3 ms·

> Google, in particular, collapses. ... Facebook probably goes as well. You say this as if it’s a bad thing. In my personal opinion, both of these companies ha

> Google, in particular, collapses. ... Facebook probably goes as well. You say this as if it’s a bad thing. In my personal opinion, both of these companies have ultimately done more harm than good. Maybe Facebook more so than Google, and some Google products have pushed various tech forward, but at the expense of being tracked and watched and having garbage we don’t want or need constantly punch us in the face for our attention. More people seem to be suffering from anxiety and depression and I personally think these companies are a major part of the cause. If they were to collapse, good riddance I say. > Most media companies too. Most media companies are garbage peddling clickbait or misinformation, or at least empty-calorie/low substance content. I read a lot of stuff online because I’m just as addicted as everyone else, but the amount that is a truly insightful, actionable or entertaining in an any way memorable way is tiny. Good riddance to these too.

simonh 8y ago
>More people seem to be suffering from anxiety and depression and I personally think these companies are a major part of the cause. That trend pre-dates Google or Facebook. Before them and Snapchat and instagram, it was text messaging. The basic ability to send messages to your friends in real-time is the problem. Individual services can make it incrementally better or worse, but it's the behaviour that's the actual problem and even very trivial modern technology enables that behaviour just fine.
- dkersten 8y ago
  Communication isn't the problem, in my opinion. Its the empty-calorie idle content consumption. All the people (myself included) in the train or bus or streets who are idly scrolling through facebook or twitter feeds, reading some low-content articles on some clickbait subject -- the kind of stuff that I can spend hours reading, but then not be able to act on or remember any of it. What's the point of consuming content if you don't remember it a day or two later? I estimate that about 90% of what I encounter online makes no difference to my life (both in terms of usefulness and entertainment) other than to consume my time, my energy, my focus and my phones battery ;) All the while, the advertisement is telling me I'm not good enough and don't have the right things. Back in the early 2000's, I did spend a lot of time with text messaging and I did spend a lot of time on messenger applications/irc etc. The way I communicate with others hasn't changed that much: I use different apps or websites, sure, but ultimately its very similar. What has changed, though, is how much content I consume idly, just to pass the time, because my internet-addicted brain tells me I should, not because I get anything out of it. I'm slowly working on reducing it, at least. > but it's the behaviour that's the actual problem Sure, but what we put out there encourages certain types of behaviour and the current norms of internet use encourage an, in my opinion, unhealthy addiction to low quality content consumption.
- tremon 8y ago
  The basic ability to send messages to your friends in real-time is the problem. I don't think that is the problem. Sending messages to your friends still has a social contract, and abusing that privilege has repercussions. Sending messages anonymously to unknown people is much more of a problem (e.g. robocalling).

simonh 8y ago

>More people seem to be suffering from anxiety and depression and I personally think these companies are a major part of the cause. That trend pre-dates Google or Facebook. Before them and Snapchat and instagram, it was text messaging. The basic ability to send messages to your friends in real-time is the problem. Individual services can make it incrementally better or worse, but it's the behaviour that's the actual problem and even very trivial modern technology enables that behaviour just fine.

dkersten 8y ago
Communication isn't the problem, in my opinion. Its the empty-calorie idle content consumption. All the people (myself included) in the train or bus or streets who are idly scrolling through facebook or twitter feeds, reading some low-content articles on some clickbait subject -- the kind of stuff that I can spend hours reading, but then not be able to act on or remember any of it. What's the point of consuming content if you don't remember it a day or two later? I estimate that about 90% of what I encounter online makes no difference to my life (both in terms of usefulness and entertainment) other than to consume my time, my energy, my focus and my phones battery ;) All the while, the advertisement is telling me I'm not good enough and don't have the right things. Back in the early 2000's, I did spend a lot of time with text messaging and I did spend a lot of time on messenger applications/irc etc. The way I communicate with others hasn't changed that much: I use different apps or websites, sure, but ultimately its very similar. What has changed, though, is how much content I consume idly, just to pass the time, because my internet-addicted brain tells me I should, not because I get anything out of it. I'm slowly working on reducing it, at least. > but it's the behaviour that's the actual problem Sure, but what we put out there encourages certain types of behaviour and the current norms of internet use encourage an, in my opinion, unhealthy addiction to low quality content consumption.
tremon 8y ago
The basic ability to send messages to your friends in real-time is the problem. I don't think that is the problem. Sending messages to your friends still has a social contract, and abusing that privilege has repercussions. Sending messages anonymously to unknown people is much more of a problem (e.g. robocalling).