3 ms·

> I'm tired of meeting friends and family in person and listening to them spend 20mins one-way unloading all the shit they read on the internet. They're so inde

> I'm tired of meeting friends and family in person and listening to them spend 20mins one-way unloading all the shit they read on the internet. They're so indexed on things that aren't physically present in the moment it's like talking someone through a psychosis or reasoning with someone with schizophrenia. It's a mass hysteria machine. When I talk to some people, it's like I'm not even talking to people anymore, I'm talking to some node of the internet. We've basically invented language cancer, nice one guys. It's easy to imagine this being about the news (in whatever format: TV, radio, newspaper) or even ideas in general. This very forum is dedicated to talking about things that aren't physically present. Maybe I didn't understand your argument, but to me it sounds a lot like you're complaining about human nature.

lainga 6y ago
Do you spend 20 minutes expounding on HN articles to your friends and family without waiting for a response?
- sixstringtheory 6y ago
  Anyone doing that is just a bad conversationalist. I bring up stuff all the time that I read about on HN/Internet, but I do it to foster discussion and keep things interesting, not to lecture people. Conversely, I know people who will talk for 20 minutes or longer on end, despite clear signals that I'm no longer interested, to the point where they have to be firmly interrupted.
TeMPOraL 6y ago
There's a difference that's tricky to define. But when we talk about things "that aren't physically present", a good percentage of that talk can be useful to one or more of the participants; though we also do a lot of what the parent is complaining about. That said, I do know what they mean. I also hate to see people getting almost traumatized by the random crap they find on social media. Especially if it's bullshit - and it's obvious that it's bullshit, but you can't say it, because that would invalidate the other person's feelings. So yesterday, it was "did you know our government wants to XYZ?!?!!" (no, they don't, the news article was lying, as usual). Today it's maltreated pets (could you please unsubscribe from the feeds that trigger you every couple weeks like clockwork?). Tomorrow it'll be a YouTube drama (between a very niche vloggers). Perhaps it is human nature, perhaps it was also present with the old media. But what seems different is isolation. I remember that before the web became truly mainstream, people would talk a lot about bullshit they've heard on the news. But they would all talk about the same bullshit. People would ultimately take comfort in an understanding that they share the knowledge about the story. Today? Everyone has their own isolated social media feed. So you end up having people unload completely random and unexpected stuff at whoever is willing to listen to them.
pembrook 6y ago
...And ironically, OP was falling into the exact same hysteria machine that his/her friends have fallen into. OP was so eager to regurgitate the popular news narrative that Facebook is ruining the world, he failed to see that in this particular case, Facebook is being banned over online leaks of documents proving government corruption with Covid-19 funds. The government in this case isn't doing this because they want to protect people. They're doing this because they want to freely steal money without public scrutiny on social media.

lainga 6y ago

Do you spend 20 minutes expounding on HN articles to your friends and family without waiting for a response?

sixstringtheory 6y ago
Anyone doing that is just a bad conversationalist. I bring up stuff all the time that I read about on HN/Internet, but I do it to foster discussion and keep things interesting, not to lecture people. Conversely, I know people who will talk for 20 minutes or longer on end, despite clear signals that I'm no longer interested, to the point where they have to be firmly interrupted.

TeMPOraL 6y ago

There's a difference that's tricky to define. But when we talk about things "that aren't physically present", a good percentage of that talk can be useful to one or more of the participants; though we also do a lot of what the parent is complaining about. That said, I do know what they mean. I also hate to see people getting almost traumatized by the random crap they find on social media. Especially if it's bullshit - and it's obvious that it's bullshit, but you can't say it, because that would invalidate the other person's feelings. So yesterday, it was "did you know our government wants to XYZ?!?!!" (no, they don't, the news article was lying, as usual). Today it's maltreated pets (could you please unsubscribe from the feeds that trigger you every couple weeks like clockwork?). Tomorrow it'll be a YouTube drama (between a very niche vloggers). Perhaps it is human nature, perhaps it was also present with the old media. But what seems different is isolation. I remember that before the web became truly mainstream, people would talk a lot about bullshit they've heard on the news. But they would all talk about the same bullshit. People would ultimately take comfort in an understanding that they share the knowledge about the story. Today? Everyone has their own isolated social media feed. So you end up having people unload completely random and unexpected stuff at whoever is willing to listen to them.

pembrook 6y ago

...And ironically, OP was falling into the exact same hysteria machine that his/her friends have fallen into. OP was so eager to regurgitate the popular news narrative that Facebook is ruining the world, he failed to see that in this particular case, Facebook is being banned over online leaks of documents proving government corruption with Covid-19 funds. The government in this case isn't doing this because they want to protect people. They're doing this because they want to freely steal money without public scrutiny on social media.