4 ms·

It's not a problem that can be solved at an individual level. Physical drugs are relatively easy to not get into because for the most part, the majority of soc

It's not a problem that can be solved at an individual level. Physical drugs are relatively easy to not get into because for the most part, the majority of society doesn't use them and their users are still mostly marginalized. If your current social group are drug addicts it's possible to find a new, healthier group. Digital drugs on the other hand are something that nearly everyone uses and thus you have to use them if you want to effectively fit in and participate in society. Not consuming these drugs just makes you an outcast especially in a ruthless environment such as school. The solution is regulation to make digital-drug-dealing illegal. Kill this whole "attention economy" with fire and make such a disgusting business model impossible to operate and the problem will self-resolve.

DaltonCoffee 5y ago
>Physical drugs >majority of society doesn't use Maybe you meant illicit drugs. Almost everyone I know of consumes some type of drug. Your idea seems similar to China's recent policy, restricting access to online games for younger people.
- Nextgrid 5y ago
  I'm not arguing about censoring anything. Just add regulation to make "engagement"-funded business models unprofitable, which will kill the underlying motivation to make social media addictive.
- DiggyJohnson 5y ago
  What are your thoughts on that Chinese law? I’m fascinated to see the effects - positive or negative. I’m torn on it, because it seems incredibly illiberal and suffocating, and I would have despised it as a teen, but it’s the only legislation of its type I’ve seen anywhere in the world. I genuinely believe it’s well intentioned.
leach 5y ago
We should just apply a 500% tax or something ridiculous to these ad companies that claim to be tech companies. They don't actually contribute anything to society, they are just vampires leeching on attention and time and selling whatever data they get. In a perfect world they wouldn't exist at all, in our flawed one they should have to pay the price for providing essentially nothing.
closeparen 5y ago
Why are you contributing content to what you consider a disgusting business model? (You do understand that Hacker News is many thousands of times more potent an attention predator than any of the Big Tech ad platforms, right?)
- Nextgrid 5y ago
  HN does not derive its profits from "growth and engagement". Unlike most social media, HN actually discourages spam and prioritizes fewer but more thoughtful posts/replies.
  - chillacy 5y ago
    To be very cynical, HN isn’t a nonprofit we all donate to either: it’s the wholly funded pet project of an organization who teaches growth and engagement (and in fact from what I hear is quite strict with its companies on expected monthly growth rate) That HN is a thoughtful garden unconcerned with the ugliness of ads and growth targets is also unsurprising to me, in the same way that a lot of open source and other charitable giving comes from companies who are already comfortably profitable.
- DiggyJohnson 5y ago
  I don’t see how this comment could add value to the discussion. Are you suggesting that we cannot discuss social media and technology addiction on those platforms?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - closeparen 5y ago
    Enthusiasm for HN while bemoaning other less addictive social platforms suggests the complaint is more about content or business model or something like that, than attention / engagement / addiction per se.
tekknik 5y ago
> Digital drugs on the other hand are something that nearly everyone uses and thus you have to use them if you want to effectively fit in and participate in society. Not consuming these drugs just makes you an outcast especially in a ruthless environment such as school. Perhaps this idea is the problem then? Having some mental requirement to fit in I would qualify as a mental illness. What did the parents, or others in their life, do to them to require confirmation from others to the point it literally defines their life?
- Nextgrid 5y ago
  > Having some mental requirement to fit in I would qualify as a mental illness. I strongly disagree - humans are social animals.
  - tekknik 5y ago
    Now that’s not entirely true either. You need some companionship to maintain mental health, but you certainly don’t need more than a few, and you certainly don’t need the admiration of even a small fraction of the people on social media. So I maintain, this persisten desire to be liked or accepted by many should be addressed as a mental illness.
    - Nextgrid 5y ago
      I didn't mean that people go to social media to be liked/accepted by many. I said that social media made huge efforts (and succeeded) at becoming humanity's primary communications tool so that you are forced to use it (and thus be exposed to its dark patterns and toxicity) even if you originally had no desire to use it for vanity purposes.
      - tekknik 5y ago
        You’re supporting this being a mental health issue still. Nobody is forcing you to use social media. There are plenty of other methods to communicate with others, and if you focus on have a few strong relationships you have absolutely no need. This is starting to read like Stockholm syndrome.

DaltonCoffee 5y ago

>Physical drugs >majority of society doesn't use Maybe you meant illicit drugs. Almost everyone I know of consumes some type of drug. Your idea seems similar to China's recent policy, restricting access to online games for younger people.

Nextgrid 5y ago
I'm not arguing about censoring anything. Just add regulation to make "engagement"-funded business models unprofitable, which will kill the underlying motivation to make social media addictive.
DiggyJohnson 5y ago
What are your thoughts on that Chinese law? I’m fascinated to see the effects - positive or negative. I’m torn on it, because it seems incredibly illiberal and suffocating, and I would have despised it as a teen, but it’s the only legislation of its type I’ve seen anywhere in the world. I genuinely believe it’s well intentioned.

leach 5y ago

We should just apply a 500% tax or something ridiculous to these ad companies that claim to be tech companies. They don't actually contribute anything to society, they are just vampires leeching on attention and time and selling whatever data they get. In a perfect world they wouldn't exist at all, in our flawed one they should have to pay the price for providing essentially nothing.

closeparen 5y ago

Why are you contributing content to what you consider a disgusting business model? (You do understand that Hacker News is many thousands of times more potent an attention predator than any of the Big Tech ad platforms, right?)

Nextgrid 5y ago
HN does not derive its profits from "growth and engagement". Unlike most social media, HN actually discourages spam and prioritizes fewer but more thoughtful posts/replies.
- chillacy 5y ago
  To be very cynical, HN isn’t a nonprofit we all donate to either: it’s the wholly funded pet project of an organization who teaches growth and engagement (and in fact from what I hear is quite strict with its companies on expected monthly growth rate) That HN is a thoughtful garden unconcerned with the ugliness of ads and growth targets is also unsurprising to me, in the same way that a lot of open source and other charitable giving comes from companies who are already comfortably profitable.
DiggyJohnson 5y ago
I don’t see how this comment could add value to the discussion. Are you suggesting that we cannot discuss social media and technology addiction on those platforms?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- closeparen 5y ago
  Enthusiasm for HN while bemoaning other less addictive social platforms suggests the complaint is more about content or business model or something like that, than attention / engagement / addiction per se.

tekknik 5y ago

> Digital drugs on the other hand are something that nearly everyone uses and thus you have to use them if you want to effectively fit in and participate in society. Not consuming these drugs just makes you an outcast especially in a ruthless environment such as school. Perhaps this idea is the problem then? Having some mental requirement to fit in I would qualify as a mental illness. What did the parents, or others in their life, do to them to require confirmation from others to the point it literally defines their life?

Nextgrid 5y ago
> Having some mental requirement to fit in I would qualify as a mental illness. I strongly disagree - humans are social animals.
- tekknik 5y ago
  Now that’s not entirely true either. You need some companionship to maintain mental health, but you certainly don’t need more than a few, and you certainly don’t need the admiration of even a small fraction of the people on social media. So I maintain, this persisten desire to be liked or accepted by many should be addressed as a mental illness.
  - Nextgrid 5y ago
    I didn't mean that people go to social media to be liked/accepted by many. I said that social media made huge efforts (and succeeded) at becoming humanity's primary communications tool so that you are forced to use it (and thus be exposed to its dark patterns and toxicity) even if you originally had no desire to use it for vanity purposes.
    - tekknik 5y ago
      You’re supporting this being a mental health issue still. Nobody is forcing you to use social media. There are plenty of other methods to communicate with others, and if you focus on have a few strong relationships you have absolutely no need. This is starting to read like Stockholm syndrome.