I would consider this from the opposite stance: why are we looking? The article is a rant against a pathology and I agree with it, I do believe there’s a posit

I would consider this from the opposite stance: why are we looking? The article is a rant against a pathology and I agree with it, I do believe there’s a positive aspect too. Perhaps we just see the annoying consequences when we’re in the real world. When I see a bunch of kids at a table in a restaurant yes, they have their phones out, but the way it looks to me is their convo diffusely and casually involves more than the five or six people at the table (“hey look Joe has a broken arm!” “It’s Judy’s birthday during the week so we had the restaurant bring her a special dessert and she’s embarrassed” “Hey Joe, Alice broke the same arm, look!”). More messaging than posting, and part of the dinner, not supplanting it. Mostly the kids are talking with each other. I think that’s great. (Note, in my case kids 16-25). I get the feeling that these interactions don’t increase Dunbar’s number but make the links slightly deeper. The influencers and social media posting are, IMHO, froth that will subside. Personally I don’t do a lot of social media and would do almost none if my partner weren’t annoyed that I wasn’t up to date with what is happening with some friends. I do post a bit on FB (guess my age!) but only when something non routine happens. But I do value FB because it helps me catch up / stay up to date with what my friends and their kids are doing, all around the world. A friend lost her husband and it wasn’t an extreme event like the awful ones described in the article, just her blowing off a bit of steam (and grief) as his illness proceeded. Healthy for her and you know, good for those of us who loosely interacted along the way.