4 ms·

Giving up or blocking social media is much less interesting than being self-aware and looking for ways to get your social media dopamine from things that feel g

Giving up or blocking social media is much less interesting than being self-aware and looking for ways to get your social media dopamine from things that feel genuinely constructive or interesting. I found “Against Waldenponding” (https://studio.ribbonfarm.com/p/against-waldenponding https://studio.ribbonfarm.com/p/against-waldenponding) to be, if not 100% correct and credible, at least a very novel and persuasive argument that you probably owe it to yourself to be on social media more, not less, and its up to you to not be stupid about it. My personal guidelines (not rules) for Being Online have evolved to something like this: 1. Make things, and talk about the things you make. 2. Contribute ideas that, as far as you can see, would be missing from the world if you specifically didn’t offer them. 3. Spend a lot of time reading other people. 4. Throw points at people you agree with. Upvotes and twitter likes are free. Use dollars, too. 5. If you can’t think of anything to say, go make something tangible worth talking about. 6. Keep your feed weighted towards people who seem to follow these guidelines. 7. Be aware that, absent any truly original ideas, anything you would post with the motive of “being right online” is usually basic and shitty. Filter outbound material with prejudice.

piaste 5y ago
> https://studio.ribbonfarm.com/p/against-waldenponding https://studio.ribbonfarm.com/p/against-waldenponding > Premise: FOMO is good. Being plugged in is good. There is valuable info at all levels from twitter gossip to philosophy books. You should stay plugged in. You can manage anxiety and beat the House without resorting to shaming social platforms into managing attention for you. That's a terrible yielding of agency. > What the "unplug for self-care" crowd doesn't get is that you are part of a Giant Social Computer in the Cloud (GSCITC) computing the future. The level and latency at which you consume information and act on it determines your "job" in the social computer. Your shitposting and FOMO are functional. > The reason the unplugging doesn't work for most people is not that the Evil Platform Companies are trying to hack your attention and turn you into a helpless addict (though they are) but because you rationally realize you need a job in the GSCITC. I stopped reading shortly after as the article did indeed rely on the above premises, and I find those premises absurd. I work in cloud software, I live in Western Europe, a large chunk of my friends are an international/academic crowd. Nevertheless, of the happiest and/or successful and/or admirable people I've met, barely any of them use social media to an appreciable extent. They might share a cool tattoo from Instagram or belong to a Facebook group for their hobbies or post their latest hike on Relive, but that's about it. None of them, as far as I know, spends a single minute a day reading "Twitter gossip". They are most definetely not "plugged in". I cannot think of a single way in which their lives are worse as a result. If you find the article persuasive, I presume you do agree with the premise. Can you help me understand why?
- velcrovan 5y ago
  > They are most definetely not "plugged in". I cannot think of a single way in which their lives are worse as a result. It doesn’t sound from your description like these people are in any way part of the “unplugged for self-care” demographic. They sound plugged in, and they sound normal. By your own account they’re on Instagram at least enough to find and share cool things from time to time, they post online about their experiences and they connect with people online who share their interests. The “unplug for self care” people — the Waldenponders — would tell them that they are in danger of a dopamine addiction and need to give these things up. The article is against such advice. Your friends’ lives would be measurably worse if they took it. But supposing they were actually off social media completely, you could see the flaw in this reasoning by extending it just a little further. If you still know anyone, as I do, who never even touches a computer, you probably find that they are perfectly content without one. Does it follow that it would be a good move for you, too, to get all computers and Internet usage out of your life? If not, why not? Another way to put it: I know people who are extremely plugged in. I cannot think of a single way in which their lives would be better if they were not. Where does that leave us? > If you find the article persuasive, I presume you do agree with the premise. Can you help me understand why? In addition to the above, I would say this: it sounds like you might be equating “plugged in” with specifically shallow things like “Twitter gossip”. I am quite sure the author does not see it that way (I know I don’t).
  - piaste 5y ago
    Ok, the way you read the article is an idea I can agree with. I still think the author's intent is more aggressive than you think, though. He repeatedly refers to Twitter bullshit as an example of low-density content he thinks one should consume, among other things. He also refers positively to extreme behaviours such as shitposting and FOMO. The creepy "become part of the GSCITC!" encouragement doesn't seem like it would fit passively browsing Instagram, it sounds like he expects active interactions.
    - velcrovan 5y ago
      I believe he is writing to people like himself who are already shitposters and habitual trawlers at the low-density end of things. He is telling these people there is no point in forcing themselves downward off their natural level of online activity, and that in fact there are downsides to doing so. FOMO is functional in the sense that it is signaling to you that there are costs to self-isolation, and in fact you can conceive how FOMO evolves as a beneficial instinct in a social species. The question of whether less-online people should force themselves to be much more online than they typically are is not something I think the article even contemplates; at least, I hadn’t considered it before now. I’ll probably ask the author on Twitter about it. But either way, that difference is probably key in explaining our differing responses to the article.
low_tech_love 5y ago
Quitting social media is actually really interesting. My experience without facebook (I never had Twitter) for two years has been almost all positive. All you said is also reasonable but it’s a bit like saying that drug addicts should use drugs for fun. Some people need to quit, and they’ll be better that way. That doesn’t mean those who can manage should too; I envy you very much and wish all the best.
- velcrovan 5y ago
  I quit Facebook too. But I was also able to rebalance my Twitter experience to contain more signal and less noise. Github is a great form of social media. And here we both are posting comments on Hacker News. Despite us both being very happy to leave Facebook, we’re also probably both familiar with the frisson of exchanging ideas online and are unwilling to give it up. Giving that up completely is really not as interesting as learning to manage it well.
tennisflyi 5y ago
Yup. Ultimately you are responsible4 for filtering your content.

piaste 5y ago

> https://studio.ribbonfarm.com/p/against-waldenponding https://studio.ribbonfarm.com/p/against-waldenponding > Premise: FOMO is good. Being plugged in is good. There is valuable info at all levels from twitter gossip to philosophy books. You should stay plugged in. You can manage anxiety and beat the House without resorting to shaming social platforms into managing attention for you. That's a terrible yielding of agency. > What the "unplug for self-care" crowd doesn't get is that you are part of a Giant Social Computer in the Cloud (GSCITC) computing the future. The level and latency at which you consume information and act on it determines your "job" in the social computer. Your shitposting and FOMO are functional. > The reason the unplugging doesn't work for most people is not that the Evil Platform Companies are trying to hack your attention and turn you into a helpless addict (though they are) but because you rationally realize you need a job in the GSCITC. I stopped reading shortly after as the article did indeed rely on the above premises, and I find those premises absurd. I work in cloud software, I live in Western Europe, a large chunk of my friends are an international/academic crowd. Nevertheless, of the happiest and/or successful and/or admirable people I've met, barely any of them use social media to an appreciable extent. They might share a cool tattoo from Instagram or belong to a Facebook group for their hobbies or post their latest hike on Relive, but that's about it. None of them, as far as I know, spends a single minute a day reading "Twitter gossip". They are most definetely not "plugged in". I cannot think of a single way in which their lives are worse as a result. If you find the article persuasive, I presume you do agree with the premise. Can you help me understand why?

velcrovan 5y ago
> They are most definetely not "plugged in". I cannot think of a single way in which their lives are worse as a result. It doesn’t sound from your description like these people are in any way part of the “unplugged for self-care” demographic. They sound plugged in, and they sound normal. By your own account they’re on Instagram at least enough to find and share cool things from time to time, they post online about their experiences and they connect with people online who share their interests. The “unplug for self care” people — the Waldenponders — would tell them that they are in danger of a dopamine addiction and need to give these things up. The article is against such advice. Your friends’ lives would be measurably worse if they took it. But supposing they were actually off social media completely, you could see the flaw in this reasoning by extending it just a little further. If you still know anyone, as I do, who never even touches a computer, you probably find that they are perfectly content without one. Does it follow that it would be a good move for you, too, to get all computers and Internet usage out of your life? If not, why not? Another way to put it: I know people who are extremely plugged in. I cannot think of a single way in which their lives would be better if they were not. Where does that leave us? > If you find the article persuasive, I presume you do agree with the premise. Can you help me understand why? In addition to the above, I would say this: it sounds like you might be equating “plugged in” with specifically shallow things like “Twitter gossip”. I am quite sure the author does not see it that way (I know I don’t).
- piaste 5y ago
  Ok, the way you read the article is an idea I can agree with. I still think the author's intent is more aggressive than you think, though. He repeatedly refers to Twitter bullshit as an example of low-density content he thinks one should consume, among other things. He also refers positively to extreme behaviours such as shitposting and FOMO. The creepy "become part of the GSCITC!" encouragement doesn't seem like it would fit passively browsing Instagram, it sounds like he expects active interactions.
  - velcrovan 5y ago
    I believe he is writing to people like himself who are already shitposters and habitual trawlers at the low-density end of things. He is telling these people there is no point in forcing themselves downward off their natural level of online activity, and that in fact there are downsides to doing so. FOMO is functional in the sense that it is signaling to you that there are costs to self-isolation, and in fact you can conceive how FOMO evolves as a beneficial instinct in a social species. The question of whether less-online people should force themselves to be much more online than they typically are is not something I think the article even contemplates; at least, I hadn’t considered it before now. I’ll probably ask the author on Twitter about it. But either way, that difference is probably key in explaining our differing responses to the article.

low_tech_love 5y ago

Quitting social media is actually really interesting. My experience without facebook (I never had Twitter) for two years has been almost all positive. All you said is also reasonable but it’s a bit like saying that drug addicts should use drugs for fun. Some people need to quit, and they’ll be better that way. That doesn’t mean those who can manage should too; I envy you very much and wish all the best.

velcrovan 5y ago
I quit Facebook too. But I was also able to rebalance my Twitter experience to contain more signal and less noise. Github is a great form of social media. And here we both are posting comments on Hacker News. Despite us both being very happy to leave Facebook, we’re also probably both familiar with the frisson of exchanging ideas online and are unwilling to give it up. Giving that up completely is really not as interesting as learning to manage it well.

tennisflyi 5y ago

Yup. Ultimately you are responsible4 for filtering your content.