HN user
Thank you for posting this. Restored a little bit of faith in humanity for me. It just felt like people were being needlessly cruel to someone who is clearly struggling.
that's the question, ain't it? Telling people to just suffer through terrible therapy probably ain't the answer
For all the "just go to therapy", what's the best way for me to accept your payment for this? Paypal? venmo? ko-fi?
Oh how I envy the luxurious life you must have had to reach this conclusion
I know I personally don't have anything near perfect control.
I am speaking for myself.
My concern is that when I read these articles, the authors often seem to be speaking for more than themselves. It seems as though they are projecting an unhealthy addiction on all members of society. I see that as likely incorrect and potentially harmful.
I'm not certain what's unhealthy about what you listed other than the self-imposed exhaustion. Humans have been exhausting themselves unhealthily long before the internet came about. If you feel you're doing so, by all means, find the way to give yourself the rest you need.
I don't mean that at all. That's the point. I happen to not use any of those services you listed, but I do use discord to communicate with friends, and I enjoy listening to podcasts/audiobooks for entertainment. It's more common than not that I am listening to a podcast or audiobook when I take my dog on long walks in the evening, but I just don't see that as a sign of an unhealthy addiction.
I'm sorry for your loss. I'm not trying to hammer on you for that. I hope you feel better soon.
Just because it's obvious to many that you need therapy doesn't mean that any who notice are capable or willing to give it.
I can't hardly be bothered to check email when it's relevant to do so.
If the people I care to talk to are in the room with me at the time, I don't need to get on my phone. That's not always the case. Sometimes I will stick my nose in my phone in a public setting, and it's not intended as a slight. I just have a fancy in my head about something I'd like to go read about.
However, this is more to my point. My separation from the internet has never needed to be some all-encompassing effort. I have never thought about needing to make sure that there is absolutely 0% access for an extended period. If I go on a multi-day backpacking/camping trip, it's not to escape the internet, it's because I like being outdoors.
Unfortunately, I have neither the proper information nor interest to dig into that specifically. My best recommendation is to look into why I might have said that, and decide if you care at all what I thought. If so, take actions to change what things that you have a desire to change.
Amusingly to me, I think the opposite.
You may be right about many things you said, but this comes off as though you've got a complex about something.
I feel like I have read this same article two dozen times, each by a different author.
The internet and I grew up together; it's nearly always been a part of my life. I use the internet every day for several hours. My career involves constant use and access to the internet. I also get my news and communicate with friends via the internet.
All that said, I spend time away from the internet every day and not as some forced action to distance myself from it. I don't see the internet as some perverse addiction that I need to break. If I'm not working for a stretch of days, there's a good chance that I will not use the internet simply because no situation comes up that calls for it.
The idea that 3 days away is life and mind altering is deeply concerning to me.
I'll be honest, I didn't expect the article about the anti-intellectualization of our culture to be veiled apologetics for Joe Rogan. It's not censorship to choose not to spend every moment discussing the basest topics that have already been belabored far beyond what they deserve.
If you want to argue that the potential harm of a large group of people other than yourself is fine, I won't censor you. Stand in your truth and hear what everyone else has to say about the matter. Considering only your own unpopular opinion while ignoring all others does not a philosopher make.
Do the moderators engage when someone says "Dude, that was fucking sick!"?
I'm just saying, I'm not surprised that a moderated server is more, uh, moderated, compared to an unmoderated server. I'm not sure the individual word choices are the determining factor compared to having someone paying attention and removing people with undesired behavior.
You certainly are.
I originally assumed you were a dumbass here, not a smartass. well played.
Sorry, I agree with it being relevant. I just meant that it was not what I found uninteresting.
Oh, are you simply existing here? Nothing else?
I am positive you are not blind to the parallels between your current actions and the actions of which you claim to be ashamed.
I imagine the distinctions matter more to you than the similarities, but I honestly cannot tell why. Are you now better than the twitter user because less people use hacker news? Or are you better because the people you shame are faceless rather than a specific individual? Or is it simply because you reached the top of the comments section rather than being the 10000th voice?
I don't condemn you. I believe you should be allowed to speak your opinion. I just don't support your condemnation of others, especially the fallacious comparison to a violent, physical mob.
Your very first words to me were an attempt at an insult, so please save the crocodile tears from having your hypocrisy mentioned. I accused you of bias and reactionary tendencies, although I was intending anyone who reacts to the existence of social media this way.
I'll attempt to be clear. I believe your bias is your agreement with the author on this topic. The reactionary tendency to which I referred is the one I believe you and the author share, that social media inherently diminishes discussions and people involved into an unthinking mass. There's no evidence of this, so I assumed it was simply a delusion borne of reaction to seeing something you didn't like. These are clearly unproved assumptions on my part, but you've done nothing to indicate otherwise.
To address the rest of what you said, it's largely false. The phrase "Flame War" originated on usenet and other early message boards. The undesirable human communication styles existed prior to any internet medium and certainly will differ in form medium to medium.
On Twitter, the people who interact with a post are a small fraction of those who see the post who are fraction of the people using the medium. Of those who interact, there are likely to be various opinions. It is quite literally the few. It can still be an easily recognizable phenomenon while being perpetrated by relatively few members of the population.
Yes, the scale of communication between individuals has continued to increase as time progresses. The internet has revolutionized that. That unfortunately does mean that you will come into contact with more individuals who say or do things you dislike. Broadly condemning people as unthinking or other baseless assumptions is not a reasonable response to this phenomenon. It's lazy.
What you have to say is very interesting. However, it is not the content of the article.
It's not the actions that we need to address, just the number of people doing them?
I thought you believed truth and evidence were not necessary when sharing an opinion? What changed your opinion so quickly? Is it only necessary because I disagree with you?
"my biggest gripe with social media. There is no room for nuance, there is no room for grey. Every interaction is based on reaction alone - reflection is rendered moot, because there will always be another scandal that needs attending to."
That is inaccurate description. There are millions of voices with competing perspectives. Perhaps, borne of ones own ignorance, things can be viewed to be dichotomous, but choosing to be ignorant does not justify condemning others.
"These pluralities are unable to exist on social media.
There must always be objective truth, there must always be a side that wins, a side that loses, and there are extra points to whoever gets there first, never mind the consequences. This constant need for triumph is so dangerous and reductive. It removes the requirement for individual critical analysis - it is so easy to get swept up in the herd mentality and feel a rush of adrenaline when you agree with thousands of others online."
This is a description of a subset of possible human communications. This is not an attribute of social media. This certainly doesn't describe the majority of interactions on Twitter, let alone the majority. Yes, sometimes some people behave this way. It's likely that all of us do at times. However, this reductive communication style has always existed.
Blaming the medium for the negative interactions of the few is lazy, tired, and wholly uninteresting to me.
I am ignoring nothing. It is obvious that the author is stating that social media causes breakdowns into unruly mobs. I disagree with that sentiment. The author and I have differing opinions.
However, the author decided to post a longform article on the topic with no evidence to support their claims, and in some cases, outright lies. I don't believe that claims should go unchallenged, especially when made on such flimsy ground.
Don't allow your biases and reactionary tendencies to force you into the mob mentality you claim to stand against.
There's no analysis here. There's no detail whatsoever; those are intentionally omitted, supposedly to protect the readers from being bored. Instead, the blogger offers only opinion with no support at best, and falsehoods presented as truth at worst.
I choose not to let them think for me. I will not disavow social media simply because some blogger expressed their own irrational, negative opinions of it.
because the person you're replying to agrees with that opinion at the exclusion of all others
I don't understand these posts.
Why must the world at large censor themselves so an author can demand everyone see her work as perfection without hearing any other opinion? Why are the various, discordant voices considered "social media thinking for you", but the demand of absolute acquiescence is not?
I appreciate that you provided sources and yet the conversation seems to be focused on just your baseless conjecture.