The concern about the impact of internet and social media (and consequently smartphones) on children’s safety is well-founded. Increased anxiety and depression, reduced attention span, sleep disruption...
I don't remember feeling depressed about my Internet usage before social networks existed. Just making a point to try and separate those two, as impossible as it seems these days.
A common issue that studies like this often bring up, including this article, is the change from in-person teenage social life to an online teenage social life, done on social media platforms. In-person social life has limitations in both scope and size, and includes (among others) physical cues. The online equivalent version lacks both limits on size, but also has those unwanted aspects you bring up.
I do not see direct person-to-person messaging to be a perfect equivalent version of a in-person talk. Even adult people in professional settings can be quite bad in an email conversation, and much more so than they would have been in-person. It also seems that people who start earlier in life with online text communication seem to not really become better (compared to others) at clear online text communication later in life.
This would include Hacker News, Discord, online forums, any video game...
Wrong. Neither HN nor traditional online forums push content selected to keep you "engaged". Not sure if Discord has started peddling "content" yet. If it does now I haven't noticed on my install yet.
As for video games, are you of the kind that believes all video games are competitive multiplayer? You're right about the free to play IAP fests on both desktop and mobile, wrong about, for example, single player games.
The entire purpose of karma here and on forums like Reddit is to keep you "engaged" by pushing the most popular content to the top of the thread. And many people make HN a part of their marketing and SEO strategy, so the incentive for a lot of what gets posted here is just to get eyeballs and clicks, or increase clout for the authors and visibility to YC. And of course YC uses this forum to advertise their own startups, so they have an incentive to maximize engagement.
I see it more as a currency which can be used in exchange for spreading unpopular/controversial/inflammatory opinions.
So do I, but strictly speaking that's not what it's meant for. It's supposed to be operant conditioning - you want to do whatever makes the number go up, and avoid what makes it go down. What makes it go up? Obeying the rules, aligning with the local culture and posting stories and making comments other people want to read and upvote. What makes it go down? Repetition, humor, heterodoxy and controversy. It's the same kind of endorphine based Skinner box that every other forum and social media platform uses, just not as complex.
It is not as personalised as Facebook, Tiktok or Instagram.
Problem is when a machine learning algorithm is designed to find content that has highest odds of keeping you engaged forever and diminishing your dopamine reserves as it is doing so.
Hackernews can have issues, but by far not as much.
Also having text only limits the ability to create such addicting content by far.
Finally Hackernews doesn't play on your insecurities as much.
It's pretty easy to skip the blatant advertisements tbh. And HN doesn't somehow conjure more articles out of thin air when I'm done with the front page, as opposed to the likes of "social networking" somehow finding 10000 more cat photos for me if i scroll down.
I could move that the definition of "social networking" is that it's not social. You get "content" crammed down your throat instead of interacting with people.
While the main attraction of HN has always been the comments.
I definitely suffered from severe internet addiction in college, and still struggle today. I rarely use social media other than forums like HN, and I know it impacts my financial health (like depression about my lackluster career for example).
I think the siren song of “everything and anything” of constant internet is its own problem
When did you start using the Internet? I was already using social networks (Multi-user BBS's and FidoNet) before I even first got onto the Internet in 1988, and then immediately got on to Usenet and IRC for social networking.
1994 with FidoNet access as well but I only interstate dial-up for that. Later in 1997 "proper" Internet access but still dial-up and only allowed to use after mid-night or on the weekends. Nothing compared to today's infinite scroll screens, constant notifications and "the algorithm". Hope that helps to clarify my point.
Yeah late 80s early 90s BBS (terrible name of BATE) was the first thing I ever did on a computer other than my Atary 600XL. Talk to actual people!? Wow!
Then onto IRC where "no flaming" (arguing or trolling) was a strict rule. But 90% of it was people wanting to hookup people asking ASL was every second sentence.
But whatever modern social media is there is something different about it.
I think the biggest differences with modern social media are that 1) it constantly seeks your attention with notifications, and 2) it is trying to make money, so they've spent money on how to keep you addicted.
That's true making money is the big part so there's no incentive to control any of it. We are the product. Our info and habits are more valuable than any ad we click on.
impact of internet and social media (and consequently smartphones)
Every article (and a lot of HN comments) seems to blur the distinction between phones and social media. This article already does it in the second sentence. They need to start getting more precise, and studies need to better control for one when they study the other. (Do the actual studies do a proper job distinguishing? I don't follow the research.) Is social media the harmful thing or is it smartphones?
And unlimited feel-good content encourages a runaway desire for more, making reality boring.
Agree, and a big and non-obvious part of this is that we've invested "all" of our resources in technology and profit oriented goals, rather than in things that make mainstream day to day life in our communities pleasant and non-boring, for all people.
The physical runtime we are in supports a massive diversity of gameplay and outcomes, unfortunately we've somehow "chosen" a model of governance that constantly makes poor choices.
This could be fixed, but we've been trained to worship the very thing that is ruining life here on Earth. To me, this is quite a hilarious situation, it is like living in a sitcom.
I wonder why reality works this way but we are not able to change it. Maybe being not able to talk about it (skilfully) is part of the problem.
Years ago when the first VR headset was released I believe the wikipedia article on "list of emerging technologies" had listed one of VR's outcomes as "alternative to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_reality "
It disturbs me how achievable that is. It's cool that technology has advanced to a point that we can choose to disregard reality, but I don't think we're handling that power very well
Alternate reality: we finally have the basic technology in place such that we now have the opportunity to understand actual reality for the first time ever.
Comments
The concern about the impact of internet and social media (and consequently smartphones) on children’s safety is well-founded. Increased anxiety and depression, reduced attention span, sleep disruption...
I don't remember feeling depressed about my Internet usage before social networks existed. Just making a point to try and separate those two, as impossible as it seems these days.
The internet is fine thank you.
It's anything with a "social" component that's the problem.
You need to split it further because I think the young uns think direct person-to-person messaging is also social media. That's fine too.
It's when they start cramming unwanted content and "influencers" down your throat that the problem appears.
A common issue that studies like this often bring up, including this article, is the change from in-person teenage social life to an online teenage social life, done on social media platforms. In-person social life has limitations in both scope and size, and includes (among others) physical cues. The online equivalent version lacks both limits on size, but also has those unwanted aspects you bring up.
I do not see direct person-to-person messaging to be a perfect equivalent version of a in-person talk. Even adult people in professional settings can be quite bad in an email conversation, and much more so than they would have been in-person. It also seems that people who start earlier in life with online text communication seem to not really become better (compared to others) at clear online text communication later in life.
This would include Hacker News, Discord, online forums, any video game...
Wrong. Neither HN nor traditional online forums push content selected to keep you "engaged". Not sure if Discord has started peddling "content" yet. If it does now I haven't noticed on my install yet.
As for video games, are you of the kind that believes all video games are competitive multiplayer? You're right about the free to play IAP fests on both desktop and mobile, wrong about, for example, single player games.
The entire purpose of karma here and on forums like Reddit is to keep you "engaged" by pushing the most popular content to the top of the thread. And many people make HN a part of their marketing and SEO strategy, so the incentive for a lot of what gets posted here is just to get eyeballs and clicks, or increase clout for the authors and visibility to YC. And of course YC uses this forum to advertise their own startups, so they have an incentive to maximize engagement.
I see it more as a currency which can be used in exchange for spreading unpopular/controversial/inflammatory opinions.
It's the online equivalent of whatever Dan Aykroyd has which enables him to keep getting invited to parties.
So do I, but strictly speaking that's not what it's meant for. It's supposed to be operant conditioning - you want to do whatever makes the number go up, and avoid what makes it go down. What makes it go up? Obeying the rules, aligning with the local culture and posting stories and making comments other people want to read and upvote. What makes it go down? Repetition, humor, heterodoxy and controversy. It's the same kind of endorphine based Skinner box that every other forum and social media platform uses, just not as complex.
It is not as personalised as Facebook, Tiktok or Instagram.
Problem is when a machine learning algorithm is designed to find content that has highest odds of keeping you engaged forever and diminishing your dopamine reserves as it is doing so.
Hackernews can have issues, but by far not as much.
Also having text only limits the ability to create such addicting content by far.
Finally Hackernews doesn't play on your insecurities as much.
I love HN, and the community here, but yeah, let's not just ignore the fact that this is very much a YC recruitment platform.
It's pretty easy to skip the blatant advertisements tbh. And HN doesn't somehow conjure more articles out of thin air when I'm done with the front page, as opposed to the likes of "social networking" somehow finding 10000 more cat photos for me if i scroll down.
I could move that the definition of "social networking" is that it's not social. You get "content" crammed down your throat instead of interacting with people.
While the main attraction of HN has always been the comments.
HN is literally startup founder type engagement bait - the forum.
Funny because all I've learned from here is that "founder lifestyle" and "VC funding" are dirty words I don't want in my life...
big blind spot you got there
No True Social Platform, huh?
Not any video game! Many video games work without internet at all :)
This is in no way limited to the internet. We're meant to roam the great unknown in groups of 20-60 or so. The problem is other humans.
I definitely suffered from severe internet addiction in college, and still struggle today. I rarely use social media other than forums like HN, and I know it impacts my financial health (like depression about my lackluster career for example).
I think the siren song of “everything and anything” of constant internet is its own problem
Yeah, playgrounds suck!
To be fair, a lot of the stuff my son watches seems fairly benign in terms of influence.
I don't remember feeling negatively affected by social media until politics started to get into my feed.
When did you start using the Internet? I was already using social networks (Multi-user BBS's and FidoNet) before I even first got onto the Internet in 1988, and then immediately got on to Usenet and IRC for social networking.
1994 with FidoNet access as well but I only interstate dial-up for that. Later in 1997 "proper" Internet access but still dial-up and only allowed to use after mid-night or on the weekends. Nothing compared to today's infinite scroll screens, constant notifications and "the algorithm". Hope that helps to clarify my point.
Yeah late 80s early 90s BBS (terrible name of BATE) was the first thing I ever did on a computer other than my Atary 600XL. Talk to actual people!? Wow!
Then onto IRC where "no flaming" (arguing or trolling) was a strict rule. But 90% of it was people wanting to hookup people asking ASL was every second sentence.
But whatever modern social media is there is something different about it.
I think the biggest differences with modern social media are that 1) it constantly seeks your attention with notifications, and 2) it is trying to make money, so they've spent money on how to keep you addicted.
That's true making money is the big part so there's no incentive to control any of it. We are the product. Our info and habits are more valuable than any ad we click on.
Ignorance is bliss.
Every article (and a lot of HN comments) seems to blur the distinction between phones and social media. This article already does it in the second sentence. They need to start getting more precise, and studies need to better control for one when they study the other. (Do the actual studies do a proper job distinguishing? I don't follow the research.) Is social media the harmful thing or is it smartphones?
And, though easier to study the effect on children, it affects us all.
Instant everything is an addictive stimulant and anxiety source.
Social media encourages intense emotions.
The ability to view only what you wish encourages confirmation bias and helps viewpoints at odds with reality from ever being challenged by reality.
And unlimited feel-good content encourages a runaway desire for more, making reality boring.
Some of us are lucky enough to have self restraint against it all. But the drugs are always lurking a click away.
Agree, and a big and non-obvious part of this is that we've invested "all" of our resources in technology and profit oriented goals, rather than in things that make mainstream day to day life in our communities pleasant and non-boring, for all people.
The physical runtime we are in supports a massive diversity of gameplay and outcomes, unfortunately we've somehow "chosen" a model of governance that constantly makes poor choices.
This could be fixed, but we've been trained to worship the very thing that is ruining life here on Earth. To me, this is quite a hilarious situation, it is like living in a sitcom.
I wonder why reality works this way but we are not able to change it. Maybe being not able to talk about it (skilfully) is part of the problem.
Years ago when the first VR headset was released I believe the wikipedia article on "list of emerging technologies" had listed one of VR's outcomes as "alternative to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_reality "
It disturbs me how achievable that is. It's cool that technology has advanced to a point that we can choose to disregard reality, but I don't think we're handling that power very well
Alternate reality: we finally have the basic technology in place such that we now have the opportunity to understand actual reality for the first time ever.
Yes, I do believe that in the general debate, too little focus is given on the fact that also adults are affected negatively by social media