Comment by noisy_boy | Hacker News Reader

Comment by noisy_boy | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The difference between a comic book, offline video games and the current social media/MMPROGs is two fold:

1. There is an erosion of physical limitations on how much time you can spend on an activity on an "item". A comic book has fixed no. of pages, once you have finished, you need to get another physical comic book. It doesn't automagically keep adding pages as you keep turning.

2. Deliberate algorithm driven strategies to increase "engagement": the content of the comic book is fixed - you either like it or you don't. It doesn't change the content on the fly based on which turn of events you prefer. Offline video games had more "engagement" but it still was limited by the inbuilt branching of possibilities (which still could be a lot depending on the cleverness of the algorithm/engine - that is why people spent hundreds and thousands of hours on them even without them being MMPROGs). With the current set, the entire thing is driven to reel you in right from the get-go and keep you hooked as long as possible. That surely can't be a good thing for your health.

If I had had my way as a kid, I'd have watched TV all day every day. My dad would say "kids belong outside" and I'd be banished from the house until dinner time.

Wasn't allowed to stay inside and read comic books, either.

At the time I was sure I was being abused, but in retrospect he had the right idea.

TV has always been optimized for engagement and programs are carefully scheduled to keep you watching.

Isn't that GP's point? Parents in 2022 have a dramatically reduced ability to prevent their children from staring at a screen all day everyday. Even in school, they are glued to their screens. Even if you don't provide them a phone, they have cheap and easy ways to obtain their own.

Edit to add: The dad forcing his kid outside no longer stops them from staring at the screen all day.

Take away his screen.

Suing a company because one is too lazy to say "no" to the kids is deplorable.

> A comic book has fixed no. of pages, once you have finished, you need to get another physical comic book.

Comic books can be collected and read all over again. They don't magically disappear once read. Same with books: I've recently started my annual re-read of LOTR, that book has cost me hundreds of hours of my lifetime. Someone should be able to sue the Tolkien estate.

> That surely can't be a good thing for your health.

But isn't that the same line of argument we've seen with earlier "youth degradation scares"? Video games make you violent? Comic books make you unlearn reading? Rock music is satanic and turns your brain to mush? Reading leads to flight from reality?

> Comic books can be collected and read all over again. They don't magically disappear once read. Same with books: I've recently started my annual re-read of LOTR, that book has cost me hundreds of hours of my lifetime. Someone should be able to sue the Tolkien estate.

When I was young, I always read my comic books again and again, mainly because I had a small collection - to the point I almost memorized them. But what you are re-re-re-consuming is still finite and it is upto your mind to discover new things and add the spice of imagination to keep it interesting.

> But isn't that the same line of argument we've seen with earlier "youth degradation scares"? Video games make you violent? Comic books make you unlearn reading? Rock music is satanic and turns your brain to mush? Reading leads to flight from reality?

A comic book presents a relatively static and limited window with tantalizing possibilities - that leaves a lot of legroom for your mind to wander and imagine things and be fascinated with them instead of immediately moving on to the next item on the infinite scroll. Regarding video games/rock music, I don't subscribe to the notions you mentioned. The main issue isn't what is that you are consuming (to be clear, that does matter) but are you consuming in moderation or is your brain overeating without digesting?

> Video games make you violent? Comic books make you unlearn reading?

These statements were never proven empirically, while social media's addictive design and impact is at this point undeniably documented. That is the difference.

Actually, I vividly remember reading about empirical studies linking video game violence to antisocial behaviour (studies that were later disproven). Who tells us that the current studies won't be similarly become overruled by majority consensus? We should be careful only believing in the studies who tell us what we want to hear.

On further research, metastudies [1] tend to find out that there are tons of studies linking violent games to violent behaviour: "On the basis of this metaanalysis, we conclude that playing violent video games is associated with greater levels of overt physical aggression over time, after accounting for prior aggression."

[1] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1611617114#t01

Hmm... It seems I was under informed. But if these things are problems, then we should try to fix them right? Doesn't that mean the "think of the children" crowd was actually right? We should be making games less violent, or at least provide accurate information about age appropriateness with nuanced content warnings.

>But if these things are problems, then we should try to fix them right?

Preventative measures never work. Mitigative measures should be how you enforce lessons. But everytime it's all about banning content, because sweeping it under the rug means kids won't try to dig, right?

Don't just say "GTA is bad don't play it". Explain what is bad about it (in very specific details), and why they should instead play something else until they get older. Don't treat it as if watching one act of violence or one sex scene will scar the kid for life. If they are old enough to go behind your back, they are probably old enough to be talked to about these topics. At least enough for them to understand why you disapprove.

> Don't just say "GTA is bad don't play it". Explain what is bad about it (in very specific details)

> at least provide accurate information about age appropriateness with nuanced content warnings.

You say tomato, I say tomato?

Maybe we should go back to the Hayes Code where movies removed all immoral content?

"Addictive" is a word bandied about with abandon.

If these things are so addictive, are there withdrawal symptoms? When I'm off the intertoobs for a few days (travelling) I suffer no withdrawal symptoms and don't miss it.

"addictive" meh sure. But what about harmful?

Back in the drama around facebooks' internal studies a few months ago, AFAICT it was all hot air and very sad quality studies, I couldn't believe the hype.

Are there other better studies showing harm that haven't been publicized as much?

You don't think addiction brings harm? Do you have an addiction of your own?

addiction brings harm, but addiction's meaning has been muddied over the years. There are very few kids who would be taken off social media and legitimately suffer withdrawal symptoms due to lack of access.

That language is important when determining how to sue a company.

> Comic books can be collected and read all over again. They don't magically disappear once read. Same with books: I've recently started my annual re-read of LOTR, that book has cost me hundreds of hours of my lifetime. Someone should be able to sue the Tolkien estate.

There is still a defined end state that encourage a break from consumption. How often do you finish a book and then immeadiately start reading from page 1 again.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com