4 ms·

Everything is okay in moderation, it's just that moderating yourself requires some discipline and some of the uses of the internet are actively trying to get yo

by cdirkx 5y ago

Everything is okay in moderation, it's just that moderating yourself requires some discipline and some of the uses of the internet are actively trying to get you addicted. One "solution" is thus to just never interact with certain stuff, although I agree you then miss out on some of the good parts of the internet.

chasd00 5y ago
to me, general internet browsing without an intent is like eating a bag of doritos. It's fine from time to time but don't down a "family size" bag all in one sitting, it's just not good for you.
samhw 5y ago
> some of the uses of the internet are actively trying to get you addicted No offence intended, but I find this trope really exhausting. Web products - like any other product in the world - are designed to be enjoyable, and a side effect of that is that you will want to use them more. That's not what addiction is. I don't wake up in cold sweats needing to scroll through Instagram. My tolerance doesn't increase, I don't experience withdrawal, I wouldn't suffer if you removed it from me. It's a horrendous mutilation of the meaning of the word, using it to mean 'an enjoyable habit'. I've been addicted to heroin, and I could talk at you for days about the difference. This, along with other popular tropes like the 'corporations are responsible for 95% of carbon emissions' one, seem to be designed to excuse the individual from straightforward behavioural issues, like not being able to control their procrastination. I'm not complaining because I feel corporations are attacked, but because this isn't a healthy way to face (or rather not face) your problems.
- Apocryphon 5y ago
  > 'corporations are responsible for 95% of carbon emissions' Well, is that factoid wrong though? Sometimes personal responsibility is just a smokescreen pushed by bigger fish to guilt the smaller ones, red herrings. Same situation as the California water shortage where personal use is massively dwarfed by agricultural use of water.
  - samhw 5y ago
    Well, the obvious question is "why do you think those corporations exist, and for what reason are they emitting that carbon?"
    - Apocryphon 5y ago
      Well? Do you have any links, or why even bring up a popular notion only to debunk it offhandedly?
      - samhw 5y ago
        Any links for what?
        Apocryphon 5y ago
        The wrongheadedness of 'corporations are responsible for 95% of carbon emissions'
        samhw 5y ago
        I'm not making a recondite point here. I think maybe you're thinking I'm saying something more complex than I am. My point is that companies exist because they provide goods and services which people want to buy. The S&P 100 aren’t sitting around a carbon campfire, passing a massive carbon joint, while they chat about how much they enjoy destroying the environment.
        Apocryphon 5y ago
        Your entire point is that the narrative that industrial-scale carbon producers are chiefly responsible for carbon production is itself faulty, because it obviates personal responsibility. Because those businesses are doing it behest of consumers. Is that right? It seems like a false dichotomy, because one can affirm personal responsibility and place the blame on the main culprits of an activity. And to claim that businesses are forced into do that because of consumers- well when do individual consumers get a chance to express their feelings at how carbon is produced by the businesses they patronize? How transparent is the production process to consumers? There is information asymmetry at play. Reducing such a complex issue into a simple moral judgment about personal responsibility (or the dodging thereof) would seem to be an oversimplification.

by cdirkx 5y ago

chasd00 5y ago

to me, general internet browsing without an intent is like eating a bag of doritos. It's fine from time to time but don't down a "family size" bag all in one sitting, it's just not good for you.

samhw 5y ago

> some of the uses of the internet are actively trying to get you addicted No offence intended, but I find this trope really exhausting. Web products - like any other product in the world - are designed to be enjoyable, and a side effect of that is that you will want to use them more. That's not what addiction is. I don't wake up in cold sweats needing to scroll through Instagram. My tolerance doesn't increase, I don't experience withdrawal, I wouldn't suffer if you removed it from me. It's a horrendous mutilation of the meaning of the word, using it to mean 'an enjoyable habit'. I've been addicted to heroin, and I could talk at you for days about the difference. This, along with other popular tropes like the 'corporations are responsible for 95% of carbon emissions' one, seem to be designed to excuse the individual from straightforward behavioural issues, like not being able to control their procrastination. I'm not complaining because I feel corporations are attacked, but because this isn't a healthy way to face (or rather not face) your problems.

Apocryphon 5y ago
> 'corporations are responsible for 95% of carbon emissions' Well, is that factoid wrong though? Sometimes personal responsibility is just a smokescreen pushed by bigger fish to guilt the smaller ones, red herrings. Same situation as the California water shortage where personal use is massively dwarfed by agricultural use of water.
- samhw 5y ago
  Well, the obvious question is "why do you think those corporations exist, and for what reason are they emitting that carbon?"
  - Apocryphon 5y ago
    Well? Do you have any links, or why even bring up a popular notion only to debunk it offhandedly?
    - samhw 5y ago
      Any links for what?
      - Apocryphon 5y ago
        The wrongheadedness of 'corporations are responsible for 95% of carbon emissions'
        samhw 5y ago
        I'm not making a recondite point here. I think maybe you're thinking I'm saying something more complex than I am. My point is that companies exist because they provide goods and services which people want to buy. The S&P 100 aren’t sitting around a carbon campfire, passing a massive carbon joint, while they chat about how much they enjoy destroying the environment.
        Apocryphon 5y ago
        Your entire point is that the narrative that industrial-scale carbon producers are chiefly responsible for carbon production is itself faulty, because it obviates personal responsibility. Because those businesses are doing it behest of consumers. Is that right? It seems like a false dichotomy, because one can affirm personal responsibility and place the blame on the main culprits of an activity. And to claim that businesses are forced into do that because of consumers- well when do individual consumers get a chance to express their feelings at how carbon is produced by the businesses they patronize? How transparent is the production process to consumers? There is information asymmetry at play. Reducing such a complex issue into a simple moral judgment about personal responsibility (or the dodging thereof) would seem to be an oversimplification.