Hacker News Reader

Comment by djoldman | Hacker News Reader

Discussion of the addictive qualities of social media often strikes me as bizarre.

Where is examination of the person doing the scrolling? Isn't the flaw there?

(The following applies to adults):

Ostensibly, the person should be allowed to spend their time as they like if they're engaging in legal activity. If people thought that engaging in social media was bad for them, they would stop. Are we really saying that people cannot stop using social media? Are we saying that people don't think it's bad for them?

If people can't stop doing an activity that is definitely hurting them, don't they need professional help? Do all these social media users need professional help?

What amount of time on social media is sufficient for it to have a negative effect? Is it anything besides zero?

To be meta: if hackernews is social media and social media is bad, are we all hurting ourselves?

View on HN

> If people thought that engaging in social media was bad for them, they would stop.

This is the absolute cornerstone of your argument, and I gotta say, I think it is 100% incorrect.

This is, in fact, how we often define addiction: A behavior that a person repeatedly and compulsively engages in despite zero or negative side effects.

People will absolutely do things, and continue to do things, that they know for certain are bad for them.

I mean, seriously -- ask anyone in your life whether they think social media is actually good for them. I genuinely think every single person I know would respond to the effect of "I wish I used it less, but it's tough to quit."

I should have made "If people thought that engaging in social media was bad for them, they would stop" into question rather than a statement.

That said, my follow up questions stand: If people can't stop doing an activity that is definitely hurting them, don't they need professional help? Do all these social media users need professional help?

Interesting, I got too focused on that point. I think you're absolutely right, or at least have the potential to be; I have certainly known people in my life who have had deeply problematic relationships with social media, to the point where professional help was either used or (IMO) would have been a good idea. I mean, I've personally had days where I wished that someone would just yell "get off fucking reddit!" at me.

I don't think it's "all users," and even for lots of users who are harmed, it's not necessarily "all the time." But it's definitely something that could be helped by a professional.

I guess the alternative is regulation of some kind: we recognize that these sites have the potential for meaningful harm to a large number of people, and someone (the government?) steps in to do something about it.

I predict Social Media Rehab is going to be a huge and lucrative business in about 5-10 years. Invest now.

...

I initially wrote that as a joke and intended to just hit Reply and move on with my life, but reflecting for more than a minute, there may be something to this. We have drug rehab programs which work to varying degrees. I wonder what research is being done on how to rehabilitate victims of social media, and if any specific techniques are known yet. Social Media has been known as a societal ill for some time, so surely someone is investigating this!

I do think this is a worthy callout, that is often missing in discussions about social media and/or any sort of complex system.

The general narrative implies (but would never say) that humans lack agency and the ability to act in their own self-interest. And if only we could remove the social media site/system, would we see an enlightened, more perfect human.

Don't get me wrong, I'm strongly in favor of designing systems to bring out the best in humanity. But I think a lot of what we see on social media is a reflection of who we are as humans, and what we desire and want to see. And I don't see enough discussion at the individual level, and why we act the way we do.

If the discussion was at the individual level, we'd start to see our common humanity, and the conversation about social media would be less about moderating out the 'bad content' (which always just so happens to be the content that our outgroup likes), and more about the philosophical considerations with designing complex systems that help humanity thrive (and what it means to thrive).

>I think a lot of what we see on social media is a reflection of who we are as humans, and what we desire and want to see.

Agreed.

I'm curious why there aren't deep discussions about WHY people want to __insert convenient social media action__. Isn't the flaw that we have a fear of missing out, want to appear to have high status, want to belong to a group whose identity is tied into being against another group, etc.?

I just see most of these discussions giving the above a pass as if that's just who we are and we bear no responsibility in engaging in such activity.

Telling people to be different is simply not a viable mechanism for making the world a better place.

You can inquire after however many chickens and eggs you like about why the world is the way it is, but I think most people are more interested in what can be done to improve things.

>Telling people to be different is simply not a viable mechanism for making the world a better place.

Perhaps. However this reminds me of the credit cards that are offered on college campuses. They're signed up for like hotcakes sometimes. Later in life people learn that perhaps it isn't such a good idea. Can't people be given information showing the potential effects of decisions that then helps them better make choices?

>You can inquire after however many chickens and eggs you like about why the world is the way it is, but I think most people are more interested in what can be done to improve things.

My point exactly. Let's stop talking about social media, which takes advantage of a root flaw. Let's talk about the root flaw.

What you call a root flaw (in your previous comment) I see as being neither root nor a flaw, but that is not interesting to me.

If you take a plant out of the ground, and toss it into the sea, the plant dies. The 'root flaw' is that the plant is a vulnerable living being. The more relevant fact is that the plant is better off in the ground.

In a world where every party was rational, your points would make total and complete sense.

The reality, however is that social media companies with their curated feeds, dopamine buttons, echo chambers, and sheer size can push products to the market that cause detriment to the overall cultural environment. The average Joe does not understand that his Twitter feed is _designed_ to keep him hooked. I bet you, if he knew, he'd have quit long ago.

Your argument essentially posits that opioid addicts be held responsible for their addictions rather than our legal system clamping down on big pharma.

>The reality, however is that social media companies with their curated feeds, dopamine buttons, echo chambers, and sheer size can push products to the market that cause detriment to the overall cultural environment.

Given the nature of the internet, any entity can bring a product to the market that could be negative for users. What's the solution beyond the current legal framework?

>Your argument essentially posits that opioid addicts be held responsible for their addictions rather than our legal system clamping down on big pharma.

There's a wide gulf between consuming and engaging with intangible media content and abusing biologically powerful physical substances. Someone becoming addicted to a controlled substance like opioids is different from social media in a profound way. I think society recognizes this given that opioids are largely controlled substances.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com