7 ms·

I have been teetering on the edge of full blown luddism ever since the first iPhone came out. Then social media took over . I have never used social media, and

by dawg- 7y ago

I have been teetering on the edge of full blown luddism ever since the first iPhone came out. Then social media took over . I have never used social media, and only just recently used a smartphone. Even though I hate the form it has taken on in this particular decade, I'm still open to the possibility that smartphones and social media could one day be ethical and healthy ways to communicate with other people. That being said, the colonization of the human body is a step too far for me. I will use a smartphone, I might even use Facebook/Instagram/Snapchat one day if they ever embraced more human-centered ethical design. But I will never, ever, ever allow a company to intervene between my physical senses and the physical world. That's the line I personally choose to draw, hopefully many others will draw it with me.

badger_bravo 7y ago
> But I will never, ever, ever allow a company to intervene between my physical senses and the physical world So no headphones in general? what about vision-correcting glasses? I'm very confused by this line you're drawing.
- king_panic 7y ago
  Nitpicking. The argument is clear.
- dawg- 7y ago
  Headphones are dumb, single-purpose objects. The long term vision of airpods are that they are part of users' everyday interface with the world - with someone else in the middle harvesting data. Ditto with glasses.
- frenchyatwork 7y ago
  I admire your pedantry, but there's a clear distinction between these things and what dawg- referred too. One is a product with a behaviour that is clearly understood, and not proprietary (for the most part). More importantly, it's behaviour is not under the control of anyone else. I can see why you might think this line is a little restrictive and arbitrary. Collectively we've already gotten used to running so much software that we have little to no oversight over, so this seems like such a small thing.
  - Agathos 7y ago
    Maybe one day we'll have software-controlled corrective lenses, and then they can take over-the-air updates to subtly enlarge and sharpen certain logos...
- lukifer 7y ago
  As someone who feels similarly, I'd say the difference is a tool under the control of the user, as opposed to "outsourcing" to a mix of closed-source software, opaque algorithms, and quasi-feudal corporations. Eyeglasses, headphones, "dumb" hearing aids, all a-ok. Replacing vision or audio by a mysterious cloud product are over the line. I'd argue that even smartphones and social networks distort the fabric of our perception, operating on dopamine feedback loops, sense-making, norms, and interpersonal relationships. These things are all deeply entangled anyway (if one goes full Luddite, but all one's friends have not, one is still captured heavily by tech in practice). For those of who care, we have to draw whatever bright lines we can, no matter how arbitrary; for me, it's simply about having a clear line for what is private, and what is public (including anything living on cloud/FAANG, I treat as de-facto public). I want to have an intentionality with what I send over the wire, as opposed to sharing everything with the world as path-of-least-resistance.
fortran77 7y ago
> I have never used social media You're posting on an on-line forum.
- davesque 7y ago
  Some people draw a distinction between simple comment threads and things like Facebook, Twitter, etc.
  - giarc 7y ago
    Really? People post articles/pictures/links, people comment on it and discuss, you can show your like/dislike on the article with a single click. Am I describing Facebook or HN?
    - dawg- 7y ago
      I guess HN and similar platforms could fit into the social media box, broadly. Taken extremely literally, they are mediated social environments. But I would absolutely make a distinction between sites like HN and "real deal" social media. Social media companies like Facebook and Twitter measure success by things like user engagement and time spent on the platform - and their design principles are optimized to max out those measurements. That's how they create more value for advertisers and make billions of dollars. This site is a social experiment in creating civil online discussion. Facebook and co. are a social experiment in hacking human behavior to create compulsive users who consume advertising with (measurable, trackable, hackable) enthusiasm. I don't think HN would get much buzz for an IPO. :)
      - simondw 7y ago
        What does an IPO have to do with whether a platform is social? From your analysis, it almost sounds like HN is more social than the behavior-hacking money machines. The big companies might own the most commonly used social media, but that hardly means their model is the only one.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
scarejunba 7y ago
You may be missing out. I am overall so much happier since I got more active on Instagram. This stuff keeps my friends near me and emulates the accidental bumping into each other you get on a college campus. Like someone posts about the last Incubus concert they went to and you say "That's awesome! Can't believe I missed it" and they'll be like "We're going next Wednesday! Want to come?"
- rubbingalcohol 7y ago
  I like it when my friends aren't trying to make me spend money on stupid shit every time I interact with them.
  - scarejunba 7y ago
    Ah, I think we might have different ways of spending our time.
  - untog 7y ago
    Not that I fully agree with the OP, but your reading is about as uncharitable as one could be. If you posted that you wished you were at X it's a resasonable assumption that you don't think it's "stupid shit".
    - rubbingalcohol 7y ago
      Instagram is mass hypnosis induced through infinite scrolling, a suggestive state allowing bidders to speak to our worst fears and insecurities while offering false hope for redemption through consumer spending. Instagram is a cancer on our culture and must be eliminated.
      - untog 7y ago
        Hyperbole, much? It's a photo sharing site with ads. The rest is capitalism. If you want to fix that you're going to need to go a lot broader than Instagram.
      - 7y ago

by dawg- 7y ago

badger_bravo 7y ago

> But I will never, ever, ever allow a company to intervene between my physical senses and the physical world So no headphones in general? what about vision-correcting glasses? I'm very confused by this line you're drawing.

king_panic 7y ago
Nitpicking. The argument is clear.
dawg- 7y ago
Headphones are dumb, single-purpose objects. The long term vision of airpods are that they are part of users' everyday interface with the world - with someone else in the middle harvesting data. Ditto with glasses.
frenchyatwork 7y ago
I admire your pedantry, but there's a clear distinction between these things and what dawg- referred too. One is a product with a behaviour that is clearly understood, and not proprietary (for the most part). More importantly, it's behaviour is not under the control of anyone else. I can see why you might think this line is a little restrictive and arbitrary. Collectively we've already gotten used to running so much software that we have little to no oversight over, so this seems like such a small thing.
- Agathos 7y ago
  Maybe one day we'll have software-controlled corrective lenses, and then they can take over-the-air updates to subtly enlarge and sharpen certain logos...
lukifer 7y ago
As someone who feels similarly, I'd say the difference is a tool under the control of the user, as opposed to "outsourcing" to a mix of closed-source software, opaque algorithms, and quasi-feudal corporations. Eyeglasses, headphones, "dumb" hearing aids, all a-ok. Replacing vision or audio by a mysterious cloud product are over the line. I'd argue that even smartphones and social networks distort the fabric of our perception, operating on dopamine feedback loops, sense-making, norms, and interpersonal relationships. These things are all deeply entangled anyway (if one goes full Luddite, but all one's friends have not, one is still captured heavily by tech in practice). For those of who care, we have to draw whatever bright lines we can, no matter how arbitrary; for me, it's simply about having a clear line for what is private, and what is public (including anything living on cloud/FAANG, I treat as de-facto public). I want to have an intentionality with what I send over the wire, as opposed to sharing everything with the world as path-of-least-resistance.

fortran77 7y ago

> I have never used social media You're posting on an on-line forum.

davesque 7y ago
Some people draw a distinction between simple comment threads and things like Facebook, Twitter, etc.
- giarc 7y ago
  Really? People post articles/pictures/links, people comment on it and discuss, you can show your like/dislike on the article with a single click. Am I describing Facebook or HN?
  - dawg- 7y ago
    I guess HN and similar platforms could fit into the social media box, broadly. Taken extremely literally, they are mediated social environments. But I would absolutely make a distinction between sites like HN and "real deal" social media. Social media companies like Facebook and Twitter measure success by things like user engagement and time spent on the platform - and their design principles are optimized to max out those measurements. That's how they create more value for advertisers and make billions of dollars. This site is a social experiment in creating civil online discussion. Facebook and co. are a social experiment in hacking human behavior to create compulsive users who consume advertising with (measurable, trackable, hackable) enthusiasm. I don't think HN would get much buzz for an IPO. :)
    - simondw 7y ago
      What does an IPO have to do with whether a platform is social? From your analysis, it almost sounds like HN is more social than the behavior-hacking money machines. The big companies might own the most commonly used social media, but that hardly means their model is the only one.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

scarejunba 7y ago

You may be missing out. I am overall so much happier since I got more active on Instagram. This stuff keeps my friends near me and emulates the accidental bumping into each other you get on a college campus. Like someone posts about the last Incubus concert they went to and you say "That's awesome! Can't believe I missed it" and they'll be like "We're going next Wednesday! Want to come?"

rubbingalcohol 7y ago
I like it when my friends aren't trying to make me spend money on stupid shit every time I interact with them.
- scarejunba 7y ago
  Ah, I think we might have different ways of spending our time.
- untog 7y ago
  Not that I fully agree with the OP, but your reading is about as uncharitable as one could be. If you posted that you wished you were at X it's a resasonable assumption that you don't think it's "stupid shit".
  - rubbingalcohol 7y ago
    Instagram is mass hypnosis induced through infinite scrolling, a suggestive state allowing bidders to speak to our worst fears and insecurities while offering false hope for redemption through consumer spending. Instagram is a cancer on our culture and must be eliminated.
    - untog 7y ago
      Hyperbole, much? It's a photo sharing site with ads. The rest is capitalism. If you want to fix that you're going to need to go a lot broader than Instagram.
    - 7y ago