9 ms·

Not just social media, but always online mentality. Spending all your time online gives you a skewed perception of the world and I believe being online always i

Not just social media, but always online mentality. Spending all your time online gives you a skewed perception of the world and I believe being online always is a major negative. Spending time outside is good for you. Socializing with real people in front of you is good also. Not sure if we can ever go back to that without some major catastrophe.

wait_a_minute 3y ago
> Not sure if we can ever go back to that without some major catastrophe. We easily can. With the network effect, we can just encourage everyone we know that socializing with real people in real life is important and set up some coffees, lunches, dinners, walks, board games, etc, and then encourage those people to do the same with the people they know. Won't take very many hops to reach everyone this way and get back on track.
- karaterobot 3y ago
  Okay, I traveled back in time 30 years and convinced people to recognize the danger of being online all the time. I even made sure there would be innumerable studies suggesting it, and that pretty much everyone was at least aware of the danger. So, now that I'm back in 2024, everybody should already know that being online all the time is not healthy. I haven't checked yet, did it stop them from being addicted? I'm sure it did, right?!
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  I think this is an issue of "can" in the "technically possible" vs "realistically possible". There are lots of people who have done exactly what you said, and others that never became terminally online, yet real-world re-adoption has been slow.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    Technically possible: "We all stop eating too much and obesity drops" Realistically possible: "Obesity levels keep going up"
    - wait_a_minute 3y ago
      I think what you are both missing is that everyone reading this thread can, right now, schedule coffees and lunches and dinners for a month out and text people and get the ball rolling. We should not underestimate the impact of a few people making this effort, it will compound into great and positive results. I will be doing this myself since I recommended it. I expect to have at least five coffees or dinners scheduled for the next week by the end of the day. Let’s do it! Let’s get it done! It has to start somewhere after all. <3
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        I already have a several social dinners and social activities a week, and have been doing this for years. Most of my friends at this point are people who also socialize in real life at this point. I say this not to by cynical or cop-out. Im actually pretty optimistic about that things will swing back in the opposite direction. I just dont think it will be a quick snap out of it, but a painful lesson for many people, and a lot of people will be left behind. That is to say, a quick global anti-online revolution is compatible with the laws of physics, but I dont think it is likely. The good news is that nobody has to wait for the global revolution. They can do whatever they want starting today. I find physical interactions more rewarding and healthy, so I put in the effort to have them. I suspect most people would be happier if they did the same.
- faeriechangling 3y ago
  The issue I’ve been seeing in wealthy industrialized countries, is that people are becoming poorer as they grow older, the prices of energy are rising, the prices of land are rising, so simply getting people together is less viable than even 20 odd years ago. The internet gives you an instant connection to people who have interests specific to you better than even an expensive international convention can do for essentially free. If you decide this is worth it anyways, well you’re going to end up financially behind somebody using the internet in a cheap apartment on undesirable land, and that is going to undermine you bit by bit. Those who thrive in this era of humanity I think are just going to be well adapted to an online world, or just be wealthy enough that they can afford the luxury of meeting in person. The only way in which I see this trend moving in the opposite direction is that the average amount of people living in each home is likely to rise due to land cost.
  - thfuran 3y ago
    >If you decide this is worth it anyways, well you’re going to end up financially behind somebody using the internet in a cheap apartment on undesirable land, and that is going to undermine you bit by bit. Money can't help you when you're dead, so if you don't use it to improve your life or someone else's, it doesn't help at all. How is the depressed person living in an undesirable place ahead exactly?
    - faeriechangling 3y ago
      In my thought experiment I’m trying to compare somebody who is perfectly happy in this new world spending much time behind screens, and somebody who needs more face to face interaction to be happy. I think the latter are doomed to try and keep up with the former by making personal sacrifices. I think about this because in my youth the kids who spent all day in front of a computer were treated as disabled, disordered, and aberrant who needed to be pushed to be more social to succeed. Mostly boys were treated in this way. Yet I feel it’s these socially driven people who are fucked. Mostly women.
- pixl97 3y ago
  >We easily can. With the network effect, Sometimes I wonder if people read what they actually write? What you're saying is you want everyone to disconnect and no longer be part of the network effect we're currently under.... This thinking seems to have a few flaws. 1. You have to remain within the supposed 'bad' network effect to broadcast your message. If you leave and go do your IRL things, you won't be there to broadcast your message (maybe bots doing it for you?). 2. You expect said networks to carry your message. You: "Lets all go outside", X: "Your message has been deleted due to violations of community standards". 3. You assume that being terminally online is not an addiction. That is just saying "Hey, lets go outside" has any effect on the vast majority of people that need to hear the message. Don't think of being on like smoking, it's not something you can just ban because it's part of life now. Think of it like eating, and how poorly that is going for the world at the moment with ever increasing obesity rates.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    Sticking with the tech analogy, People can and do switch networks all the time. You also don't have to wait for average user to become an early adopter.
- AlwaysRock 3y ago
  A lot of people want to spend more time with people irl but just dont know how/dont have access to like minded people irl. Part of the allure of the internet is that if I want to talk about Mass Effect tabletop roll playing, there are plenty of other people to talk about that with. If I want to have a conversation about the same thing in person... Maybe there is someone in my city who might want to talk about that? But it is so much more work to make that happen than online. I dont mind talking about sports/local stuff/mass media/small talk all that much but that is most of what I'm going to get from the folks I'm interacting with on a regular basis IRL.
- everdrive 3y ago
  This is like saying we can easily stop the obesity epidemic. The problem is pretty simple conceptually, but it's not going to be solved. The requirements for ignoring social media and practicing true impulse control lay outside of the bell curve of impulse control for much of humanity. People _could_ stop using social media, but they're not going to. Same reason why most people are fat. Yes, I know there are environmental factors, but all those do is squeeze a tighter box around the percentile of people who have the impulse control and resources to eat and exercise properly to maintain a good physique.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    However, global behavior does change, and not always for worse. It is usually just slow and people and culture adapt. The good news is that individuals don't have to wait on society. They can choose to be early adapters.
mindslight 3y ago
I've actually got to wonder if part of it is the disappearance of frontier-type online spaces in favor of corporate real-name social media. Spending "too much" time online used to be a refuge that allowed you to be a completely different person - IRC, forums, etc. I'd say that most people who grew up online 20-30 years ago view the digital world as a welcome escape. Now that outlet has been replaced by a digital version of the exact same inescapable social matrix from school. Perhaps this theory is less supported by the observed effect being greater on girls (at first glance one would think a frontier would be more important to boys). But on the other hand psuedonymity allowed everyone to have personas not tied to gender, and perhaps girls actually need the escape more.
JohnMakin 3y ago
Being always online wasn’t quite so shitty til the last 10-15 years. Many people did it and were just fine for a long time. To me this feels like blaming food poisoning on the fact you have to eat food. Maybe the food is just bad. the current state of online is the food. it just really sucks.
- croutonwagon 3y ago
  I feel like the inflection point was about here: https://imgur.com/ALMObBv https://imgur.com/ALMObBv Not that I am blaming porn. I am not. But once the screens and bandwidth became large enough, UI's easy enough to navigate etc AND the devices themselves became quite commonplace, the always online mentality became one used much less for essential communication and business and transitioned more to a cultural way of life (porn is just an easy and funny way to drive that point home). Doom scrolling wasnt really as much of a thing until Android and iOS matured enough and gained enough acceptance that it was no longer a status symbol. Heck i cant even tell you most of the social media apps these days, much less dating, but having some conversations with my younger cousins over break, there really arent many ways to meet folks outside of some of these apps (at least to them), which is sad. Apparently something as simple as "why not just join some type of IRL hobby and meet people that way" was scoffed at.
  - AlexandrB 3y ago
    Doom scrolling is an intentional social media "feature". Before infinite scrolling, algorithmic feeds doom scrolling required some effort on the users part. Now you can just keep flicking your thumb up and keep getting more shit.
  - rescbr 3y ago
    Infinite scrolling was also present in desktop. I blame the pivot from the chronological feeds to algorithmically generated feeds based on engagement (or whatever other metric).
    - rchaud 3y ago
      agreed, chronological feeds have a visible signal to users telling them how far they've scrolled. If you're seeing posts from Feb of the past year, you've been scrolling too long. Ad-based social apps (all of them) replaced that with algorithmic, so you have no real signifier of how long you've spent scrolling. Tiktok takes this one step further by stripping the date from the videos.
303uru 3y ago
So quick to blame social media, even the article just waves it's hand and makes the assumption. Why not declining social mobility? Why not climate change anxiety? Why not late stage capitalism? Nah, it's always easy to blame Tik Tok as if the chosen release isn't indicative of something much greater going on.
- nkohari 3y ago
  Constant doomscrolling on social media is what causes anxiety about those topics.
- AlexandrB 3y ago
  > Why not late stage capitalism? What is social media if not an aspect of late stage capitalism? Unlike a normal customer <-> business relationship social media companies don't give the slightest shit about your well-being or satisfaction. Indeed, you're not the customer at all.
- alienicecream 3y ago
  Yeah that's what the kids are thinking about, late-stage capitalism and declining social mobility.
  - PawgerZ 3y ago
    In comparison to other generations? Yeah, they are.
  - 303uru 3y ago
    I'd challenge you to enter a school. I volunteer and run two clubs and they very much are talking about these things.
  - irrational 3y ago
    I’m in my 50s and I’m not even thinking about those things.
  - CalRobert 3y ago
    I was very worried about climate change as a kid, and still am.
hanniabu 3y ago
> Spending all your time online gives you a skewed perception of the world I'd say it gives you an accurate depiction, exposing the shit in the world around us. Whereas people not online so much are happy because ignorance is bliss.
- brazzy 3y ago
  No, exposing the shit and concentrating on it is not accurate. Building your world view on the part of the world you can personally observe, which has some good and mostly boring normal aspects, is not ignorance. I'd argue that for most people it's in fact more accurate.
  - hanniabu 3y ago
    When you're not online you don't see how the world truly operates, it's obfuscated from you. Ignoring that is literally ignorance.
j4yav 3y ago
I feel like there must be some generation coming that feels like being highly online is weird and embarassing, having grown up and seen the way their parents and other adults behave, and use the internet more as a utility rather than a place to try to primarily live. What makes this hard I think is how addictive it is for children, so by the time they might realize how embarassing it is they have already been addicted by devices their parents gave them.
- kredd 3y ago
  Looking at my nephews, it’s highly unlikely to happen. From what they’ve told me, if you’re not online and at least aware of the “latest trends”, you become an outcast in school. Their way of trying to be less cringe and protesting is just being on “less mainstream apps”. Which yields the same results but with different colors. Not having any social media is also pretty awful as you’ll just be an outsider again. I wish there was some sort of a national effort where parents would unite and not let their children be on social media.
  - j4yav 3y ago
    Maybe it will just be a counterculture thing but I could imagine a group of people thinking it’s really lame to follow all the latest internet trends. We need a version of punk rock that hates the internet.
- granshaw 3y ago
  What makes it hard is the stigmatization of letting children roam free unsupervised, and the isolating nature of suburbs coupled with both parents being working parents. Kids can’t go anywhere and are stuck at home. None of their friends are within walking distance. What do you expect them to do?
  - pixl97 3y ago
    No, I would say this is a totally different issue actually. It doesn't matter where kids go these days because every single one of them has an internet connected cell phone at their side. When they are with their friends, they are still with the internet. Their actions are moulded by it, as well they should be. If anything you do could be captured in video and posted online forever, you're going to change your behavior to reflect that reality.
scotty79 3y ago
People don't tolerate information well. When we are young we need our small safety bubbles where we are sufficiently isolated from information so that we can fantasise that we matter. That we amount to something. Social truth that (nearly?) all of us don't is apparently too hard to bear. And I don't think we can come back from this. That we can go back to ignorance. We need to adapt, the way species always adapted. By letting weaker ones die. And that's exactly what will happen unless by sheer accident some technological miracle pops up to save us from this problem. We won't step back from profitable technologies. We never did.
barrenko 3y ago
Screens of any and all kind.

wait_a_minute 3y ago

> Not sure if we can ever go back to that without some major catastrophe. We easily can. With the network effect, we can just encourage everyone we know that socializing with real people in real life is important and set up some coffees, lunches, dinners, walks, board games, etc, and then encourage those people to do the same with the people they know. Won't take very many hops to reach everyone this way and get back on track.

karaterobot 3y ago
Okay, I traveled back in time 30 years and convinced people to recognize the danger of being online all the time. I even made sure there would be innumerable studies suggesting it, and that pretty much everyone was at least aware of the danger. So, now that I'm back in 2024, everybody should already know that being online all the time is not healthy. I haven't checked yet, did it stop them from being addicted? I'm sure it did, right?!
s1artibartfast 3y ago
I think this is an issue of "can" in the "technically possible" vs "realistically possible". There are lots of people who have done exactly what you said, and others that never became terminally online, yet real-world re-adoption has been slow.
- pixl97 3y ago
  Technically possible: "We all stop eating too much and obesity drops" Realistically possible: "Obesity levels keep going up"
  - wait_a_minute 3y ago
    I think what you are both missing is that everyone reading this thread can, right now, schedule coffees and lunches and dinners for a month out and text people and get the ball rolling. We should not underestimate the impact of a few people making this effort, it will compound into great and positive results. I will be doing this myself since I recommended it. I expect to have at least five coffees or dinners scheduled for the next week by the end of the day. Let’s do it! Let’s get it done! It has to start somewhere after all. <3
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      I already have a several social dinners and social activities a week, and have been doing this for years. Most of my friends at this point are people who also socialize in real life at this point. I say this not to by cynical or cop-out. Im actually pretty optimistic about that things will swing back in the opposite direction. I just dont think it will be a quick snap out of it, but a painful lesson for many people, and a lot of people will be left behind. That is to say, a quick global anti-online revolution is compatible with the laws of physics, but I dont think it is likely. The good news is that nobody has to wait for the global revolution. They can do whatever they want starting today. I find physical interactions more rewarding and healthy, so I put in the effort to have them. I suspect most people would be happier if they did the same.
faeriechangling 3y ago
The issue I’ve been seeing in wealthy industrialized countries, is that people are becoming poorer as they grow older, the prices of energy are rising, the prices of land are rising, so simply getting people together is less viable than even 20 odd years ago. The internet gives you an instant connection to people who have interests specific to you better than even an expensive international convention can do for essentially free. If you decide this is worth it anyways, well you’re going to end up financially behind somebody using the internet in a cheap apartment on undesirable land, and that is going to undermine you bit by bit. Those who thrive in this era of humanity I think are just going to be well adapted to an online world, or just be wealthy enough that they can afford the luxury of meeting in person. The only way in which I see this trend moving in the opposite direction is that the average amount of people living in each home is likely to rise due to land cost.
- thfuran 3y ago
  >If you decide this is worth it anyways, well you’re going to end up financially behind somebody using the internet in a cheap apartment on undesirable land, and that is going to undermine you bit by bit. Money can't help you when you're dead, so if you don't use it to improve your life or someone else's, it doesn't help at all. How is the depressed person living in an undesirable place ahead exactly?
  - faeriechangling 3y ago
    In my thought experiment I’m trying to compare somebody who is perfectly happy in this new world spending much time behind screens, and somebody who needs more face to face interaction to be happy. I think the latter are doomed to try and keep up with the former by making personal sacrifices. I think about this because in my youth the kids who spent all day in front of a computer were treated as disabled, disordered, and aberrant who needed to be pushed to be more social to succeed. Mostly boys were treated in this way. Yet I feel it’s these socially driven people who are fucked. Mostly women.
pixl97 3y ago
>We easily can. With the network effect, Sometimes I wonder if people read what they actually write? What you're saying is you want everyone to disconnect and no longer be part of the network effect we're currently under.... This thinking seems to have a few flaws. 1. You have to remain within the supposed 'bad' network effect to broadcast your message. If you leave and go do your IRL things, you won't be there to broadcast your message (maybe bots doing it for you?). 2. You expect said networks to carry your message. You: "Lets all go outside", X: "Your message has been deleted due to violations of community standards". 3. You assume that being terminally online is not an addiction. That is just saying "Hey, lets go outside" has any effect on the vast majority of people that need to hear the message. Don't think of being on like smoking, it's not something you can just ban because it's part of life now. Think of it like eating, and how poorly that is going for the world at the moment with ever increasing obesity rates.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  Sticking with the tech analogy, People can and do switch networks all the time. You also don't have to wait for average user to become an early adopter.
AlwaysRock 3y ago
A lot of people want to spend more time with people irl but just dont know how/dont have access to like minded people irl. Part of the allure of the internet is that if I want to talk about Mass Effect tabletop roll playing, there are plenty of other people to talk about that with. If I want to have a conversation about the same thing in person... Maybe there is someone in my city who might want to talk about that? But it is so much more work to make that happen than online. I dont mind talking about sports/local stuff/mass media/small talk all that much but that is most of what I'm going to get from the folks I'm interacting with on a regular basis IRL.
everdrive 3y ago
This is like saying we can easily stop the obesity epidemic. The problem is pretty simple conceptually, but it's not going to be solved. The requirements for ignoring social media and practicing true impulse control lay outside of the bell curve of impulse control for much of humanity. People _could_ stop using social media, but they're not going to. Same reason why most people are fat. Yes, I know there are environmental factors, but all those do is squeeze a tighter box around the percentile of people who have the impulse control and resources to eat and exercise properly to maintain a good physique.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  However, global behavior does change, and not always for worse. It is usually just slow and people and culture adapt. The good news is that individuals don't have to wait on society. They can choose to be early adapters.

mindslight 3y ago

I've actually got to wonder if part of it is the disappearance of frontier-type online spaces in favor of corporate real-name social media. Spending "too much" time online used to be a refuge that allowed you to be a completely different person - IRC, forums, etc. I'd say that most people who grew up online 20-30 years ago view the digital world as a welcome escape. Now that outlet has been replaced by a digital version of the exact same inescapable social matrix from school. Perhaps this theory is less supported by the observed effect being greater on girls (at first glance one would think a frontier would be more important to boys). But on the other hand psuedonymity allowed everyone to have personas not tied to gender, and perhaps girls actually need the escape more.

JohnMakin 3y ago

Being always online wasn’t quite so shitty til the last 10-15 years. Many people did it and were just fine for a long time. To me this feels like blaming food poisoning on the fact you have to eat food. Maybe the food is just bad. the current state of online is the food. it just really sucks.

croutonwagon 3y ago
I feel like the inflection point was about here: https://imgur.com/ALMObBv https://imgur.com/ALMObBv Not that I am blaming porn. I am not. But once the screens and bandwidth became large enough, UI's easy enough to navigate etc AND the devices themselves became quite commonplace, the always online mentality became one used much less for essential communication and business and transitioned more to a cultural way of life (porn is just an easy and funny way to drive that point home). Doom scrolling wasnt really as much of a thing until Android and iOS matured enough and gained enough acceptance that it was no longer a status symbol. Heck i cant even tell you most of the social media apps these days, much less dating, but having some conversations with my younger cousins over break, there really arent many ways to meet folks outside of some of these apps (at least to them), which is sad. Apparently something as simple as "why not just join some type of IRL hobby and meet people that way" was scoffed at.
- AlexandrB 3y ago
  Doom scrolling is an intentional social media "feature". Before infinite scrolling, algorithmic feeds doom scrolling required some effort on the users part. Now you can just keep flicking your thumb up and keep getting more shit.
- rescbr 3y ago
  Infinite scrolling was also present in desktop. I blame the pivot from the chronological feeds to algorithmically generated feeds based on engagement (or whatever other metric).
  - rchaud 3y ago
    agreed, chronological feeds have a visible signal to users telling them how far they've scrolled. If you're seeing posts from Feb of the past year, you've been scrolling too long. Ad-based social apps (all of them) replaced that with algorithmic, so you have no real signifier of how long you've spent scrolling. Tiktok takes this one step further by stripping the date from the videos.

303uru 3y ago

So quick to blame social media, even the article just waves it's hand and makes the assumption. Why not declining social mobility? Why not climate change anxiety? Why not late stage capitalism? Nah, it's always easy to blame Tik Tok as if the chosen release isn't indicative of something much greater going on.

nkohari 3y ago
Constant doomscrolling on social media is what causes anxiety about those topics.
AlexandrB 3y ago
> Why not late stage capitalism? What is social media if not an aspect of late stage capitalism? Unlike a normal customer <-> business relationship social media companies don't give the slightest shit about your well-being or satisfaction. Indeed, you're not the customer at all.
alienicecream 3y ago
Yeah that's what the kids are thinking about, late-stage capitalism and declining social mobility.
- PawgerZ 3y ago
  In comparison to other generations? Yeah, they are.
- 303uru 3y ago
  I'd challenge you to enter a school. I volunteer and run two clubs and they very much are talking about these things.
- irrational 3y ago
  I’m in my 50s and I’m not even thinking about those things.
- CalRobert 3y ago
  I was very worried about climate change as a kid, and still am.

hanniabu 3y ago

> Spending all your time online gives you a skewed perception of the world I'd say it gives you an accurate depiction, exposing the shit in the world around us. Whereas people not online so much are happy because ignorance is bliss.

brazzy 3y ago
No, exposing the shit and concentrating on it is not accurate. Building your world view on the part of the world you can personally observe, which has some good and mostly boring normal aspects, is not ignorance. I'd argue that for most people it's in fact more accurate.
- hanniabu 3y ago
  When you're not online you don't see how the world truly operates, it's obfuscated from you. Ignoring that is literally ignorance.

j4yav 3y ago

I feel like there must be some generation coming that feels like being highly online is weird and embarassing, having grown up and seen the way their parents and other adults behave, and use the internet more as a utility rather than a place to try to primarily live. What makes this hard I think is how addictive it is for children, so by the time they might realize how embarassing it is they have already been addicted by devices their parents gave them.

kredd 3y ago
Looking at my nephews, it’s highly unlikely to happen. From what they’ve told me, if you’re not online and at least aware of the “latest trends”, you become an outcast in school. Their way of trying to be less cringe and protesting is just being on “less mainstream apps”. Which yields the same results but with different colors. Not having any social media is also pretty awful as you’ll just be an outsider again. I wish there was some sort of a national effort where parents would unite and not let their children be on social media.
- j4yav 3y ago
  Maybe it will just be a counterculture thing but I could imagine a group of people thinking it’s really lame to follow all the latest internet trends. We need a version of punk rock that hates the internet.
granshaw 3y ago
What makes it hard is the stigmatization of letting children roam free unsupervised, and the isolating nature of suburbs coupled with both parents being working parents. Kids can’t go anywhere and are stuck at home. None of their friends are within walking distance. What do you expect them to do?
- pixl97 3y ago
  No, I would say this is a totally different issue actually. It doesn't matter where kids go these days because every single one of them has an internet connected cell phone at their side. When they are with their friends, they are still with the internet. Their actions are moulded by it, as well they should be. If anything you do could be captured in video and posted online forever, you're going to change your behavior to reflect that reality.

scotty79 3y ago

People don't tolerate information well. When we are young we need our small safety bubbles where we are sufficiently isolated from information so that we can fantasise that we matter. That we amount to something. Social truth that (nearly?) all of us don't is apparently too hard to bear. And I don't think we can come back from this. That we can go back to ignorance. We need to adapt, the way species always adapted. By letting weaker ones die. And that's exactly what will happen unless by sheer accident some technological miracle pops up to save us from this problem. We won't step back from profitable technologies. We never did.

barrenko 3y ago

Screens of any and all kind.