5 ms·

Smartphones and social media have begun to represent this weird post-modern phenomena of the destruction of social relationships. So few social experiences hap

by tuxxy 7y ago

Smartphones and social media have begun to represent this weird post-modern phenomena of the destruction of social relationships. So few social experiences happen through a non-cybernetic medium now. The average number of interactions a person has online now must be higher than those offline. Platforms like Facebook or Twitter don't connect us with more people, they detach us from more people and connect us to their platform.

stunt 7y ago
I don't think that's smartphones themselves. It's just social media.
- maigret 7y ago
  Social media and mobile are as tightly linked as highways and cars. Instagram, Twitter and all messengers are inherently mobile, not just in their design but at their core. Their pattern derive from mobile usage, as opposed to desktop patterns. Twitter is clearly a byproduct of phones: same length as SMS, even worked through SMS at the start (when smartphones were mostly a cool concept or weird devices). There are tons of sources linking social media and smartphones, see for example https://marketingland.com/facebook-usage-accounts-1-5-minutes-spent-mobile-171561 https://marketingland.com/facebook-usage-accounts-1-5-minute...
gambiting 7y ago
On the other hand.....surely there is some value to being able to communicate instantly with people from vastly different geographies and backgrounds? Like, I'm talking daily to two guys from about 4000km away, and I don't even know what they look like - we just help each other on a gamedev group. If I have an issue with my car I can go to a dedicated group for that model on FB and ask literally hundreds of owners a question - when my dad had an issue with his soviet-made MZ motorcycle the best he could do was just take the thing apart and hope for the best. Like, when I'm away "on my phone" I frequently actually talk to someone - there is human interaction in there.
- defterGoose 7y ago
  This point always gets made in any similar discussions. I think on it's face it makes sense; why wouldn't a freer flow of information be good? But I've come to believe that maybe this is too simplistic a view of the actual effects. History teaches us that people are strongly tribalistic. While it's true that disparate groups can sometimes come together and augment their success, it's also true that proximity often causes conflict. There's probably a strongly evolutionary mechanism behind this. So while it might feel like the free availability of information and the free availability of empathy are one and the same, they really aren't. And might it turn out that such a misconception could do real harm?
  - yuhe00 7y ago
    I agree. It's true that it is easier than ever to have instant access to just about anyone in the world, but because it's so easy, we become less interested in actually investing in people and forming lasting bonds. Why bother when we can get what we need without? What used to be genuine connections formed by necessity and shared experiences have now become quick and easy transactions. Social media and the gig economy have made interpersonal relations into fast food, and the world feels smaller and less fullfilling because of it.
- detaro 7y ago
  It'd be interesting to see usage statistics about that. During my commute, I'm often talking to friends (both from the same city and from other continents) - but I also spend some amount of time on HN and Reddit, the latter being a lot more "time-filler" and less social activity. And even the more personal social networks (like Facebook, excluding Messenger) fell strongly in the latter category last I used them.
- tuxxy 7y ago
  This is a bit different, in my opinion. If you're interacting with someone over text message or phone call, things are very different in comparison to interacting over Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram. In one case, you're directly interacting with someone. In another case, you're interacting with someone over the context of a Facebook post or a tweet or whatever. The former is an actual interaction (arguably, a simulation), the latter is quite literally a simulacrum of one (or many). Thus my point about this being a post-modern phenomena. This phenomena was aptly described by The Invisible Committee's call to insurrection in one of their manifestos titled "Now"[0]. > The necessary condition for the reign of the GAFA (Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon) is that beings, places, fragments of the world remain without any real contact. Where the GAFA claim to be “linking up the entire world,” what they’re actually doing is working toward the real isolation of everybody. By immobilizing bodies. By keeping everyone cloistered in their signifying bubble. The power play of cybernetic power is to give everyone the impression that they have access to the whole world when they are actually more and more separated, that they have more and more “friends” when they are more and more autistic. The serial crowd of public transportation was always a lonely crowd, but people didn’t transport their personal bubble along with them, as they have done since smartphones appeared. A bubble that immunizes against any contact, in addition to constituting a perfect snitch. This separation engineered by cybernetics pushes in a non-accidental way in the direction of making each fragment into a little paranoid entity, towards a drifting of the existential continents where the estrangement that already reigns between individuals in this “society” collectivizes ferociously into a thousand delirious little aggregates. In the face of all that, the thing to do, it would seem, is to leave home, take to the road, go meet up with others, work towards forming connections, whether conflictual, prudent, or joyful, between the different parts of the world. Organizing ourselves has never been anything else than loving each other. 0. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-invisible-committe-now https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-invisible-commit...

by tuxxy 7y ago

stunt 7y ago

I don't think that's smartphones themselves. It's just social media.

maigret 7y ago
Social media and mobile are as tightly linked as highways and cars. Instagram, Twitter and all messengers are inherently mobile, not just in their design but at their core. Their pattern derive from mobile usage, as opposed to desktop patterns. Twitter is clearly a byproduct of phones: same length as SMS, even worked through SMS at the start (when smartphones were mostly a cool concept or weird devices). There are tons of sources linking social media and smartphones, see for example https://marketingland.com/facebook-usage-accounts-1-5-minutes-spent-mobile-171561 https://marketingland.com/facebook-usage-accounts-1-5-minute...

gambiting 7y ago

On the other hand.....surely there is some value to being able to communicate instantly with people from vastly different geographies and backgrounds? Like, I'm talking daily to two guys from about 4000km away, and I don't even know what they look like - we just help each other on a gamedev group. If I have an issue with my car I can go to a dedicated group for that model on FB and ask literally hundreds of owners a question - when my dad had an issue with his soviet-made MZ motorcycle the best he could do was just take the thing apart and hope for the best. Like, when I'm away "on my phone" I frequently actually talk to someone - there is human interaction in there.

defterGoose 7y ago
This point always gets made in any similar discussions. I think on it's face it makes sense; why wouldn't a freer flow of information be good? But I've come to believe that maybe this is too simplistic a view of the actual effects. History teaches us that people are strongly tribalistic. While it's true that disparate groups can sometimes come together and augment their success, it's also true that proximity often causes conflict. There's probably a strongly evolutionary mechanism behind this. So while it might feel like the free availability of information and the free availability of empathy are one and the same, they really aren't. And might it turn out that such a misconception could do real harm?
- yuhe00 7y ago
  I agree. It's true that it is easier than ever to have instant access to just about anyone in the world, but because it's so easy, we become less interested in actually investing in people and forming lasting bonds. Why bother when we can get what we need without? What used to be genuine connections formed by necessity and shared experiences have now become quick and easy transactions. Social media and the gig economy have made interpersonal relations into fast food, and the world feels smaller and less fullfilling because of it.
detaro 7y ago
It'd be interesting to see usage statistics about that. During my commute, I'm often talking to friends (both from the same city and from other continents) - but I also spend some amount of time on HN and Reddit, the latter being a lot more "time-filler" and less social activity. And even the more personal social networks (like Facebook, excluding Messenger) fell strongly in the latter category last I used them.
tuxxy 7y ago
This is a bit different, in my opinion. If you're interacting with someone over text message or phone call, things are very different in comparison to interacting over Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram. In one case, you're directly interacting with someone. In another case, you're interacting with someone over the context of a Facebook post or a tweet or whatever. The former is an actual interaction (arguably, a simulation), the latter is quite literally a simulacrum of one (or many). Thus my point about this being a post-modern phenomena. This phenomena was aptly described by The Invisible Committee's call to insurrection in one of their manifestos titled "Now"[0]. > The necessary condition for the reign of the GAFA (Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon) is that beings, places, fragments of the world remain without any real contact. Where the GAFA claim to be “linking up the entire world,” what they’re actually doing is working toward the real isolation of everybody. By immobilizing bodies. By keeping everyone cloistered in their signifying bubble. The power play of cybernetic power is to give everyone the impression that they have access to the whole world when they are actually more and more separated, that they have more and more “friends” when they are more and more autistic. The serial crowd of public transportation was always a lonely crowd, but people didn’t transport their personal bubble along with them, as they have done since smartphones appeared. A bubble that immunizes against any contact, in addition to constituting a perfect snitch. This separation engineered by cybernetics pushes in a non-accidental way in the direction of making each fragment into a little paranoid entity, towards a drifting of the existential continents where the estrangement that already reigns between individuals in this “society” collectivizes ferociously into a thousand delirious little aggregates. In the face of all that, the thing to do, it would seem, is to leave home, take to the road, go meet up with others, work towards forming connections, whether conflictual, prudent, or joyful, between the different parts of the world. Organizing ourselves has never been anything else than loving each other. 0. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-invisible-committe-now https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-invisible-commit...