3 ms·

No, absolutely not. Young people are more connected than they have ever been before, just now they are connected in some of the most unhealthy and detrimental m

No, absolutely not. Young people are more connected than they have ever been before, just now they are connected in some of the most unhealthy and detrimental manners possible. Instead of connecting with friends in real life, they form communities on social media, in discord channels, in video games, etc. The consequences are just barely starting to show themselves. As for the why, I think they are many reasons. The Internet is obviously an attractive and addictive place, but cities have gotten so much worse as well. Where I live the playgrounds I used to go to as a child are now full of drug dealers...

raziel2p 2y ago
The article clearly states that the connections you mention don't make up a community: > Many praise the myriad benefits that smartphones and social media are said to bring; online connection can give a person a sense of “community,” we are told. We can find new friends, discover just about any idea imaginable, network, and even date through our phones. We can video chat with hundreds of people simultaneously from far-flung locations. We can pursue learning largely untethered from any physical space. Based on all of this, it would be easy to assume that place doesn’t matter. > I disagree. Physical place actually matters far more than we realize, especially as our lives become ever more placeless.
- constantcrying 2y ago
  The article indeed makes that argument. But from a functional perspective it just isn't true, virtual communities have replaced physical ones. I also think it sells short the attractiveness of these digital communities. A digital community can be something where you spend many hours a day, with the same people, where the connections are just as important as your connections in real life. It isn't just dating apps, Facebook and YouTube. Of course what the article wants to say that they are different, which is obviously true and I do absolutely agree that digital communities can be very detrimental and aren't a replacement with the necessary benefits.
  - carapace 2y ago
    > the attractiveness of these digital communities > where the connections are just as important as your connections in real life That's the problem statement: these degenerate images of real communities are attractive and they become important despite being incomplete and ultimately crippling. It's exactly analogous to junk food which is attractive and which becomes "important" to the people addicted to it even as it slowly destroys their health.
    - OkayPhysicist 2y ago
      I strongly disagree that online spaces can't be fulfilling. A private, invite-only discord server with a couple layers of core-member regulars, friends-of-friends, and miscellaneous passerby is a compelling substitute for joining something like the Oddfellows or Masons. In the server I hang out in, 2 people have met their spouses, a handful formed romantic relationships, and most everyone has made at least a few lasting friendships. If that's "degenerate", what's your definition of a meaningful social space?
      - carapace 2y ago
        It sounds like you and your friends run a very nice online neighborhood, that's terrific and I don't mean to detract from that. I'm pointing out the enormous difference in bandwidth between online and in-person interaction. It's difficult even to estimate the orders of magnitude! Online interaction can be a healthy adjunct to a healthy social life. It's when online interaction replaces in-person interaction that we evidently get a mental health crisis. > what's your definition of a meaningful social space? Thanks for asking. I would start with Christopher Alexander's "Pattern Language" et. al.[1] and add in applied ecology (i.e. Permaculture, Greenway[2]) The idea being if the neighborhood is comfortable and full of life the meaningful social relations should hopefully follow. (And if not, at least you're comfortable and well-fed and not causing anybody any problems.) [1] https://www.livingneighborhoods.org/ht-0/bln-exp.htm https://www.livingneighborhoods.org/ht-0/bln-exp.htm [2] https://newalchemists.net/2020/09/07/greenway/ https://newalchemists.net/2020/09/07/greenway/
- throwway120385 2y ago
  The people selling this idea of "online community" figured out that if they become the middleman for all of our personal interactions that they can charge us for each one or charge someone else for access to us. One of the reasons Instagram is so horrifying to me is that it takes something like "personal messages" and puts Instagram front and center in controlling whose message you see and at what time, and they use that to foster fake relationships with salespeople making marketing videos in their kitchens.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
hot_gril 2y ago
I remember the day in high school I saw a guy, who used to bully me and call me a nerd, playing multiplayer Minecraft on his laptop instead of talking to his buddies. Made me realize the bullies were right about one thing.
imiric 2y ago
> The Internet is obviously an attractive and addictive place, but cities have gotten so much worse as well. Where I live the playgrounds I used to go to as a child are now full of drug dealers... Oh, c'mon. The world didn't get scarier, and force us to retreat to the comforts of online interaction. If anything, most of the world is a safer place since the 1990s[1], which curiously coincides with the rise of the internet. This is a complex topic that researchers can answer better. But personally, I think that the pseudosocial interaction where we can shout our thoughts into the ether without any real risk of consequence compared to meatspace is appealing enough for many people that it covers most of their needs for social activity. It's also the ideal safe haven for the hypersensitive newer generations. I think the pendulum will swing back at some point, and we'll start rejecting online activities. But then again, we'll also continue to merge with technology, so all of this could be the tipping point, and we have to accept it as the new normal. In any case, what is certain is that Big Tech needs to be heavily regulated, just as other Big industries were before it. The psychological manipulation and social experiments need to stop, and we need to better understand the effects all this groundbreaking technology has on our wellbeing and society as a whole. It's not like the future of our civilization depends on it, or anything... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_drop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_drop
- constantcrying 2y ago
  >Oh, c'mon. The world didn't get scarier, and force us to retreat to the comforts of online interaction. If anything, most of the world is a safer place since the 1990s[1], which curiously coincides with the rise of the internet. The statistics of crime nationally or globally are totally irrelevant to my personal experience of my surroundings. Definitely places which I visited as a child I would avoid today. I would also like to point out that an increase in crime can easily lead to a statistical decrease in reported crime. If you flat out ignore the perception of safety you easily fall prey to reporting bias. I am also not saying it is the only thing, definitely the mere existence of digital places has changed in the last decades.

raziel2p 2y ago

The article clearly states that the connections you mention don't make up a community: > Many praise the myriad benefits that smartphones and social media are said to bring; online connection can give a person a sense of “community,” we are told. We can find new friends, discover just about any idea imaginable, network, and even date through our phones. We can video chat with hundreds of people simultaneously from far-flung locations. We can pursue learning largely untethered from any physical space. Based on all of this, it would be easy to assume that place doesn’t matter. > I disagree. Physical place actually matters far more than we realize, especially as our lives become ever more placeless.

constantcrying 2y ago
The article indeed makes that argument. But from a functional perspective it just isn't true, virtual communities have replaced physical ones. I also think it sells short the attractiveness of these digital communities. A digital community can be something where you spend many hours a day, with the same people, where the connections are just as important as your connections in real life. It isn't just dating apps, Facebook and YouTube. Of course what the article wants to say that they are different, which is obviously true and I do absolutely agree that digital communities can be very detrimental and aren't a replacement with the necessary benefits.
- carapace 2y ago
  > the attractiveness of these digital communities > where the connections are just as important as your connections in real life That's the problem statement: these degenerate images of real communities are attractive and they become important despite being incomplete and ultimately crippling. It's exactly analogous to junk food which is attractive and which becomes "important" to the people addicted to it even as it slowly destroys their health.
  - OkayPhysicist 2y ago
    I strongly disagree that online spaces can't be fulfilling. A private, invite-only discord server with a couple layers of core-member regulars, friends-of-friends, and miscellaneous passerby is a compelling substitute for joining something like the Oddfellows or Masons. In the server I hang out in, 2 people have met their spouses, a handful formed romantic relationships, and most everyone has made at least a few lasting friendships. If that's "degenerate", what's your definition of a meaningful social space?
    - carapace 2y ago
      It sounds like you and your friends run a very nice online neighborhood, that's terrific and I don't mean to detract from that. I'm pointing out the enormous difference in bandwidth between online and in-person interaction. It's difficult even to estimate the orders of magnitude! Online interaction can be a healthy adjunct to a healthy social life. It's when online interaction replaces in-person interaction that we evidently get a mental health crisis. > what's your definition of a meaningful social space? Thanks for asking. I would start with Christopher Alexander's "Pattern Language" et. al.[1] and add in applied ecology (i.e. Permaculture, Greenway[2]) The idea being if the neighborhood is comfortable and full of life the meaningful social relations should hopefully follow. (And if not, at least you're comfortable and well-fed and not causing anybody any problems.) [1] https://www.livingneighborhoods.org/ht-0/bln-exp.htm https://www.livingneighborhoods.org/ht-0/bln-exp.htm [2] https://newalchemists.net/2020/09/07/greenway/ https://newalchemists.net/2020/09/07/greenway/
throwway120385 2y ago
The people selling this idea of "online community" figured out that if they become the middleman for all of our personal interactions that they can charge us for each one or charge someone else for access to us. One of the reasons Instagram is so horrifying to me is that it takes something like "personal messages" and puts Instagram front and center in controlling whose message you see and at what time, and they use that to foster fake relationships with salespeople making marketing videos in their kitchens.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

hot_gril 2y ago

I remember the day in high school I saw a guy, who used to bully me and call me a nerd, playing multiplayer Minecraft on his laptop instead of talking to his buddies. Made me realize the bullies were right about one thing.

imiric 2y ago

> The Internet is obviously an attractive and addictive place, but cities have gotten so much worse as well. Where I live the playgrounds I used to go to as a child are now full of drug dealers... Oh, c'mon. The world didn't get scarier, and force us to retreat to the comforts of online interaction. If anything, most of the world is a safer place since the 1990s[1], which curiously coincides with the rise of the internet. This is a complex topic that researchers can answer better. But personally, I think that the pseudosocial interaction where we can shout our thoughts into the ether without any real risk of consequence compared to meatspace is appealing enough for many people that it covers most of their needs for social activity. It's also the ideal safe haven for the hypersensitive newer generations. I think the pendulum will swing back at some point, and we'll start rejecting online activities. But then again, we'll also continue to merge with technology, so all of this could be the tipping point, and we have to accept it as the new normal. In any case, what is certain is that Big Tech needs to be heavily regulated, just as other Big industries were before it. The psychological manipulation and social experiments need to stop, and we need to better understand the effects all this groundbreaking technology has on our wellbeing and society as a whole. It's not like the future of our civilization depends on it, or anything... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_drop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_drop

constantcrying 2y ago
>Oh, c'mon. The world didn't get scarier, and force us to retreat to the comforts of online interaction. If anything, most of the world is a safer place since the 1990s[1], which curiously coincides with the rise of the internet. The statistics of crime nationally or globally are totally irrelevant to my personal experience of my surroundings. Definitely places which I visited as a child I would avoid today. I would also like to point out that an increase in crime can easily lead to a statistical decrease in reported crime. If you flat out ignore the perception of safety you easily fall prey to reporting bias. I am also not saying it is the only thing, definitely the mere existence of digital places has changed in the last decades.