Hacker News Reader

Comment by brndnmtthws | Hacker News Reader

If you take a train or a bus, or are in any other public space, you may notice that a bunch of people (young and old) spend their time staring into their phones. And most of the time, if you glance at their phone, you'll see they're on Instagram. They're staring into this machine fantasizing about some image of how great life is, meanwhile their real life is passing them by. And they wonder why they're not getting all the likes.

As the current president would say, SAD.

View on HN

As a teen, I'm not sure if this is the right place for me to speak but I wanted to offer a few things to the discussion. Social media is key aspect to the entire situation and is definitely true for me and all my peers. Like someone else stated in the comments, I feel as if it's a side effect to loneliness in our time however that's not entirely true. Teens are still very social, maybe as a social as ever compared to in the past. They actively searching friends and what to talk face to face. But I feel as if the do existence of social media is hindering theses interactions for for some it's a simple escape that is a simpler option than actively seeking friendships.

One more note. I find it a bit disturbing that among my peers this is not really a discussed or considered social issue. A lot for teens just accept it as it it without any realization. It would nice to see my peers accept a different attitude to social media. Not necessarily shunning it completely but at least having a realistic understanding of the role it can play on their lives.

Back in the day commuters and bench-sitters weren't somehow more "present" than they are now, they were just consuming other media. And I wouldn't venerate the books/newspapers of old and sneer at IG quite so much. Back in the day the majority of commuters were reading pulpy crime and romance novels or sordid tabloids, not "real" literature or journalism.

It's not that IG is intellectually inferior to how people entertained themselves back in the day, it's that it's qualitatively different, in some disturbing ways. What used to be shameless (innocent!) diversion and escapism has morphed into an odd kind of media that requires everyone to produce content, content that everyone knows in their bones, one way or another, broadcasts the quality of their lives and their person into the ether. Creating such content is arguably more intellectually demanding than consuming that crime novel, not less, but it's also exhausting and anxiety producing. The commute or checkout line is no longer a quick and simple respite.

I don't think social media is making people dumb or brainless as people thought tv would back in the day. Rather, it's making the average person smarter in a very 21st century kind of way - savvy, harried, and insecure - overworked brand managers.

And they should be sitting on the train staring at other people? How is that better? They are actually communicating with tens of people while they have to sit in that train. Yes, someone look at instagram, someone just browsing internet or using chat or reading books etc. Smartphones didn't make people antisocial they just channel their attention where they like.

You realize back in the older days people did the exact same thing with books and newspapers? At least with phones we can talk with people we’re meeting up with.

People also thought the same thing with television, and they were largely right about television. They were also right about some forms of print media: next time you go to the grocery store, look at the celebrity gossip magazines in the checkout line. They're basically Instagram for older people. They certainly take advantage of the same human impulse to avarice and escapism.

The internet is an amazing tool to connect with people. It's also an tool for marketers and corporations to mediate friendships, romantic relationships, and consumption of media in ways that are far more effective and inescapable than anything that came before it.

It's slightly different, because at least things like books and newspapers carry a tiny bit of intellectualism. You at least need to be able to read and comprehend language. IG, on the other hand, is literally just pictures: you don't even need to be able to comprehend any language to use it.

And I disagree that everyone you see with a phone is guaranteed to be doing things on IG. For example I am on HN, a friend of mine reads fanfiction, others message their friends about their eta, catch up on Facebook, etc.

How about movies and television, then? You don't need to be able to read to enjoy those, and they've been significantly vilified as well.

It seems like you think art has no "intellectualism". IG is a great way to see contemporary fashion and art around the world in real time.

Pictures of food, dogs, and people lounging on some old guy's yacht who they met through tinder doesn't really count as intellectual art.

Also merely photographing someone else's art doesn't quite count as being an artist. That's just cheap mimicry.

Back at the time when people read books and journals, they read junk books (dime novels) and junk journals mostly. And a lot of socializing was drinking beer and having empty talk about football and that girl.

I really hope you are kidding.

Books and newspapers have the power to enrich the mind with knowledge. Writing a book requires dedication and thought out arguments.

Apps are designed to get you hooked on rewards. Twitter allows people to communicate with each others, but if its just garbage coming out, then it does more harm than good. Look at the president.

Books are like fruits and vegetables. Apps are sugary drinks.

> Books are like fruits and vegetables.

You may have an idealized notion of books.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulp_magazine

There are literally tons of junk books out there.

Not to mention tabloid newspapers.

Except back when books were popular to use like phones they were described as mind numbing and anti-intellectual entertainment for kids who are losing touch with the reality around them for the fantasy in books. We’re just switching tHe technology we’re blaming for the ills of the current day.

> I see you are unfamiliar with the Daily Mail

Or tabloid magazines which is like Instagram..

Your comment is a bit melodramatic. What magic is passing someone by sitting on a crowded bus/train on a commute to work?

I mean if you're using your phone during a dinner with loved ones or friends, that's something else. But commutes are pretty universally despised.

This is purely speculation. I feel it's more the economic uncertainty, political situation, and questionable futures.

It's just another outlet like newspapers or books. It's not like everyone on the coach bursts into laughter/jokes/small-talk or chops veggies on the way home.

Although it would suck if they did the same thing at home.

Or, perhaps they are being inspired. Planning their own art or adventure. If you're sitting on a train, why not? (Is reading a book equally objectionable, or is going to a museum?) It's rather offensive to judge people about whom you know nothing. (As is quoting President Trump as if he is an authority on anything.)

As this is n = 1, take this with a grain of salt, but as a high school teacher I can tell you that's definitely not what teenagers are doing with their phones the majority of the time. Your view is very optimistic; for the most part, kids are sending each other snaps and checking IG for high school drama, fashion, make up, gossip, memes, and those fitness inspo pics. That last observation comes from the fact that apart from teaching math, I occasionally teach a fitness class and get kids showing me these ridiculously fit (usually not natural) people pics on IG. They also really like YouTube.

That may be what most of your students are doing, but does not preclude the fact that there are ways to use social media (including Instagram) effectively, and that there are certainly people who are doing this.

Yes, agreed. But what I'm saying is that, I don't believe the average teenager uses social media in a "healthy" nor "educational" type of way.

At the risk of generalizing from anecdotal evidence - Instagram seems to be the worst by far for this kind of thing.

All images, little content and no good way to really communicate. The heavy users I’ve known just endlessly scroll through images of attractive ‘influencers’, dogs, makeup ads, or just photos posted by friends (mostly using it to show off as mentioned in the article).

While Facebook will have discussion and links to interesting articles depending on your network, Instagram doesn’t seem to have much of that.

I have a bias though because out of all the social apps I find it to be incredibly banal and boring.

Do you actually use Instagram yourself? From my anecdotal evidence - IG is the greatest source of new friends (do you know how hard to get a friend when you are an adult? It's easy with IG). Most communication happens in private messages, so you don't see it.

How is it a source of new friends?

It's acceptable and encouraged to follow unknown people on IG. I follow people with hobbies I like, some of them become friends due to interaction. Unfortunately this works only for hobbies that can be fit in a photo, I'd like to have a more generalized platform (anyone remembers Livejournal? :)

If you read comments here, you will find a few people who lost their significant others, because they got too many friends from Instagram and irreversibly changed!

Agreed. Why not indeed.

And people are doing different activities on their phone including games and reading news or whatever they want.

It's a no-brainer why more people are depressed. From increasing environmental concerns including global warming, to violence and conflict, and a myriad of domestic issues that we can't not be aware of any more. I remember a time when I lived in a small town and was very incubated from the world's problems. That incubation no longer exists.

OCD replying to myself, but I used the word "incubated" when I meant something more along the lines of shielded, unaware, protected, unaffected.

I'd say that books and museums are problematic in very similar ways. Neither of those institutions are focused on reality. Both are contrary to human dialog and an unmediated existence.

When I'm sitting on the train I'm studying the people and things that I see around me, trying to look for the poetry in everyday life. I'm a songwriter but the approach works just as well with a travel set of watercolors and a sketchbook for the more visually inclined.

I have never seen good art being made by people who spend their time confusing Instagram for reality. If you have I would question wether you have the ability to recognize good from bad art. You must learn how to read before you can appreciate a good novel and the same applies to understanding other forms of art.

Good art will have a profound effect. It will literally give your life meaning and purpose. It will change the way you think about your society and your role in it.

Bad art is consumed like a fast-food hamburger. It might be superficially entertaining in the moment but will leave you feeling worse off after a few hours.

Good art doesn't need to appeal to the art critic or the marketplace but it must leave a deep satisfaction in the hearts and minds of those that take the time to appreciate it.

The issue is that social media is bad for mental health. That means that excessive social media time can be a problem and is more objectionable that reading a book and likely also worse than watching TV or playing video games. I think if everyone was reading or doing something similarly benign on their phones it would be much less of an issue.

> That means that excessive social media time can be a problem and is more objectionable that reading a book and likely also worse than watching TV or playing video games.

That’s a rather serious claim to make without a source to back it up. What makes you think that reading is more “benign” than social media?

Maybe I misunderstood the point of your comment but I'm not trying to argue that reading is good for you (which I personally believe), just that it isn't bad for you and I'm not aware of any controversy around that latter point as I have never heard anyone argue that they are bad for you and I couldn't find any studies saying that it is bad for you. If you think that point is controversial I'm willing to entertain the argument but the claim doesn't seem that serious to me.

That's very likely a part of it.

https://www.rsph.org.uk/about-us/news/instagram-ranked-worst...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com