7 ms·

Do you feel compelled to go to the library or to the chess club as you are talking to a friend? I am sure the vast majority of people don’t, while so many peop

Do you feel compelled to go to the library or to the chess club as you are talking to a friend? I am sure the vast majority of people don’t, while so many people feel completed to check something on the Internet. Do you feel uncomfortable if you know in advance you won’t be able to use the library or the chess club for a whole day?

traceroute66 5y ago
> Do you feel compelled to go to the library As someone who is not Gen-Z and remembers what life was before the internet, I can sure say that the internet beats any library I've ever spent time in. The volume, diversity and ease of research ... all at your fingertips. Why would anyone want to spend time trawling obscure library database systems only to find the library doesn't stock the right books or that someone has taken it on loan for an unknown period of time ? Or worse .... microfiche. My god how that's a hellish storage medium I will not miss !
- cpach 5y ago
  Indeed. I was kinda ”library addicted” when I was young. But one had to work much harder back then to find the really good and interesting stuff. Scanning through shelf after shelf. Finding a librarian to aid me if I wanted to look at a title in the closed archive in the basement. And I couldn’t stay in the library till 11 pm since it would close at 7pm or so. When I was about to head home I couldn’t carry 60 books in my backpack. So it was much less accessible than what the Internet is. The library was good! But it was different both in quality and quantity compared to the Internet.
- paublyrne 5y ago
  > Why would anyone want to spend time trawling obscure library database systems only to find the library doesn't stock the right books or that someone has taken it on loan for an unknown period of time ? You're setting up a bit of strawman, I don't see anyone arguing the internet is inferior to the library, but that library usage (for example) doesn't trigger the dopamine release cycle in the way refreshing a frequently changing webpage does.
  - traceroute66 5y ago
    > You're setting up a bit of strawman, I don't see anyone arguing the internet is inferior to the library I think you're missing the point a little. Back in the day, nobody who spent 8 hours a day 5 days a week in the library would be accused of "library addiction". But suddenly, anyone who spends a long time on the internet just gets tarnished with a brush that says "internet addict" irrespective of what they do on the internet. I suspect that the majority of people don't spend their time posting conspiracy theories on Twitter. Which is just why lumping everybody into one "the internet" category is more damaging than it is useful. (Before anyone takes it too seriously, the references to long hours above were purely examples and not meant to be judged or interpreted !)
    - skohan 5y ago
      I think you're the one missing the point. If someone is spending all their time online reading scholarly articles or learning skills nobody is going to accuse them of internet addiction. That does not mean internet addiction is not real. To make an analogy, lots of people are able to enjoy drinking alcohol without issue, but that doesn't disprove the existence of alcoholism.
    - paublyrne 5y ago
      I believe that there are many in between the two extremes you mention for whom the draw of connection is far from benign, which is why I would not be so dismissive of addiction concerns.
nindalf 5y ago
Thanks for bringing up friends. I find I’m compelled to talk to my friends regularly, on a daily basis. If I don’t get enough interaction with them, I get depressed. I start suffering withdrawal from lack of contact with friends. Also, like a true addict I can’t account for how much time I’ve spent with my friends in the last month. I can’t estimate how much I’ve lost career wise because I chose to prioritise this addiction instead. You’re going to say “no no, friends are different.” That it’s actually healthy compared to let’s say, grinding WoW with friends from your guild. But it’s no different really. Why is it unhealthy if I spend hours playing WoW with friends but it’s healthy if I play football instead? The dominant narrative on HN is that of course internet is an addiction. And that it’s pushed by evil companies that seek to profit off of it. Here’s a different perspective - the idea that it’s an addiction and that you’re powerless to solve it on your own is pushed by people who want you to turn to them to solve it. And pay for that privilege. In reality it’s not an addiction like heroin. You can beat it on your own without rehab or buying their 30 day detox program.
- bodge5000 5y ago
  This is the crux of the issue. Anything can be classified as an addiction by the metrics being used, but certain things "don't count" as they've been classified as entirely good. The next question would be why. I'd argue that it might be (though I could be wrong on this, I haven't thought through all the possibilities) because the internet is new (or at least, the latest thing), whereas books are old. New thing bad, old thing good. For example, TV is seen as bad, but nowhere near as bad as the internet, but go back a few decades, and TV addiction is the hot issue to be solved. Perhaps if you go back far enough, you will find chess addiction or books addiction to be the hot issue.
  - skohan 5y ago
    I think it's not as simple as that. Books don't have the same reward loop as the internet, so they're not "unnaturally compelling" to the same degree. To give a counter-analogy, at some point slot machines were new, and people might have lumped them in with the same category as chess: a fun game that you can play to pass the time. But eventually it was understood that slot machines have certain intrinsic properties which make them much harder to stop playing than chess for a lot of people, and we ended up regulating them because it was causing harm to society.

traceroute66 5y ago

> Do you feel compelled to go to the library As someone who is not Gen-Z and remembers what life was before the internet, I can sure say that the internet beats any library I've ever spent time in. The volume, diversity and ease of research ... all at your fingertips. Why would anyone want to spend time trawling obscure library database systems only to find the library doesn't stock the right books or that someone has taken it on loan for an unknown period of time ? Or worse .... microfiche. My god how that's a hellish storage medium I will not miss !

cpach 5y ago
Indeed. I was kinda ”library addicted” when I was young. But one had to work much harder back then to find the really good and interesting stuff. Scanning through shelf after shelf. Finding a librarian to aid me if I wanted to look at a title in the closed archive in the basement. And I couldn’t stay in the library till 11 pm since it would close at 7pm or so. When I was about to head home I couldn’t carry 60 books in my backpack. So it was much less accessible than what the Internet is. The library was good! But it was different both in quality and quantity compared to the Internet.
paublyrne 5y ago
> Why would anyone want to spend time trawling obscure library database systems only to find the library doesn't stock the right books or that someone has taken it on loan for an unknown period of time ? You're setting up a bit of strawman, I don't see anyone arguing the internet is inferior to the library, but that library usage (for example) doesn't trigger the dopamine release cycle in the way refreshing a frequently changing webpage does.
- traceroute66 5y ago
  > You're setting up a bit of strawman, I don't see anyone arguing the internet is inferior to the library I think you're missing the point a little. Back in the day, nobody who spent 8 hours a day 5 days a week in the library would be accused of "library addiction". But suddenly, anyone who spends a long time on the internet just gets tarnished with a brush that says "internet addict" irrespective of what they do on the internet. I suspect that the majority of people don't spend their time posting conspiracy theories on Twitter. Which is just why lumping everybody into one "the internet" category is more damaging than it is useful. (Before anyone takes it too seriously, the references to long hours above were purely examples and not meant to be judged or interpreted !)
  - skohan 5y ago
    I think you're the one missing the point. If someone is spending all their time online reading scholarly articles or learning skills nobody is going to accuse them of internet addiction. That does not mean internet addiction is not real. To make an analogy, lots of people are able to enjoy drinking alcohol without issue, but that doesn't disprove the existence of alcoholism.
  - paublyrne 5y ago
    I believe that there are many in between the two extremes you mention for whom the draw of connection is far from benign, which is why I would not be so dismissive of addiction concerns.

nindalf 5y ago

Thanks for bringing up friends. I find I’m compelled to talk to my friends regularly, on a daily basis. If I don’t get enough interaction with them, I get depressed. I start suffering withdrawal from lack of contact with friends. Also, like a true addict I can’t account for how much time I’ve spent with my friends in the last month. I can’t estimate how much I’ve lost career wise because I chose to prioritise this addiction instead. You’re going to say “no no, friends are different.” That it’s actually healthy compared to let’s say, grinding WoW with friends from your guild. But it’s no different really. Why is it unhealthy if I spend hours playing WoW with friends but it’s healthy if I play football instead? The dominant narrative on HN is that of course internet is an addiction. And that it’s pushed by evil companies that seek to profit off of it. Here’s a different perspective - the idea that it’s an addiction and that you’re powerless to solve it on your own is pushed by people who want you to turn to them to solve it. And pay for that privilege. In reality it’s not an addiction like heroin. You can beat it on your own without rehab or buying their 30 day detox program.

bodge5000 5y ago
This is the crux of the issue. Anything can be classified as an addiction by the metrics being used, but certain things "don't count" as they've been classified as entirely good. The next question would be why. I'd argue that it might be (though I could be wrong on this, I haven't thought through all the possibilities) because the internet is new (or at least, the latest thing), whereas books are old. New thing bad, old thing good. For example, TV is seen as bad, but nowhere near as bad as the internet, but go back a few decades, and TV addiction is the hot issue to be solved. Perhaps if you go back far enough, you will find chess addiction or books addiction to be the hot issue.
- skohan 5y ago
  I think it's not as simple as that. Books don't have the same reward loop as the internet, so they're not "unnaturally compelling" to the same degree. To give a counter-analogy, at some point slot machines were new, and people might have lumped them in with the same category as chess: a fun game that you can play to pass the time. But eventually it was understood that slot machines have certain intrinsic properties which make them much harder to stop playing than chess for a lot of people, and we ended up regulating them because it was causing harm to society.