5 ms·

> For a time, at what may have been the height of the internet’s thrall, it became popular to pretend that the digital and material worlds were continuous—that

> For a time, at what may have been the height of the internet’s thrall, it became popular to pretend that the digital and material worlds were continuous—that the “real” one had no special meaning, because cyberspace had become a part of it. That turned out to be wrong. We live in cars and on couches and, separately, we also live on phones. Apple believes it can resolve this conflict—that the digital and material worlds can be merged together—but it has only put the conflict into higher resolution. A headset is a pair of spectacles, but a headset is also a blindfold. This is a really poignant conclusion, and reflects much of the worry I have about this device category. The more tightly we've integrated the digital and physical worlds the less connected we've become as people. It's showing in our relationships, its showing in our mental health, it's showing in our politics. At this point, humane technology is technology that gets out of your way as much as possible and let you exist in the real world with real people. From my perspective, further integrating digital experiences into our real lives should not be the goal, the goal should be to achieve the benefits that digital devices bring without actually needing to interact with them.

api 3y ago
The problem is not the tech. The problem is what’s on it. Social media in particular runs on dividing us, since maximally triggering or addicting content maximizes time spent staring at the app. This isn’t a new observation. I recall reading back in the 90s about how the problem with TV is what’s on the TV. The tech is fine. The incentives for media are all perverse and destructive.
- lazide 3y ago
  That’s like saying alcohol is fine, it’s the incentives of the people selling and using it. Which isn’t wrong necessarily. But definitely is working hard.
  - gboss 3y ago
    I don’t think that’s what the GP is saying. It’s more like beverages exist but certain ones are worse for you (like alcoholic ones) than others. It’s what’s being consumed that is important not its medium. I don’t know if I agree with that just that you’re characterization is off. I think the medium is the message.
    - smaudet 3y ago
      Alcohol is a bad comparison, due to the medium/carrier problem. Its both the medium and the carrier. But to stretch the analogy, drinks are still an issue "because its the people hawking them have the wrong incentives". It could be sugary drinks, alcoholic ones, etc, they are all bad (even water). However this doesn't say much about why these drinks are all bad, which has nothing to do with incentives. Its a similar argument for TV/social media. Sure bad people exist, uninteresting argument. That ignrores the real question of why they are bad.
      - lazide 3y ago
        TV shows follow a predictable formula, because of the media. Movies too, if they want to be successful. A common saying for Movie and TV adaptations for books is 'we needed to change it to adapt it to the big screen'. Which is true. It would be really silly to directly transcribe a reading of LOTR to a movie - despite the week long running time. The media is the message, and the message is the media - if we want it to work/be effective. The marketing and type of drinks for alcohol are not the same as for sodas - for a reason. So saying some fundamental properties of the media won't impact the type of message or impact of the message seems a bit unlikely.
        smaudet 3y ago
        > So saying some fundamental properties of the media won't impact the type of message or impact of the message seems a bit unlikely. Exactly. Some properties of the medium are inherent. No amount of "bad actor" excuses change that, and possibly even affect the usage.
threeseed 3y ago
It's easy to make this judgement now when the headset has just been launched. But over the coming decades we are going to new see new types of social interaction that could enhance the world rather than break it apart. For example, being in Australia conferences in the EU and US require a 14 hour flight time and days of adjusting to a new time zone. Likewise there are people working two jobs, have children or are a carer who may want to experience the benefits of studying in person but can't. I suspect as the fidelity gets better that human need of being around other people is going to be fulfilled. Which could make a massive difference in terms of reducing loneliness and the feeling of isolation.
- sanderjd 3y ago
  > It's easy to make this judgement now when the headset has just been launched. But over the coming decades we are going to new see new types of social interaction that could enhance the world rather than break it apart. So ... in many ways my life has been this "over the coming decades" first the internet in general, then social media, then smart phones. And at each of those steps I said what you just said about this. But I dunno man! I have to say that I feel like the "this will lead to deterioration in valuable human bonds" crowd has been more thoroughly vindicated than my "we have to wait and see whether the good dominates the bad!" crowd.
  - smaudet 3y ago
    See also the fallacy "its just technology the real problem is humans and how they use it". When used as an excuse this is disingenuous - the problem is tech - without it, humans were better off in whichever way it caused harm. We're just dumb hairless monkeys without our tools, barely harmful at all. Tech can have some benefits, but it also usually has some serious issues. If it didn't, we'd never need to update our tech to be safer, or pass legislation surrounding it. These issues exist regardless if there are humans driving or not - the only solution for some hypothetically superior race of beings is to not use it, at least in that iteration/form.
- gutnor 3y ago
  The world has to evolve in a different way than it is currently happening. Which is not impossible but those headset development are not cheap so the monetisation is a very high requirement. It is a lot easier to use those headset where they naturally fit: ultra-personalised experience. Like social media v2, lot of potential to connect human, but devolving into jailing human in echo chambers: you can keep in touch with your family and friends across the world, or you can get hooked into a forever stream of news/post/video/product customised to make you engage. VR headset used for games. I can see the social aspect winning. Spacial computing, I'm scared.
candiddevmike 3y ago
Unfortunately I think most people want the "escape" of these digital worlds. To them (and others), it's easier to live inside of dream world than fix the current one.
- veunes 3y ago
  If you think about it, it's indeed easier to start from scratch and create a new digital world than to fix the current one. The current world depends on far too many people
  - jojobas 3y ago
    Yes it's easier to keep hitting a pleasure switch, especially if you have a brain of a rat.
    - goatlover 3y ago
      Rats actually prefer the real world to a boring cage with a lever.
  - nunez 3y ago
    the problem, of course, manifests when you, who is content with the real world, has the digital world forced upon you because that's where "everyone" else is "you will eat the b^H^H wear the headset"
josephg 3y ago
I don't think thats it. Its not the part where we interact with digital devices that is the problem, exactly. Maybe its the part where we stop interacting with other people as people as well. I watched a wild video[1] the other day which really gave me a new perspective on the Apple Vision Pro. Casey Neistat walks around NYC with an apple vision strapped on his head and chats with people in the street. I was arrested by it - part of the reason is how he "effortlessly" interacts with a bunch of strangers in the video. He exists in the city, even with the headset on. Despite how nobody can actually see his face. I'd find that pretty scary to do! I suspect part of the problem might be that devices give as an emotional excuse to avoid real human to human interactions. They enable us to turtle away. Talking to people online feels like the real thing, but better because its less scary. We don't have to be quite as vulnerable when we do it. And maybe thats the problem with this stuff - the more we enable "social junk food" we use it as a substitute for real, scary, intimate human interactions. The technology isn't the problem per se. The problem is how we choose to hide behind it. [1] https://youtu.be/UvkgmyfMPks https://youtu.be/UvkgmyfMPks . Definitely worth a watch.
- xeromal 3y ago
  There's an interesting set of conflicting forces where people are tempted through selfish interests to be lazy interacting with humans and prefer to stay home connected while also craving intimate human interaction. I think this laziness is encouraging us to stay home while also causing all us to feel more isolated and lonely. Like you said, "social junk food", but it's also video games, TV, etc. We've invented more ways to avoid social interaction which causes a feedback-loop of sorts. We're becoming more anti-social but also more lonely. Having nothing to do is a great driver to force people out of their holes and interacting with other humans. We've made it too easy to stay home
  - AlexandrB 3y ago
    > There's an interesting set of conflicting forces where people are tempted through selfish interests to be lazy interacting with humans and prefer to stay home connected while also craving intimate human interaction. Counterpoint: when genuine human interaction does start to happen online, there's often an incentive to monetize it. It's the monetization that turns it into junk food. Spam, clickbait, infinite algorithmic feeds - they're all symptoms of the need to make money. I wonder if a true public space will ever emerge online. See also this post that makes roughly the same point: https://catvalente.substack.com/p/stop-talking-to-each-other-and-start https://catvalente.substack.com/p/stop-talking-to-each-other...
ianpenney 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_Experiments_Lain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_Experiments_Lain Worth a re-watch in this day and age given your comments on the zeitgeist.
garrickvanburen 3y ago
> the less connected we've become as people. This ^. I'm hesitant to embrace a tech that so clearly and obviously keeps people separated. At least with a phone, you can position it so 2 people can view it simultaneously.
- dr_kiszonka 3y ago
  True. At the same time, VR could afford richer interactions with those who live far away from you. For example, about 30% of older adults in the US live alone. Of course, it would be better to visit or live with them, but that is often impossible.
  - thfuran 3y ago
    It's often inconvenient and rarely impossible.
  - garrickvanburen 3y ago
    One side of my family has a weekly Zoom call with elderly parents, scheduled for 2-3 years at this point. Every other week, someone needs to call said parents and walk them through connecting to Zoom. Again. Introduce a VR headset? Absolutely not.
    - the_third_wave 3y ago
      Call them daily and you would not have to "walk them through using Zoom". Better still use something like Telegram where calling is as easy as sending an SMS and they'll call you instead. I use a combination of Nextcloud Talk, Telegram, Jitsi Talk running on my own server and Conversations (Android XMPP app) connecting to my own XMPP server to keep in contact with my mother (85) who lives in the Netherlands while I live in Sweden. We call every day, sometimes more often. She has no problems figuring out how to use the tech since she's been doing it every day for years. I'm not going to introduce VR either but not because she would not understand the technology. It just does not add anything real over what video calling already offers. Maybe AR if and when retinal projection ever gets to be a thing, when the headset is no heavier than a normal pair of glasses, when it is not encumbered by an overly bossy company like Apple, maybe then. Not as long as you need to don a $4K pair of ski goggles which lock you out of the real world to suck you into some corporate mimicry.
DonHopkins 3y ago
How long until Robert Scoble ruins it for everyone by posting a photo of himself naked in the shower wearing nothing but an Apple Vision Pro?
Rapzid 3y ago
Another take on that is that AVP is blinding you to reality. You are seeing the reality it wants you to see.

api 3y ago

The problem is not the tech. The problem is what’s on it. Social media in particular runs on dividing us, since maximally triggering or addicting content maximizes time spent staring at the app. This isn’t a new observation. I recall reading back in the 90s about how the problem with TV is what’s on the TV. The tech is fine. The incentives for media are all perverse and destructive.

lazide 3y ago
That’s like saying alcohol is fine, it’s the incentives of the people selling and using it. Which isn’t wrong necessarily. But definitely is working hard.
- gboss 3y ago
  I don’t think that’s what the GP is saying. It’s more like beverages exist but certain ones are worse for you (like alcoholic ones) than others. It’s what’s being consumed that is important not its medium. I don’t know if I agree with that just that you’re characterization is off. I think the medium is the message.
  - smaudet 3y ago
    Alcohol is a bad comparison, due to the medium/carrier problem. Its both the medium and the carrier. But to stretch the analogy, drinks are still an issue "because its the people hawking them have the wrong incentives". It could be sugary drinks, alcoholic ones, etc, they are all bad (even water). However this doesn't say much about why these drinks are all bad, which has nothing to do with incentives. Its a similar argument for TV/social media. Sure bad people exist, uninteresting argument. That ignrores the real question of why they are bad.
    - lazide 3y ago
      TV shows follow a predictable formula, because of the media. Movies too, if they want to be successful. A common saying for Movie and TV adaptations for books is 'we needed to change it to adapt it to the big screen'. Which is true. It would be really silly to directly transcribe a reading of LOTR to a movie - despite the week long running time. The media is the message, and the message is the media - if we want it to work/be effective. The marketing and type of drinks for alcohol are not the same as for sodas - for a reason. So saying some fundamental properties of the media won't impact the type of message or impact of the message seems a bit unlikely.
      - smaudet 3y ago
        > So saying some fundamental properties of the media won't impact the type of message or impact of the message seems a bit unlikely. Exactly. Some properties of the medium are inherent. No amount of "bad actor" excuses change that, and possibly even affect the usage.

threeseed 3y ago

It's easy to make this judgement now when the headset has just been launched. But over the coming decades we are going to new see new types of social interaction that could enhance the world rather than break it apart. For example, being in Australia conferences in the EU and US require a 14 hour flight time and days of adjusting to a new time zone. Likewise there are people working two jobs, have children or are a carer who may want to experience the benefits of studying in person but can't. I suspect as the fidelity gets better that human need of being around other people is going to be fulfilled. Which could make a massive difference in terms of reducing loneliness and the feeling of isolation.

sanderjd 3y ago
> It's easy to make this judgement now when the headset has just been launched. But over the coming decades we are going to new see new types of social interaction that could enhance the world rather than break it apart. So ... in many ways my life has been this "over the coming decades" first the internet in general, then social media, then smart phones. And at each of those steps I said what you just said about this. But I dunno man! I have to say that I feel like the "this will lead to deterioration in valuable human bonds" crowd has been more thoroughly vindicated than my "we have to wait and see whether the good dominates the bad!" crowd.
- smaudet 3y ago
  See also the fallacy "its just technology the real problem is humans and how they use it". When used as an excuse this is disingenuous - the problem is tech - without it, humans were better off in whichever way it caused harm. We're just dumb hairless monkeys without our tools, barely harmful at all. Tech can have some benefits, but it also usually has some serious issues. If it didn't, we'd never need to update our tech to be safer, or pass legislation surrounding it. These issues exist regardless if there are humans driving or not - the only solution for some hypothetically superior race of beings is to not use it, at least in that iteration/form.
gutnor 3y ago
The world has to evolve in a different way than it is currently happening. Which is not impossible but those headset development are not cheap so the monetisation is a very high requirement. It is a lot easier to use those headset where they naturally fit: ultra-personalised experience. Like social media v2, lot of potential to connect human, but devolving into jailing human in echo chambers: you can keep in touch with your family and friends across the world, or you can get hooked into a forever stream of news/post/video/product customised to make you engage. VR headset used for games. I can see the social aspect winning. Spacial computing, I'm scared.

candiddevmike 3y ago

Unfortunately I think most people want the "escape" of these digital worlds. To them (and others), it's easier to live inside of dream world than fix the current one.

veunes 3y ago
If you think about it, it's indeed easier to start from scratch and create a new digital world than to fix the current one. The current world depends on far too many people
- jojobas 3y ago
  Yes it's easier to keep hitting a pleasure switch, especially if you have a brain of a rat.
  - goatlover 3y ago
    Rats actually prefer the real world to a boring cage with a lever.
- nunez 3y ago
  the problem, of course, manifests when you, who is content with the real world, has the digital world forced upon you because that's where "everyone" else is "you will eat the b^H^H wear the headset"

josephg 3y ago

I don't think thats it. Its not the part where we interact with digital devices that is the problem, exactly. Maybe its the part where we stop interacting with other people as people as well. I watched a wild video[1] the other day which really gave me a new perspective on the Apple Vision Pro. Casey Neistat walks around NYC with an apple vision strapped on his head and chats with people in the street. I was arrested by it - part of the reason is how he "effortlessly" interacts with a bunch of strangers in the video. He exists in the city, even with the headset on. Despite how nobody can actually see his face. I'd find that pretty scary to do! I suspect part of the problem might be that devices give as an emotional excuse to avoid real human to human interactions. They enable us to turtle away. Talking to people online feels like the real thing, but better because its less scary. We don't have to be quite as vulnerable when we do it. And maybe thats the problem with this stuff - the more we enable "social junk food" we use it as a substitute for real, scary, intimate human interactions. The technology isn't the problem per se. The problem is how we choose to hide behind it. [1] https://youtu.be/UvkgmyfMPks https://youtu.be/UvkgmyfMPks . Definitely worth a watch.

xeromal 3y ago
There's an interesting set of conflicting forces where people are tempted through selfish interests to be lazy interacting with humans and prefer to stay home connected while also craving intimate human interaction. I think this laziness is encouraging us to stay home while also causing all us to feel more isolated and lonely. Like you said, "social junk food", but it's also video games, TV, etc. We've invented more ways to avoid social interaction which causes a feedback-loop of sorts. We're becoming more anti-social but also more lonely. Having nothing to do is a great driver to force people out of their holes and interacting with other humans. We've made it too easy to stay home
- AlexandrB 3y ago
  > There's an interesting set of conflicting forces where people are tempted through selfish interests to be lazy interacting with humans and prefer to stay home connected while also craving intimate human interaction. Counterpoint: when genuine human interaction does start to happen online, there's often an incentive to monetize it. It's the monetization that turns it into junk food. Spam, clickbait, infinite algorithmic feeds - they're all symptoms of the need to make money. I wonder if a true public space will ever emerge online. See also this post that makes roughly the same point: https://catvalente.substack.com/p/stop-talking-to-each-other-and-start https://catvalente.substack.com/p/stop-talking-to-each-other...

ianpenney 3y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_Experiments_Lain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_Experiments_Lain Worth a re-watch in this day and age given your comments on the zeitgeist.

garrickvanburen 3y ago

> the less connected we've become as people. This ^. I'm hesitant to embrace a tech that so clearly and obviously keeps people separated. At least with a phone, you can position it so 2 people can view it simultaneously.

dr_kiszonka 3y ago
True. At the same time, VR could afford richer interactions with those who live far away from you. For example, about 30% of older adults in the US live alone. Of course, it would be better to visit or live with them, but that is often impossible.
- thfuran 3y ago
  It's often inconvenient and rarely impossible.
- garrickvanburen 3y ago
  One side of my family has a weekly Zoom call with elderly parents, scheduled for 2-3 years at this point. Every other week, someone needs to call said parents and walk them through connecting to Zoom. Again. Introduce a VR headset? Absolutely not.
  - the_third_wave 3y ago
    Call them daily and you would not have to "walk them through using Zoom". Better still use something like Telegram where calling is as easy as sending an SMS and they'll call you instead. I use a combination of Nextcloud Talk, Telegram, Jitsi Talk running on my own server and Conversations (Android XMPP app) connecting to my own XMPP server to keep in contact with my mother (85) who lives in the Netherlands while I live in Sweden. We call every day, sometimes more often. She has no problems figuring out how to use the tech since she's been doing it every day for years. I'm not going to introduce VR either but not because she would not understand the technology. It just does not add anything real over what video calling already offers. Maybe AR if and when retinal projection ever gets to be a thing, when the headset is no heavier than a normal pair of glasses, when it is not encumbered by an overly bossy company like Apple, maybe then. Not as long as you need to don a $4K pair of ski goggles which lock you out of the real world to suck you into some corporate mimicry.

DonHopkins 3y ago

How long until Robert Scoble ruins it for everyone by posting a photo of himself naked in the shower wearing nothing but an Apple Vision Pro?

Rapzid 3y ago

Another take on that is that AVP is blinding you to reality. You are seeing the reality it wants you to see.