Hacker News Reader

Comment by oldsklgdfth | Hacker News Reader

A cynical comment about regulation or curtailing this.

Everyone agrees smoking causes health problems, is costly and doesn't offer anything. Smoking is regulated (taxes, labels, etc), but cigarettes are readily available everywhere - gas stations, convenience stores, etc. You would imagine that something so universally recognized as detrimental would cease to exist (either outlaws or society would just abandon it completely), but it's more accessible than say clean water, healthy food and such.

My point is I don't think we will see this problem going away. As long as there is technology enabling this level of connectedness we will see the side-effect.

View on HN

I'm not defending smoking, but

> costly

Cigarettes are really cheap in places that don't heavily tax them

> doesn't offer anything

Human brains like nicotine. It is mildly effective as a mood stabilizer. I think we both agree that the bad health effects are not worth it, but it's not accurate to say there's nothing on the other side of that equation.

I've heard of nicotine as nootropic and I've been meaning to get the gum. Also, I believe it's about the only thing in cigarettes that is not carcinogenic.

While there appear to be some sources claiming nicotine does not cause cancer, it is not a closed case as far as I can tell and there appears to be evidence that it can be an aggravating factor at least.[0]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4553893/

Nicotine is an anxiolytic. It helps anxiety.

That can seem like a nootropic (some definitions even explicitly include them) especially if you have anxiety.

The con of this is nicotine addiction.

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, exercise and meditation all beat nicotine in effectiveness as anxiolytics and in strength of effect.

But not in effort to benefit ratio, excluding the downsides of nicotine. Chewing nicotine is cheap and easy, cognitive behavioral therapy, exercise, and meditation, all take significant amounts of time at the very least.

Not arguing for the use of nicotine, but there are reasons people like taking pills (or chewing gum, as the case may be).

I can’t find the study from a cursory search, but my understanding that nicotine addiction per se could not be replicated without combustion - non-smokers using nicotine patches did not exhibit dependence, but smokers did get dependence relief from them.

To that end, non-combustible methods of nicotine might give the benefits without the addiction negatives (but still risks of e.g. pancreatic cancer)

> mildly effective as a mood stabilizer

For some of us this is massively understating the case.

Warning: This product is known by the state of California to be associated with an increased incidence of depression, anxiety, anti-social behavior, suicide, poor spending decisions, and political extremism.

[I accept the risks] [Go back to safety]

I think you are mostly right. Still, I would like for my kid to be raised in an environment, where screen stimulation is not constant. While I do have control over that in my house ( and currently she is too young to be properly addicted by feedback loops yet ), in its current state, I am at a loss for what to do when goes to school and this problem is not solved yet.

I want there to be a choice ( just like with cigarettes ) and I just hope it will somehow become less popular for one reason or another. Right now.. the only thing that changes is the app name. Anecdotally, my wife's cousin proudly proclaimed she does not use FB, but only Insta and TikTok. I was happily buzzed at that point and I did not want to start an argument so I just took another shot.

edit: typos

> I want there to be a choice.

I agree. To be more nuanced, I think I want it to be a deliberate choice. Something someone stopped, thought about and said "yes, I want to do this". Because, they have made the tradeoff for themselves.

The issue for me is that it's ubiquitous. When something is ubiquitous it becomes the default. I am privileged enough to function outside of social media. But for most, I think it's basically a requisite to function in society.

On the other hand smoking in the US has declined significantly in the last couple decades. I would hazard both regulation and more public awareness of the negative effects played a big part. We are still in the midst of the smoking moment for social media and excessive smart phone usage, the ill effects are still not widely known, studied or even agreed upon let alone regulated. Once they are we will see a drop but it will never truly go away. IMO there is an advantage here over smoking for regulators, targeted advertising provides the incentive structure that leads to most of this addiction and that can be regulated.

Everyone's piling on FB and TikTok (and yes, they are designed for engagement/addiction).

I think there's something more fundamental to it, though. I'm pretty sure the same mechanisms hold here on HN and on web forums and that its inherent in asynchronous online social fora.

Other commenters so far seem to be overlooking this. I can't imagine any regulation that would address the root cause of the problem without completely destroying the good aspects of the web and the internet.

Fundamentally we as individuals need to learn how to engage in a healthy way and be self-aware.

Overall, yes to your post, but it does not touch several related aspects that is driving the piling on ( and you do not expand on the fact that they are designed for addiction, which translated means that they are made to tailor made for any individual to be addicted to it ).

<< Other commenters so far seem to be overlooking this.

I honestly question that assertion. I would venture to say that most people here are well aware of how social media operates and how general population responds to it.

<< I can't imagine any regulation that would address the root cause of the problem without completely destroying the good aspects of the web and the internet.

This is admittedly the hard part, but I can absolutely imagine appropriate regulation should social media get to the point it is actually destructive to the fabric of society. I am willing to sacrifice some of the internet for it too given how much of a cesspool it has become.

It may not be the time yet, but I suppose the weird geopolitical constellation now may actually provide a conduit for just such change. I am not celebrating, because as always, it will likely be the worst of both worlds.

<< Fundamentally we as individuals need to learn how to engage in a healthy way and be self-aware.

Yes, but ideally without making an attempt to go viral in the process. I would argue this is not a healthy way to do this.

> This is admittedly the hard part, but I can absolutely imagine appropriate regulation should social media get to the point it is actually destructive to the fabric of society. I am willing to sacrifice some of the internet for it too given how much of a cesspool it has become.

Reading this, I'd even rephrase it stronger:

I can't imagine any regulation that would address the root cause of the problem without violating fundamental human rights of private correspondence and access to general computation.

There is certainly room for potentially appropriate regulation of the cesspools of today and the adtech-surveillance-engagement machinery can go die but let's not open up for scenarios where it becomes legally unfeasible to run a phpBB instance for a community (yes, you can have addiction of those exacerbating depression as well).

> Yes, but ideally without making an attempt to go viral in the process. I would argue this is not a healthy way to do this.

Fo sho.

<< I can't imagine any regulation that would address the root cause of the problem without violating fundamental human rights of private correspondence and access to general computation.

It is a fascinating question and I am officially now just engaging in a hypothetical. I want to keep it US-centric for now. Flying and driving in US was deemed a privilege and not a right despite very clearly making citizen's life either very difficult ( with not being able to fly ) or downright impossible in some locales ( based on how US is driver centric ).

What makes internet so different from driving that would likely result in a different legal categorization?

For once, the answer is actually The First Amendment. It prevents the government from interfering with speech and association.

If there was an amendment about freedom of road/air travel, then those would no longer be "privileges"

The main difference would probably be that being on the internet absentmindedly or poorly doesn't generally cause deaths and damage to third parties to the same extent as driving.

It's always a trade-off between the values of a society and the degree to which something like cigarettes causes harm. Even the most authoritarian government isn't able to ban everything that it wants to ban. There are also hidden costs and economic incentives created by doing a complete ban that need to be considered, which might make a ban less effective and less appealing than other solutions.

I don't think it's surprising that an all out ban is not in place.

The absurd part to me is know strong the industry is STILL. I think CVS is the only pharmacy that does not sell cigarettes, out of principle. Every other incentive tells merchants to sell cigarettes.

I kinda feel the same way about gambling. But I can do that with a poker game in my house. Tobacco needs an entire supply chain for someone to smoke. The fast that infrastructure is still profitable is kinda wild.

Nee Zealand just banned sale of cigarettes for future generations (born after e.g. 2005 cannot buy).

What's a solution ? A ban of all social media? The same toxic environment can occur in a forum on any website.

I don't really have a solution. I'm just making an observation.

But as long as there is tech that connects people, you will see these effects. Regulation, moderation, etc are just nerfing the tech itself.

A perspective shift I try to apply to myself is to view these things are tools, rather than a part of my identity that I am strongly tied to. I've got a power drill, but I don't check it everyday.

You don't check your drill because it doesn't change, people used to read newspapers everyday or go to clubs, it's the same thing.

Ban advertising.

I do not want others to dismiss this line of thinking. Part of the issue is that we started the internet as 'free' ( as in, someone else picked up the tab as admins had to cover the cost of running websites somehow ; and there is an argument to be made that there would be no/less spam if email had some harder USD cost attached to it ).

I would not say ban, but maybe there is a middle ground that would allow less 'attention seeking' content to actually gain solid ground ( I know actually useful stuff is there if you are willing to pay ; it just does not always seem people are aware of it ).

On the other hand, opiates are generally not readily available everywhere (and the current opioid epidemic in the US is an example of regulations and healthcare providers failing to work as intended, with Purdue Pharma pleading guilty to 3 Federal criminal charges a while ago as a result) which was not always the case. See also:

https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/addicted

> > doesn't offer anything

How can you say that? Have you ever smoked one after sex?

What about alcohol or binging Netflix shows or even sex itself? Life is all about tradeoffs. Tobacco has a place in the trillions of tradeoffs combinations that each human can generate with their own lives, and so does alcohol, Netflix and social media.

I say this as someone that has failed a bunch of time to quit smoking. Every time I smoke, I rationally know it's doing nothing for me, but can't help myself. It's not that good IMO. Not as clear a trade-off as alcohol. I think it's mostly a romantic image I have in my head.

i think we should not look at the end of the spectrum and conclude stuff for everyone... maybe there is a ton of people who will not get negatively effected by social media, as well people who will smoke a cigarette every 3 months in a party

You make a good point here.

As with everything there are winners and losers. Some built careers and companies by leveraging social media. That's in the pros column.

When I drill down into it, I think the potency is what draws me in. I sometimes feel this way on HN. "Let me check the comments". But FB, reddit, et al. are high octane versions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com