3 ms·

100% true. People will always find an addiction if they don't watch themselves. TV, social networks, gaming, it doesn't matter. They answer is to be able to co

100% true. People will always find an addiction if they don't watch themselves. TV, social networks, gaming, it doesn't matter. They answer is to be able to control yourself, and be moderate, no matter what the temptation is.

jeremyjh 4y ago
It is true but the difference also does matter; phones are always with us, they invade social situations in a way that TV and desktop internet could never do.
tomtheelder 4y ago
But isn't it possible that these things have different degrees of addictiveness and destructiveness? Drugs would be the (almost too) obvious analogy. There are many that people develop addictions or dependencies on, but it's pretty clear that there are some that are far more addictive than others, and that not all of them have the same deleterious social and physical consequences. Why wouldn't activities be the same here? It seems to me that social media might be "worse" than a lot of the others. It's perpetually available, painstakingly engineered to be as addictive as possible, and may (jury is very much out here, but there's some research to suggest this) have properties that make it damaging to the psyche above and beyond normal addiction. Just like there seem to be drugs whose abuse potential is too high to rely on self-control and moderation, maybe there are activities for which the same is true.
- low_tech_love 4y ago
  The argument that ”there is always going to be something” is a lazy one, and I agree with you. That’s why we don’t legalize heroin sale just because ”oh you need to be able to control yourself, it’s not the heroin seller’s problem”. Somethings are yes very very dangerous, and phones are maybe one. That said, the truth is that, the more obvious it becomes that phones are the problem, the stronger will be the attacks against this conclusion and the more people will deny it. There is no going back. If you agree with it, take care of yourself and your kids, and act on it to protect your loved ones. Everyone else will have to deal with it themselves. It’s too late for any kind of structural change.

jeremyjh 4y ago

It is true but the difference also does matter; phones are always with us, they invade social situations in a way that TV and desktop internet could never do.

tomtheelder 4y ago

But isn't it possible that these things have different degrees of addictiveness and destructiveness? Drugs would be the (almost too) obvious analogy. There are many that people develop addictions or dependencies on, but it's pretty clear that there are some that are far more addictive than others, and that not all of them have the same deleterious social and physical consequences. Why wouldn't activities be the same here? It seems to me that social media might be "worse" than a lot of the others. It's perpetually available, painstakingly engineered to be as addictive as possible, and may (jury is very much out here, but there's some research to suggest this) have properties that make it damaging to the psyche above and beyond normal addiction. Just like there seem to be drugs whose abuse potential is too high to rely on self-control and moderation, maybe there are activities for which the same is true.

low_tech_love 4y ago
The argument that ”there is always going to be something” is a lazy one, and I agree with you. That’s why we don’t legalize heroin sale just because ”oh you need to be able to control yourself, it’s not the heroin seller’s problem”. Somethings are yes very very dangerous, and phones are maybe one. That said, the truth is that, the more obvious it becomes that phones are the problem, the stronger will be the attacks against this conclusion and the more people will deny it. There is no going back. If you agree with it, take care of yourself and your kids, and act on it to protect your loved ones. Everyone else will have to deal with it themselves. It’s too late for any kind of structural change.