7 ms·

>Sorry, I'm simply not convinced that monetizing and marketing people's attention is all that much of a social ill. What about monetizing and marketing people'

>Sorry, I'm simply not convinced that monetizing and marketing people's attention is all that much of a social ill. What about monetizing and marketing people's affection? The dowry would be the classic example, I'd be curious why you (presumably) are against dowries. To me it's basically the same, certain things are corrupted by their commodification, affection, attention, others. Besides when you say: >The world survived, thrived You're not exactly speaking to the people hooked on video games or TV or Facebook. Your uncle lost years to a game but because what, he doesn't do it anymore it's magically fine? Are you also okay with advertising cigarettes to children? Cigarette breaks provide great opportunities for social gathering and let you interact with other people you never would have otherwise. A smoker may lose a lot of time to smoking but when they come up for air the world will be exactly as they left it. They'll manage their enjoyment of tobacco just like everyone else. Is it disgusting when a casino calls up a gambler who's trying to quit and offers them a credit to come back and play? I happen to believe that's a huge social ill and in many cases basically equivalent to what Facebook is doing, just that it costs time instead of money.

wbl 9y ago
There is a way to get on the ban list of a casino to fight your addiction.
ryandrake 9y ago
We are still talking about a website, right? A totally optional website, in a browser with a close button? This isn’t a chemical addiction or gambling.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  What makes it different from gambling?
  - ryandrake 9y ago
    Facebook addiction is not recognized by the pros as a mental disorder and gambling addiction is?
    - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
      Sure, but there was contestation about adding it to the DSM. Actually in DSM-V it's recommended to pursue further study into internet addiction. What I'm really asking though is what lines you draw between something like 'social media addiction' and 'gambling addiction'? Or is the only difference in your mind the inclusion in the DSM?
      - ryandrake 9y ago
        I’m a frequent visitor to a few local card rooms and make regular trips to Vegas. I’ve seen and know addicted degenerate gamblers. It’s a totally different league from people wasting time on Facebook. I simply can’t imagine someone so self-destructively debilitated by their Facebook usage. To me, Facebook use is a dirty bad habit like nail biting. It’s not a family-destroying addiction. Totally open to the medical establishment proving otherwise though.
        Retra 9y ago
        If someone keeps losing their job because they can't sit still and concentrate for 25 minutes, you aren't going to hear about it. If you can't imagine that, then I'm afraid you're imagination needs a tune up.
  - bcoates 9y ago
    If people were tearing their hair out about internet gambling destroying democracy they would rightly be made fun of. Internet gambling is discouraged/banned to the extent it threatens the local tax base, nobody cares about gambling addicts.
- leggomylibro 9y ago
  Isn't it a chemical addiction? I mean, what does Heroin do to your brain? Releases a ton of extra dopamine and serotonin and crap, right? And what happens when you see that 14 people liked your post? Okay, so maybe Facebook doesn't change the way that your brain's receptors work with long-term use, but don't deny that people keep going back for that hit of inclusion.
  - majormajor 9y ago
    What happens to someone's ability to function regularly if they're constantly going back for heroin hits? Compare that to what happens if you keep opening the Facebook app on your phone. Effect size matters. A lot. I haven't seen any convincing arguments that Facebook is even as bad as the classic "couch potato" TV junkie scenario. It's impossible to prevent someone from making bad decisions, so the size of the downside risk has to be strongly considered before claiming a problem is worth heavy-handed fixes.
    - ck425 9y ago
      There's a growing body of research suggesting fb is worse due to frequency. It might have a smaller effect than tv or heroin but it happens way more often than either of those.
      - majormajor 9y ago
        Point me to the people dying from Facebook addiction a la heroin abuse and I'll believe you that it's "worse." People behave differently due to new technology, sure, that's a given. Is it catastrophically worse than easy access to extremely potent drugs? The outcomes suggest no.
  - freehunter 9y ago
    Is having a conversation a chemical addiction? If I say something that receives a negative response, will I not try to follow it up with something that receives a positive response? After I've received that positive response, will I not try to please my conversation partner more to keep feeling good about myself? Should we then ban conversations? Some people use "it releases dopamine" like that's a bad thing, like our bodies weren't wired with dopamine receptors to teach us how to function in a society. Are you proposing we get rid of everything that releases dopamine? We should all live a bleak and meaningless life? Humans are social creatures. We're wired to seek positive feedback from our peers. Getting a laugh in a face-to-face conversation is no different than getting a smiley face in an SMS is no different than getting likes on Facebook.
- ck425 9y ago
  Other comments have addressed the addictive nature of fb and the evidence of how it affects our brains. I want to point out the social pressures. These days since everyone has fb almost every social event is advertised via fb. When my friends have parties they make a fb event. They presume I'm on there because almost everyone one is. If I stop using fb I'd become socially isolated extremely quickly.
aylmao 9y ago
This will sound like I'm vehemently defending Facebook, but I found some considerable gaps in your counter argument that I thought I'd make you aware of, for the sake of constructive debate. > What about monetizing and marketing people's affection? The dowry would be the classic example, I'd be curious why you (presumably) are against dowries. No, the dowry wouldn't be the classic example because that's more akin to prostitution or slave trade than monetizing and marketing affection. This especially considering a lot of marriages were done out of convenience and need rather than out of love. Better examples: Valentines day, Christmas day, or the mere idea that you have to celebrate someone's birthday. I have seen movies about the tragedy of a kid not getting a christmas present like it's traumatizing. This is marketing. As a result you have hordes of parents playing into an objectively ridiculous legend that has transformed St. Nicholas, Bishop of Myra, 2nd century into a Coca-cola developed mascot of consumption. Anyone who's gotten married can see how ridiculous the "love" and "affection" marketing gets. Facebook isn't as much in this business; it actually is on the business of attention, and there's stuff to be said about that. > Are you also okay with advertising cigarettes to children? I get that Facebook keeps being compared to cigarette companies under the whole addiction narrative, but lets not forget the big reason cigarettes aren't marketed to children; they kill a lot of people, and perhaps most distressing, they kill people who don't smoke them. They are also physically addictive; this is a big issue. I think your comparison with gambling was more appropriate, or one to video games / TV like the in the comment you replied to.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  >No, the dowry wouldn't be the classic example because that's more akin to prostitution or slave trade than monetizing and marketing affection. Tossing aside slavery, it's akin to prostitution because it's very similar. But prostitution is also a classic example of the commoditization of affection/sex. >This especially considering a lot of marriages were done out of convenience and need rather than out of love. Well yes, that's what commoditization does. It turns something into a marketable commodity. That people bargained over dowries/marriage like they do over other goods is exactly the point. I think what you and many of us feel is that there is some intrinsic quality to our affection that is degraded when it's turned into a commodity and I'm using that to suggest that there is something similarly degrading about turning our attention into a commodity, to be bought and sold and exploited for profit whenever possible. I do like the example of Christmas, you could draw a parallel between the message of a Charlie Brown Christmas and the message of a Target Christmas commercial that would prove a similar point. >I think your comparison with gambling was more appropriate, or one to video games / TV like the in the comment you replied to. You're right, cigarettes are an overblown comparison. I was just hunting for something which is pushed on children, fortunately gambling isn't usually. (maybe csgo lotteries are something are an exception here which would be a good example)
Trundle 9y ago
Can you please explain how dowries tie in to this? I didn't see anything in the above post that would indicate that they have an opinion on them one way or the other
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  There's another comment of mine below that explains it better. The commenter says that they don't see much of a social ill in marketizing attention. I'm asking whether they see much of a social ill in marketizing affection and if so why. I believe the answer would expose some degree of hypocrisy or require them to state that they don't believe dowries are a social ill. It's an analogy to illustrate why (I believe) the commodification of our attention is a social ill.

wbl 9y ago

There is a way to get on the ban list of a casino to fight your addiction.

ryandrake 9y ago

We are still talking about a website, right? A totally optional website, in a browser with a close button? This isn’t a chemical addiction or gambling.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
What makes it different from gambling?
- ryandrake 9y ago
  Facebook addiction is not recognized by the pros as a mental disorder and gambling addiction is?
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    Sure, but there was contestation about adding it to the DSM. Actually in DSM-V it's recommended to pursue further study into internet addiction. What I'm really asking though is what lines you draw between something like 'social media addiction' and 'gambling addiction'? Or is the only difference in your mind the inclusion in the DSM?
    - ryandrake 9y ago
      I’m a frequent visitor to a few local card rooms and make regular trips to Vegas. I’ve seen and know addicted degenerate gamblers. It’s a totally different league from people wasting time on Facebook. I simply can’t imagine someone so self-destructively debilitated by their Facebook usage. To me, Facebook use is a dirty bad habit like nail biting. It’s not a family-destroying addiction. Totally open to the medical establishment proving otherwise though.
      - Retra 9y ago
        If someone keeps losing their job because they can't sit still and concentrate for 25 minutes, you aren't going to hear about it. If you can't imagine that, then I'm afraid you're imagination needs a tune up.
- bcoates 9y ago
  If people were tearing their hair out about internet gambling destroying democracy they would rightly be made fun of. Internet gambling is discouraged/banned to the extent it threatens the local tax base, nobody cares about gambling addicts.
leggomylibro 9y ago
Isn't it a chemical addiction? I mean, what does Heroin do to your brain? Releases a ton of extra dopamine and serotonin and crap, right? And what happens when you see that 14 people liked your post? Okay, so maybe Facebook doesn't change the way that your brain's receptors work with long-term use, but don't deny that people keep going back for that hit of inclusion.
- majormajor 9y ago
  What happens to someone's ability to function regularly if they're constantly going back for heroin hits? Compare that to what happens if you keep opening the Facebook app on your phone. Effect size matters. A lot. I haven't seen any convincing arguments that Facebook is even as bad as the classic "couch potato" TV junkie scenario. It's impossible to prevent someone from making bad decisions, so the size of the downside risk has to be strongly considered before claiming a problem is worth heavy-handed fixes.
  - ck425 9y ago
    There's a growing body of research suggesting fb is worse due to frequency. It might have a smaller effect than tv or heroin but it happens way more often than either of those.
    - majormajor 9y ago
      Point me to the people dying from Facebook addiction a la heroin abuse and I'll believe you that it's "worse." People behave differently due to new technology, sure, that's a given. Is it catastrophically worse than easy access to extremely potent drugs? The outcomes suggest no.
- freehunter 9y ago
  Is having a conversation a chemical addiction? If I say something that receives a negative response, will I not try to follow it up with something that receives a positive response? After I've received that positive response, will I not try to please my conversation partner more to keep feeling good about myself? Should we then ban conversations? Some people use "it releases dopamine" like that's a bad thing, like our bodies weren't wired with dopamine receptors to teach us how to function in a society. Are you proposing we get rid of everything that releases dopamine? We should all live a bleak and meaningless life? Humans are social creatures. We're wired to seek positive feedback from our peers. Getting a laugh in a face-to-face conversation is no different than getting a smiley face in an SMS is no different than getting likes on Facebook.
ck425 9y ago
Other comments have addressed the addictive nature of fb and the evidence of how it affects our brains. I want to point out the social pressures. These days since everyone has fb almost every social event is advertised via fb. When my friends have parties they make a fb event. They presume I'm on there because almost everyone one is. If I stop using fb I'd become socially isolated extremely quickly.

aylmao 9y ago

This will sound like I'm vehemently defending Facebook, but I found some considerable gaps in your counter argument that I thought I'd make you aware of, for the sake of constructive debate. > What about monetizing and marketing people's affection? The dowry would be the classic example, I'd be curious why you (presumably) are against dowries. No, the dowry wouldn't be the classic example because that's more akin to prostitution or slave trade than monetizing and marketing affection. This especially considering a lot of marriages were done out of convenience and need rather than out of love. Better examples: Valentines day, Christmas day, or the mere idea that you have to celebrate someone's birthday. I have seen movies about the tragedy of a kid not getting a christmas present like it's traumatizing. This is marketing. As a result you have hordes of parents playing into an objectively ridiculous legend that has transformed St. Nicholas, Bishop of Myra, 2nd century into a Coca-cola developed mascot of consumption. Anyone who's gotten married can see how ridiculous the "love" and "affection" marketing gets. Facebook isn't as much in this business; it actually is on the business of attention, and there's stuff to be said about that. > Are you also okay with advertising cigarettes to children? I get that Facebook keeps being compared to cigarette companies under the whole addiction narrative, but lets not forget the big reason cigarettes aren't marketed to children; they kill a lot of people, and perhaps most distressing, they kill people who don't smoke them. They are also physically addictive; this is a big issue. I think your comparison with gambling was more appropriate, or one to video games / TV like the in the comment you replied to.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
>No, the dowry wouldn't be the classic example because that's more akin to prostitution or slave trade than monetizing and marketing affection. Tossing aside slavery, it's akin to prostitution because it's very similar. But prostitution is also a classic example of the commoditization of affection/sex. >This especially considering a lot of marriages were done out of convenience and need rather than out of love. Well yes, that's what commoditization does. It turns something into a marketable commodity. That people bargained over dowries/marriage like they do over other goods is exactly the point. I think what you and many of us feel is that there is some intrinsic quality to our affection that is degraded when it's turned into a commodity and I'm using that to suggest that there is something similarly degrading about turning our attention into a commodity, to be bought and sold and exploited for profit whenever possible. I do like the example of Christmas, you could draw a parallel between the message of a Charlie Brown Christmas and the message of a Target Christmas commercial that would prove a similar point. >I think your comparison with gambling was more appropriate, or one to video games / TV like the in the comment you replied to. You're right, cigarettes are an overblown comparison. I was just hunting for something which is pushed on children, fortunately gambling isn't usually. (maybe csgo lotteries are something are an exception here which would be a good example)

Trundle 9y ago

Can you please explain how dowries tie in to this? I didn't see anything in the above post that would indicate that they have an opinion on them one way or the other

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
There's another comment of mine below that explains it better. The commenter says that they don't see much of a social ill in marketizing attention. I'm asking whether they see much of a social ill in marketizing affection and if so why. I believe the answer would expose some degree of hypocrisy or require them to state that they don't believe dowries are a social ill. It's an analogy to illustrate why (I believe) the commodification of our attention is a social ill.