4 ms·

I don’t think this is a fair comparison. Phones are on people essentially 24/7 now, there are few/no times where you are not connected. For alcoholism, a fair c

by hhh 5y ago

I don’t think this is a fair comparison. Phones are on people essentially 24/7 now, there are few/no times where you are not connected. For alcoholism, a fair comparison would be a flask that buzzes to remind you it’s there and tell you there’s something you should check inside. Telling people to just ‘develop self control’ is extremely hard when on a societal scale, these services are becoming increasingly interwoven with daily life and participation in wider society. Opting out is an active choice to move against the grain, and you could suffer socially for it. This isn’t something that should weigh on one person alone.

72deluxe 5y ago
All choices have effects. If you are suffering mentally due to your activities and cutting out causes "social suffering", surely it is an active choice where you decide one is greater than the other?? And even more so in the case of your mental health - what's more important, your mental health or seeing photos of your friend's dog? What even is "suffering socially"? If I am an alcoholic and decide to quit drinking, is it the local pub's fault if I won't see my friends again? I am surely "suffering socially" as all my friends are at the pub. An individual's actions weigh on that individual alone. I don't see how you could say otherwise? If I walk out of a room of people, who else should it weigh on? I walked out of the room. If I leave the local bowling club, is it their fault I won't see them as often? I quit the bowling club, not the other way around. You are right that some things are interwoven but they are not mandatory. People survived in the 1980s without the Internet, without Facebook and without Instagram. How did they ever manage?? Or are you saying that I need to use Instagram to be able to live a normal life? If so, I don't exist because I don't have an Instagram account. And that was a deliberate decision - it weighed on me alone. If we replaced the word "Instagram" with "AOL", you can see how faddish such "necessary" tech is and how blown-out-of-proportion the issues with not having an account are. Imagine the horror of not being on AOL in the 90s... yet people survived. Or replace "Instagram" with "Bebo" or "MySpace" - is it still necessary to have such things??

by hhh 5y ago

72deluxe 5y ago

All choices have effects. If you are suffering mentally due to your activities and cutting out causes "social suffering", surely it is an active choice where you decide one is greater than the other?? And even more so in the case of your mental health - what's more important, your mental health or seeing photos of your friend's dog? What even is "suffering socially"? If I am an alcoholic and decide to quit drinking, is it the local pub's fault if I won't see my friends again? I am surely "suffering socially" as all my friends are at the pub. An individual's actions weigh on that individual alone. I don't see how you could say otherwise? If I walk out of a room of people, who else should it weigh on? I walked out of the room. If I leave the local bowling club, is it their fault I won't see them as often? I quit the bowling club, not the other way around. You are right that some things are interwoven but they are not mandatory. People survived in the 1980s without the Internet, without Facebook and without Instagram. How did they ever manage?? Or are you saying that I need to use Instagram to be able to live a normal life? If so, I don't exist because I don't have an Instagram account. And that was a deliberate decision - it weighed on me alone. If we replaced the word "Instagram" with "AOL", you can see how faddish such "necessary" tech is and how blown-out-of-proportion the issues with not having an account are. Imagine the horror of not being on AOL in the 90s... yet people survived. Or replace "Instagram" with "Bebo" or "MySpace" - is it still necessary to have such things??