4 ms·

> https://studio.ribbonfarm.com/p/against-waldenponding https://studio.ribbonfarm.com/p/against-waldenponding > Premise: FOMO is good. Being plugged in is good

by 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.

by piaste 5y ago

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.