5 ms·

It seems the population is literally addicted to FB hence the cognitive dissonance. If anything should be lobbied for it's better mental health services related

by smokeyj 10y ago

It seems the population is literally addicted to FB hence the cognitive dissonance. If anything should be lobbied for it's better mental health services related to social media addiction.

oldmanjay 10y ago
It's an addiction that can be quit instantly with no ill effects using nothing more than the willpower it takes to turn down a second slice of cake. Unfortunately I can't imagine what sort of social service can teach all these progressively-more-coddled generations how to tap willpower.
- matthewmacleod 10y ago
  This is not a useful argument. One could certainly stop stop Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter, Snapchat and so on. But you'd have to consider what the impact is; maybe you'll become more distant from friends and family. Maybe you'll miss out on events. These things are pretty important, for obvious reasons, and it's a shallow argument that everybody can simply walk away "instantly with no ill effects". It's up to the individual to decide if the trade off is worth it. Clearly, for some, it is.
  - oldmanjay 10y ago
    I'm not arguing, just stating simple facts. I have quit many of these things and went back to phones for communication, which still works perfectly well. Do I miss out on things? Maybe. It doesn't harm me in the least. I certainly made no proclamation as to how anyone should live, which you seem to have mistakenly inferred. I suspect that level of unprovoked defensiveness to have an interesting underlying cause.
    - FeepingCreature 10y ago
      Your error is confusing "I can" with "people can".
      - oldmanjay 10y ago
        No, I committed no error. You seem to be confusing what people strongly desire with what is actually possible.
    - ryandrake 10y ago
      It's pretty baffling. When you suggest that people try simply not using Facebook or WhatsApp they act as though you just suggested they stop eating and breathing.
      - TeMPOraL 10y ago
        It's because most of those suggestions try to imply that people can't quit Facebook, because they're stupid or addicted or something. One should stop and consider here that just because you can, doesn't mean you should. A lot of people, myself included, get actual value from using Facebook and thus don't have a reason to stop using it, even though they are perfectly able to.
  - rdiddly 10y ago
    Both the "friends and family" and "events" arguments sound like something Facebook itself might say, in the course of its browbeating you with subtle fear-mongering. Take it from me, the impact might actually turn out to be much less than you think. In some cases (like mine), it's even a positive. For example, not going to every single "event" leaves more time for all sorts of productive activity. Not keeping up with what everybody else is doing, leaves more time for you to actually do something yourself. And a certain amount of distance from friends and (especially in my case) family is actually fucking GREAT.
- AlexandrB 10y ago
  Please go explain this to a gambling addict. I'm sure it will turn them right around on the whole issue.
ryandrake 10y ago
It's scary: the litany of "reasons" that always get brought up to explain why its literally impossible to stop using Facebook often sound a lot like the reasons addicts can't stop doing whatever it is that they do compulsively.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  What's even more scary: you get the same litany of "reasons" explaining why people can't stop eating hot meals every day. Comparing Facebook to alcohol/drug abuse is like comparing piracy to theft - it misrepresents both issues while making it more difficult to discuss their impact and ways to solve them.
  - smokeyj 10y ago
    So now FB is the equivalent of a hot meal. I think you're comically making my point.
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      No; what both FB and a hot meal have in common that they're things we do for pleasure, that are not necessary from biological standpoint, that you can stop using them at any time without much issue, but which many people use anyway because of the benefits it brings - in terms of both personal pleasure and strenghtening social ties. Instead of calling people addicts, it'd be better to give them an actual compelling reason to stop. Hint: that whole privacy thing is not good enough of a reason.
      - smokeyj 10y ago
        But people don't just want a hot meal. They want Zuck to heat their meal for them AND they want Zuck to wear a blindfold. So instead of heating your own food, or finding someone else to heat it - they demand politicians to intervene - to make sure Zuck - and all future food heaters - are properly blindfolded to respect your delicate sensibilities. My fear is for the future of food heating technologies that don't involve Zuck. Hint: All the rest of them.

by smokeyj 10y ago

It seems the population is literally addicted to FB hence the cognitive dissonance. If anything should be lobbied for it's better mental health services related to social media addiction.

oldmanjay 10y ago

It's an addiction that can be quit instantly with no ill effects using nothing more than the willpower it takes to turn down a second slice of cake. Unfortunately I can't imagine what sort of social service can teach all these progressively-more-coddled generations how to tap willpower.

matthewmacleod 10y ago
This is not a useful argument. One could certainly stop stop Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter, Snapchat and so on. But you'd have to consider what the impact is; maybe you'll become more distant from friends and family. Maybe you'll miss out on events. These things are pretty important, for obvious reasons, and it's a shallow argument that everybody can simply walk away "instantly with no ill effects". It's up to the individual to decide if the trade off is worth it. Clearly, for some, it is.
- oldmanjay 10y ago
  I'm not arguing, just stating simple facts. I have quit many of these things and went back to phones for communication, which still works perfectly well. Do I miss out on things? Maybe. It doesn't harm me in the least. I certainly made no proclamation as to how anyone should live, which you seem to have mistakenly inferred. I suspect that level of unprovoked defensiveness to have an interesting underlying cause.
  - FeepingCreature 10y ago
    Your error is confusing "I can" with "people can".
    - oldmanjay 10y ago
      No, I committed no error. You seem to be confusing what people strongly desire with what is actually possible.
  - ryandrake 10y ago
    It's pretty baffling. When you suggest that people try simply not using Facebook or WhatsApp they act as though you just suggested they stop eating and breathing.
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      It's because most of those suggestions try to imply that people can't quit Facebook, because they're stupid or addicted or something. One should stop and consider here that just because you can, doesn't mean you should. A lot of people, myself included, get actual value from using Facebook and thus don't have a reason to stop using it, even though they are perfectly able to.
- rdiddly 10y ago
  Both the "friends and family" and "events" arguments sound like something Facebook itself might say, in the course of its browbeating you with subtle fear-mongering. Take it from me, the impact might actually turn out to be much less than you think. In some cases (like mine), it's even a positive. For example, not going to every single "event" leaves more time for all sorts of productive activity. Not keeping up with what everybody else is doing, leaves more time for you to actually do something yourself. And a certain amount of distance from friends and (especially in my case) family is actually fucking GREAT.
AlexandrB 10y ago
Please go explain this to a gambling addict. I'm sure it will turn them right around on the whole issue.

ryandrake 10y ago

It's scary: the litany of "reasons" that always get brought up to explain why its literally impossible to stop using Facebook often sound a lot like the reasons addicts can't stop doing whatever it is that they do compulsively.

TeMPOraL 10y ago
What's even more scary: you get the same litany of "reasons" explaining why people can't stop eating hot meals every day. Comparing Facebook to alcohol/drug abuse is like comparing piracy to theft - it misrepresents both issues while making it more difficult to discuss their impact and ways to solve them.
- smokeyj 10y ago
  So now FB is the equivalent of a hot meal. I think you're comically making my point.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    No; what both FB and a hot meal have in common that they're things we do for pleasure, that are not necessary from biological standpoint, that you can stop using them at any time without much issue, but which many people use anyway because of the benefits it brings - in terms of both personal pleasure and strenghtening social ties. Instead of calling people addicts, it'd be better to give them an actual compelling reason to stop. Hint: that whole privacy thing is not good enough of a reason.
    - smokeyj 10y ago
      But people don't just want a hot meal. They want Zuck to heat their meal for them AND they want Zuck to wear a blindfold. So instead of heating your own food, or finding someone else to heat it - they demand politicians to intervene - to make sure Zuck - and all future food heaters - are properly blindfolded to respect your delicate sensibilities. My fear is for the future of food heating technologies that don't involve Zuck. Hint: All the rest of them.