> I disagree. Pre-social media, people would talk with friends and family using e-mail and programs like AIM, and there would actually be deep and meaningful conversations.
This seems hilariously false.
This seems hilariously false.
But the op is oriented correctly.
The issue isn’t the depth of conversations- the issue is the availability of addictive alternatives.
I’m on a phone surrounded by family - who I will see only a few more times in my life.
And that’s entirely because of my choices.
But by that criteria being in bad relations, junk food, bingeing, gambling addictions are all “choice”.
They are not.
These tools are designed to be as addictive possible within the confines of law - laws made to prevent even worse excesses.
If you have Joe Schmoe, vs me and my ability to data mine their lives, to put reminders that “hey you are on your streak! Log on again!” While they are on the pot, to “leverage” their network to get more people onto the game and then put them on leader boards “to catch those people with competitive impulses”; to gamify their life and to put triggers to run dopamine and seratonin triggers - then joe schmoe doesn’t have a snowballs chance in hell.
So our connecting is more like lines crossing over briefly, but never more than that. Sometimes this is fun - because where else can you encounter other people different from you - and sometimes it's just a little sad.
It seems the less "mass" a message contains the more "force" it seems to exert. A long response is ignored and carries with it very little persuasive power compared to the pithy response of a mere binary form of approval.