with their community, all the pointless shit author is writing about would simply disappear.
This is the sole reason I dont bother arguing on the internet. If I feel I must say something, I say it and move on (except on HN ofc :) ).
I actually believe that mainstream media is more balanced nowadays compared to a few years ago. I think that they've caught on to the fact that trust has eroded in recent years and are adjusting. However critics have not yet realized that.
Funny to get flagged by people who don't have anything to say in response by the way. Whenever politics are involved I take it as validation.
"The Fitzwilliam Museum has suggested that paintings of the British countryside evoke dark “nationalist feelings”."
Winston Smith got nothin' on these guys. Via https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/03/the-dark-side...
It's not that the critics haven't caught on, its that the same people/orgs/editors who weren't trustworthy last year aren't trustworthy this year just because they're trying to appear more trustworthy - it should make you more suspicious that these shrieking propagandists are trying to earn your trust, not less suspicious.
If I have to make a recommendation, the Wall Street Journal has been consistently high-quality in my experience.
I don't trust the wall street journal or the new york times. They are mouthpieces.
Hm, I would call a large portion of media on social media "mass media". Even though it's distributed in a new form, I do think a lot of people follow what I would call "mass media".
Your other points I agree with.
But I believe you cannot be happy without discomfort. That is less from Taoism perspective but more to so with how the brain and body actually work.
A lot of hip remedies (medicinal psychedelics, ice baths, weight training for wellness as opposed to vanity/sport) are based on pain followed by gain. As opposed to alcohol, doom scroll etc. that are the reverse.
They have: Consumerism.
(You could also argue Hedonism if you equate pleasure with dopamine, but I feel like hedonism has a stigmatised "grossly self-indulgent" connotation that hasn't yet been applied to merely consuming things.)
I guess with a short enough time scale maybe, but most people don't seem happy to me. The sheer number of distractions (and pharmaceuticals) in our lives seem to be a symptom of deep unhappiness that we are consciously or subconsciously burying.
However, I agree with you: I don't think people engaging in Consumerism in this way are _actually_ happy. (I.e. I don't consider the happiness Consumerism provides on the time scale you mentioned to be happiness in the sense we're talking about).
I just think that Consumerism is the cause and not the symptom. I believe - and admittedly this is a leap - that people who "follow Consumerism" do consider it happiness. The promise of happiness after consuming (what sellers and advertisers exploit) does come true for that short time after consumption. When that time runs out, people consume again, and the cycle continues.
(I'm coincidentally reading Brave New World at the moment so I'm a little down the rabbit hole here. And I think I'm mostly arguing semantics on a point we agree on.)
Growing up, a lot of kids just get things handed to them. Not just normal stuff like their meals made and laundry done. But school has been dumbed down a lot to make it less stressful. Computers magically work and it’s effortless to be plugged into nonstop entertainment. Friends are just the kids you live near and went to school with for a decade. You just assume life will be easy.
Then the real world hits. Maybe not even in college for those with easy majors, but certainly after college. Life isn’t fair. Maintaining your friends takes effort. People you think are less deserving than you are far more financially successful.
Some people never realize what it takes to attain happiness. You can lead a horse to water but can’t make it drink.
Happiness is a life full of effort and relationships. You need to put in effort to stay physically fit. You need to strive towards your goals to achieve meaning. Short cuts will not get you to where fulfillment resides.
The double stack effect of people losing their mind in real life and then finding an echo chamber to blame it on, is hard to escape solo.
Critical thinking and solid reasoning goes out the window too easily.
> This is the one conspiracy theory I truly believe, that mass media’s relentless “stranger danger” propaganda serves the same purpose as a cult’s rules against fraternizing with the heretics. And it’s the worst kind of conspiracy in that I don’t think the conspirators have any idea what they’re doing.
Great insight.
All mediums promote themselves so they can remain competitive against other mediums. 'Stranger danger' is a powerful way to promote, it hijacks our natural inclination to focus on data that helps us assess risk.
We've seen this grow from having like 3 tv news stations to 24h cable news and now to UGC video. As production & distribution tech has increased adoption (from 100s of producers to billions), it's increased the quantity and quality of content that can deliver this stranger danger message. Meanwhile our paleolithic emotions remain unchanged.
Whether it's cults, media, social media, politics, etc, the incentives of maximal extraction are always to divide & conquer. Our isolation and a lot of our strife is the product of our extractive economy slowly winning out over our agency.
Justine Sacco would disagree!
(That happens to be the craziest, most divisive, most triggering stuff because we are wired that way, but the algorithm doesn’t care. It just followed gradient descent and found a local minimum and gave us Qanon and cancel mobs.)
This comes at the expense of friendships, relationships, hobbies, and self care. It has to because people have only so much attention and time.
So it’s ruining our minds and destroying society, but at least people click ads.
Acting like this is a surprise is like “this machine gun perforates things with bullets when I point it at things! How is this happening?!?!” Well, it’s because that there gun was… uhh… designed to do that…
People don’t want to admit that this was a deliberate choice.
this is pure blogspam of the 2010s era
There are pluses and minuses to both, but I feel like mass media is the wrong term to use to diagnose the problem.
I'd say Mass Media is a huge problem if you happen to not be a member of the majority. Think about being a PoC in the 1980s where every villain in mass media looks like you. Think about being a PoC parent in the 1980s and having your children see people like you be vilified.
Personalized media is great IMHO.
The implication being that all PoC have a common look? I find the unintended racism in this sentence pretty hilarious.
In the Jim Crow era, black people were called "colored people." You would see "whites only," and "colored" written on signs everywhere. It was and is generally considered a racial slur. It fell out of favor after the Civil Rights era for good reason. I find it really peculiar and unfortunate that term has been reborn today, albeit slightly modified in the term "People of Color."
No, I'm just amused by the absurdity of it. I could just imagine a bunch of professors coming up with the term in a room who either forgot their history or just decided to mess with everyone. I can't imagine all the labels that didn't make the cut.
Anyway, I prefer to call people Sir and Ma'am; universal and respectful.
The more I’ve come to stand outside of it, the sillier and more crazed the culture has seemed. We really need a collective break and some wisdom building work.
Laron Lanier’s book, Ten Arguments for Deleting your Social Media Accounts Right Now, is still a great read and one I often recommend to my friends. I think now that we’re mostly dealing with socially acceptable forms of addiction, and the sooner we realize that and start treating it like a public health crisis the better off we’ll be.
Came with a news blackout, and as it turns out you can stay more or less exactly the same amount of informed because people will happily burst that bubble every time the rage machine hits critical mass. Not mad about it, any more.
I do sometimes wish there were things to talk about that didn't come from the internet.
HN is the last open-forum-ish place I can't really bring myself to get rid of, and I'm not sure I want to. Doesn't have the same stank as the rest, at least not bad enough to jump ship.
So, you're essentially relying on other people taking the toll on being on social media to keep yourself informed. No offence intended, but isn't this similarly selfish with being an antivaxxer? I.e. believing you have some sort of personal epiphany, while in reality you are just enjoying the benefit of everyone else being involved in a moderately risky activity?
Again, I do not wish to be judgemental, everyone have their own tolerances that they are entitled to manage and keep personal. Just saying that if everyone gets off social media tomorrow, I don't think it will be for the best of humanity, even though social media do have the potential to be individually harmful.
> I do sometimes wish there were things to talk about that didn't come from the internet.
Before the internet discussion topics would just come from the news (TV or printed). However, TV and printed press have degraded so much in the past decades, that relying solely on them to set our discussion agenda would be a catastrophe. Social media, as tolling as they may be, seem to be the only thing that makes us aware of a global descent to a dystopic future.
I should clarify - there was a little sarcasm in there. The massive bulk of stuff that 'breaks' the collective pressure barrier isn't stuff I consider important to know. I just end up hearing about whatever Trump said that was dumb lately and feel worse off for it occasionally.
> Before the internet discussion topics would just come from the news (TV or printed).
Nope. You can talk about ideas, life, experiences, all kindsa shit that doesn't come from media. 'Keeping up with the times' is a nice thing to do just a little bit but these days it's gotten way out of hand. This is just my opinion, of course. YMMV et al etc. The point here being that fewer and fewer people have headspace for that stuff and I dunno, I kinda think that sucks.
I did it years ago, but it came with an acknowledgement that I very likely would miss out on opportunities that I would have otherwise had.
The way I see it, I don't want most social media in my life so I likely wouldn't be happy with connections that I'd only find there either.
However, regarding this in your comment: "I’m the most calm and happy I’ve been in a long time. I threw away almost all of my social media and news consumption." -- I'm a former, but trained journalist, and during some dark transition phase in life, I had a ~2 year period where I consumed very little news. The result? I did feel "happier" -- or at least I thought I do for sure. After some more time passing, I started to realize that I don't quite understand what's going on in the society any more. Couldn't follow internal affairs, didn't bother to notice changes in the cabinet of ministers, etc. (I live in a small country that ranks in the top 10 of the World Press Freedom Index [1], so our journalism is considered quite good as compared to the average of what human beings produce on planet Earth -- so balanced news sources definitely are available over here.)
In other words, while I surely did gain deeper insights in some fields of my preference (due to being very selective in what I read, and where from -- focusing on some geekier forums, etc), I slowly started to lose a kind of "general grasp" of how the society works. I was witnessing a kind of Marxian alienation [2] or smth happening with myself. I was becoming my own echo chamber.
After realizing this, I slowly started to read more news again -- preferring the most neutral venues (our Public Broadcasting is very good IMO), but also understanding the importance of media diversity. I don't have to agree with everything that e.g. some certain private media venues write, but they still produce different angles to societal problems, even if they make mistakes occasionally. Also, there is something that regular news consumers don't quite grasp (and maybe don't have to): investigative journalism is very expensive, in particular in a smaller society -- so all venues that even occasionally produce high-quality investigations produce a huge value to the society.
Long story short: would it be even possible to function well in a society in the long term when you read no news whatsoever? I actually doubt that. Newsrooms aren't perfect, but I do think human-filtered news, produced by creatures with an organic, not robotic brain, is still the best that we have, and it probably always will be. Good human-driven journalism is just as valuable as the scientific method -- despite occasional flaws, this, too, is the best we have. ("All models are wrong, but some models are useful" -- this also counts for journalism.)
I did delete all of my social media accounts just recently, though -- admittedly, being heavily influenced by the arguments of Jaron Lanier. And I do feel much better; much less internal anxiety or anger. But if one doesn't want to become alienated from their society, a moderate daily dose of high quality news is a must IMO.
After all, we do have to understand that because the world itself is not always nice, the purpose of news can also not be making you feel "happy". Good journalists try really hard to offer a balanced, well-investigated understanding of the world as it really is, or seems to be, to all of us. Let's not forget giving them the respect they deserve for this. It is really-really hard work.
1: https://rsf.org/en/index
2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_alienation
[1] https://web.ground.news
A few comments here revealing a core point: It is a feature, not a bug, that people don't consciously realise it's happening to them.
Maybe not on their own accord. But if not at all, then how are we living in a democracy?
So, you could probably rephrase this as "I wish modern day western press was as transparent as Soviet press", without being too much of a hyperbole.
probably it's time to look for natural experiments that could show how big of a radicalizing effect certain channels/videos/outlets have.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2016/12/03/misinformed/?amp=1