4 ms·

this glued to devices meme is tired. look at a picture of folks on public transport from before phones. note that _everyone_ is reading a newspaper or magazine.

this glued to devices meme is tired. look at a picture of folks on public transport from before phones. note that _everyone_ is reading a newspaper or magazine. i know it seems crazy, but humans reading information is a constant in public, and the only reason you didn't see more of it in the past is that you were part of the group consuming media, while also assigning intellectual value to the fact that a periodical is 'printed on paper' as if destroying a tree to make paper legitimizes the content in some way that a digital download of the same content can't. get a better argument

AlexandrB 3y ago
Newspapers and magazines didn't microtarget their audience or have endless streams of content. This is like saying "look at all the people riding horses in old pictures, cars can't be that bad". That's not even getting into the level of corporate surveillance social media and online advertising have brought us.
- idontknowifican 3y ago
  what on earth are you talking about? newspapers have existed to control the narrative since inception. look at how they’ve been used, and listen to the lead editors talk about using their influence. it’s a slightly less targeted ad, sure, but my dad only reads conservative papers, and they don’t seem to be written with a common perspective
  - max51 3y ago
    The difference is that a new article carefully chosen to fit your preferences doesn't magically appear on your lap every time you finish reading (or rejecting if you don't like it) the previous one. You also can't swift quickly through hundreds of headlines to pick what interest you the most when you are dealing with physical medias. You are stuck with whatever you brought with you.
  - freejazz 3y ago
    > newspapers have existed to control the narrative since inception That's not even remotely close to what they said and is clearly just your own personal grievance with newspapers
switch007 3y ago
Were you there? I was at the tail end of it - I used to take the train regularly in the mid 90s (to the present day). I remember some people with newspaper but it definitely wasn’t everyone. And I just found about 15 pictures in a quick Google images search from the 70s and 80s that disprove your assertion.
- idontknowifican 3y ago
  yes, but my experience is speaking to caltrain in the 90s
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
n4r9 3y ago
That's like saying there's nothing wrong with giving thalidomide to pregnant women, because pregnant women have always taken herbal supplements. The obvious difference is that newspapers contain a relatively small amount of information packaged in a non-interactive, non-targeted, and less mind-absorbing format. People don't read newspapers for the dopamine hit, but for lack of something else to do.
- idontknowifican 3y ago
  that’s not true at all. the process of learning is a dopamine hit. the concept that phones made us antisocial is dumb, it’s a default. arguing to end phones avoids dealing with the problem
  - n4r9 3y ago
    > the process of learning is a dopamine hit Perhaps reading newspapers produces some dopamine, but I imagine it is tiny in comparison to the effects of smartphones, and does not provide the user with the easy option to keep scrolling for more dopamine.
- Gordonjcp 3y ago
  > That's like saying there's nothing wrong with giving thalidomide to pregnant women, because pregnant women have always taken herbal supplements. Your analogy is better than you think, because in fact there isn't anything wrong with giving pregnant women thalidomide at all! You just have to not do it within a very carefully defined range of time within pregnancy, but before and after that it's as safe as milk. Turns out, the same process that makes thalidomide horribly teratogenic also makes it an absolutely first-rate cancer drug with few side-effects even in pregnancy.
  - n4r9 3y ago
    Interesting. I've looked for sources on that and found a couple of sites saying that the sensitive period is 20-37 days after conception, but come up short of studies on anything later. This webpage seems to suggest the risks are unknown after first trimester: https://mothertobaby.org/fact-sheets/thalidomide-pregnancy/ https://mothertobaby.org/fact-sheets/thalidomide-pregnancy/ Same from this university classroom material (p.2): https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/MediaLibraries/URMCMedia/life-sciences-learning-center/documents/Thalidomide_Cancer_Treatment.pdf https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/MediaLibraries/URMCMedia/life...
reaperducer 3y ago
look at a picture of folks on public transport from before phones. note that _everyone_ is reading a newspaper or magazine. I know the image you have in your mind. I've seen it, too. What you actually mean is "I saw this one picture on social media of a bunch of people on a train all reading newspapers at the same time because war just broke out." Using that as a logical crutch for social media addiction is like the alcoholic saying "everybody does it."
- Gordonjcp 3y ago
  I grew up in the 1980s. Everyone sat and read a newspaper or a book on the bus or the train back then.
watwut 3y ago
> note that _everyone_ is reading a newspaper or magazine There is one popular picture where everyone is reading newspapers in a bus. And just like now it is not true that everyone is reading on phone on public transport. It was even less so before, because not everybody carried magazines with them all the time.
vehemenz 3y ago
Narrative content is not the same as interactive content. The quality of the content is not the same. I'm not sure what compelled you to make your point in the presence of such obvious points. This is quite a big pond, my friend. The "get a better argument" line might go over well in your social circle, but HN is a big place with many smart people. Have some humility.
warner25 3y ago
I don't think the issue with phones is that people aren't engaging with each other in public spaces. I'll stipulate that it has never been the norm to engage with strangers on public transport. But I see a number of other differences between then and now. For one, I don't think it was common for people to take a newspaper out of their pocket and look at it during social events with friends and family whenever conversation slowed down for a moment, or whenever it pinged with a notification. I observe my own wife spending far more time looking at her phone today than she ever spent reading a book before. Ten years ago, she might get lost in a book for a day or two, if it was a really good one. Now she walks around the house with her phone in-hand at all times. I had to pry myself back from that after starting to notice the same behavior in myself.
barbazoo 3y ago
> look at a picture of folks on public transport from before phones. That's a strawman, the issue is kids spending their time on devices rather than outside doing real play with real people. That sort of thing.

AlexandrB 3y ago

Newspapers and magazines didn't microtarget their audience or have endless streams of content. This is like saying "look at all the people riding horses in old pictures, cars can't be that bad". That's not even getting into the level of corporate surveillance social media and online advertising have brought us.

idontknowifican 3y ago
what on earth are you talking about? newspapers have existed to control the narrative since inception. look at how they’ve been used, and listen to the lead editors talk about using their influence. it’s a slightly less targeted ad, sure, but my dad only reads conservative papers, and they don’t seem to be written with a common perspective
- max51 3y ago
  The difference is that a new article carefully chosen to fit your preferences doesn't magically appear on your lap every time you finish reading (or rejecting if you don't like it) the previous one. You also can't swift quickly through hundreds of headlines to pick what interest you the most when you are dealing with physical medias. You are stuck with whatever you brought with you.
- freejazz 3y ago
  > newspapers have existed to control the narrative since inception That's not even remotely close to what they said and is clearly just your own personal grievance with newspapers

switch007 3y ago

Were you there? I was at the tail end of it - I used to take the train regularly in the mid 90s (to the present day). I remember some people with newspaper but it definitely wasn’t everyone. And I just found about 15 pictures in a quick Google images search from the 70s and 80s that disprove your assertion.

idontknowifican 3y ago
yes, but my experience is speaking to caltrain in the 90s
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

n4r9 3y ago

That's like saying there's nothing wrong with giving thalidomide to pregnant women, because pregnant women have always taken herbal supplements. The obvious difference is that newspapers contain a relatively small amount of information packaged in a non-interactive, non-targeted, and less mind-absorbing format. People don't read newspapers for the dopamine hit, but for lack of something else to do.

idontknowifican 3y ago
that’s not true at all. the process of learning is a dopamine hit. the concept that phones made us antisocial is dumb, it’s a default. arguing to end phones avoids dealing with the problem
- n4r9 3y ago
  > the process of learning is a dopamine hit Perhaps reading newspapers produces some dopamine, but I imagine it is tiny in comparison to the effects of smartphones, and does not provide the user with the easy option to keep scrolling for more dopamine.
Gordonjcp 3y ago
> That's like saying there's nothing wrong with giving thalidomide to pregnant women, because pregnant women have always taken herbal supplements. Your analogy is better than you think, because in fact there isn't anything wrong with giving pregnant women thalidomide at all! You just have to not do it within a very carefully defined range of time within pregnancy, but before and after that it's as safe as milk. Turns out, the same process that makes thalidomide horribly teratogenic also makes it an absolutely first-rate cancer drug with few side-effects even in pregnancy.
- n4r9 3y ago
  Interesting. I've looked for sources on that and found a couple of sites saying that the sensitive period is 20-37 days after conception, but come up short of studies on anything later. This webpage seems to suggest the risks are unknown after first trimester: https://mothertobaby.org/fact-sheets/thalidomide-pregnancy/ https://mothertobaby.org/fact-sheets/thalidomide-pregnancy/ Same from this university classroom material (p.2): https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/MediaLibraries/URMCMedia/life-sciences-learning-center/documents/Thalidomide_Cancer_Treatment.pdf https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/MediaLibraries/URMCMedia/life...

reaperducer 3y ago

look at a picture of folks on public transport from before phones. note that _everyone_ is reading a newspaper or magazine. I know the image you have in your mind. I've seen it, too. What you actually mean is "I saw this one picture on social media of a bunch of people on a train all reading newspapers at the same time because war just broke out." Using that as a logical crutch for social media addiction is like the alcoholic saying "everybody does it."

Gordonjcp 3y ago
I grew up in the 1980s. Everyone sat and read a newspaper or a book on the bus or the train back then.

watwut 3y ago

> note that _everyone_ is reading a newspaper or magazine There is one popular picture where everyone is reading newspapers in a bus. And just like now it is not true that everyone is reading on phone on public transport. It was even less so before, because not everybody carried magazines with them all the time.

vehemenz 3y ago

Narrative content is not the same as interactive content. The quality of the content is not the same. I'm not sure what compelled you to make your point in the presence of such obvious points. This is quite a big pond, my friend. The "get a better argument" line might go over well in your social circle, but HN is a big place with many smart people. Have some humility.

warner25 3y ago

I don't think the issue with phones is that people aren't engaging with each other in public spaces. I'll stipulate that it has never been the norm to engage with strangers on public transport. But I see a number of other differences between then and now. For one, I don't think it was common for people to take a newspaper out of their pocket and look at it during social events with friends and family whenever conversation slowed down for a moment, or whenever it pinged with a notification. I observe my own wife spending far more time looking at her phone today than she ever spent reading a book before. Ten years ago, she might get lost in a book for a day or two, if it was a really good one. Now she walks around the house with her phone in-hand at all times. I had to pry myself back from that after starting to notice the same behavior in myself.

barbazoo 3y ago

> look at a picture of folks on public transport from before phones. That's a strawman, the issue is kids spending their time on devices rather than outside doing real play with real people. That sort of thing.