4 ms·

Complaints of this type go back over a century. Before smartphones, people complained that nobody was socializing because they were all busy reading newspapers.

Complaints of this type go back over a century. Before smartphones, people complained that nobody was socializing because they were all busy reading newspapers. I think it's safe to call this argument tired at this point.

falcolas 4y ago
And Television. And radio. And books. And the ability to read in general. These same historical ills attributed to all of these activities are being recycled against today's social media, even here on HN.
- jimbokun 4y ago
  It was true for all of those things. It is an ever accelerating trend away from in person socialization and towards solitary entertainment and electronically mediated, soloed interactions.
  - falcolas 4y ago
    Ooooor you may consider that in-person socialization as a form of entertainment or a way to pass time is drastically overrated - typically by people who want in-person socialization. People who want/need the affirmation that comes with being in a small group of people who share their views. Not everybody does. Not everyone finds socializing with the same clique of 5-10 people day after day after day to be a valuable experience. Especially when you're not the "star" of the social cliques you find yourself in.
tryptophan 4y ago
But...measures of socialization are at an all time low? It may not be due to smartphones, but it is a real phenomenon.
StrictDabbler 4y ago
I don't think you've really processed The Murderer. Bradbury was predicting that we'd have smaller slices of attention available, that we would choose to hyper-stimulate ourselves 24/7 and not choose to protect our time for quiet contemplation. That every moment would be filled with either important work messages or advertisements. Bradbury doesn't even predict a way that this causes secondary harm. He just says "hey, this is how the future will look and some people won't be wild about it." He nails it. That's exactly what our world looks like now. His protagonist isn't a fan, probably Bradbury isn't a fan, but the explicit message is that most people will be in favor. If they weren't then we wouldn't have this kind of world. So, ok, we can all decide what we think about that. The protagonist decides to destroy his company's equipment. The psychiatrist moves back to a life of notifications and buzzing. Life goes on and society continues to work. The story is morally neutral. It isn't a complaint; that's the beauty of it. Bradbury is one of the few authors who often tried to achieve that kind of neutrality.
- Karrot_Kream 4y ago
  > The story is morally neutral. It isn't a complaint; that's the beauty of it. Bradbury is one of the few authors who often tried to achieve that kind of neutrality. Bradbury's writing is many things, but morally neutral it is not. Throughout almost all of his books is a morality that looks very skeptically at change, and a tendency to predict any trend into slippery slope. His prose and storytelling is fantastic and as a counterbalance to more optimistic authors of the time like Heinlein his works are great, but Bradbury writes from a very distinct viewpoint. A much more neutral older SF author, IMO, is Le Guin. She does a great job of bringing up complex ideas and not picking sides.

falcolas 4y ago

And Television. And radio. And books. And the ability to read in general. These same historical ills attributed to all of these activities are being recycled against today's social media, even here on HN.

jimbokun 4y ago
It was true for all of those things. It is an ever accelerating trend away from in person socialization and towards solitary entertainment and electronically mediated, soloed interactions.
- falcolas 4y ago
  Ooooor you may consider that in-person socialization as a form of entertainment or a way to pass time is drastically overrated - typically by people who want in-person socialization. People who want/need the affirmation that comes with being in a small group of people who share their views. Not everybody does. Not everyone finds socializing with the same clique of 5-10 people day after day after day to be a valuable experience. Especially when you're not the "star" of the social cliques you find yourself in.

tryptophan 4y ago

But...measures of socialization are at an all time low? It may not be due to smartphones, but it is a real phenomenon.

StrictDabbler 4y ago

I don't think you've really processed The Murderer. Bradbury was predicting that we'd have smaller slices of attention available, that we would choose to hyper-stimulate ourselves 24/7 and not choose to protect our time for quiet contemplation. That every moment would be filled with either important work messages or advertisements. Bradbury doesn't even predict a way that this causes secondary harm. He just says "hey, this is how the future will look and some people won't be wild about it." He nails it. That's exactly what our world looks like now. His protagonist isn't a fan, probably Bradbury isn't a fan, but the explicit message is that most people will be in favor. If they weren't then we wouldn't have this kind of world. So, ok, we can all decide what we think about that. The protagonist decides to destroy his company's equipment. The psychiatrist moves back to a life of notifications and buzzing. Life goes on and society continues to work. The story is morally neutral. It isn't a complaint; that's the beauty of it. Bradbury is one of the few authors who often tried to achieve that kind of neutrality.

Karrot_Kream 4y ago
> The story is morally neutral. It isn't a complaint; that's the beauty of it. Bradbury is one of the few authors who often tried to achieve that kind of neutrality. Bradbury's writing is many things, but morally neutral it is not. Throughout almost all of his books is a morality that looks very skeptically at change, and a tendency to predict any trend into slippery slope. His prose and storytelling is fantastic and as a counterbalance to more optimistic authors of the time like Heinlein his works are great, but Bradbury writes from a very distinct viewpoint. A much more neutral older SF author, IMO, is Le Guin. She does a great job of bringing up complex ideas and not picking sides.