Hacker News Reader

Comment by softwaredoug | Hacker News Reader

Phones might be as much a symptom as a cause

The related issue is parents are overly protective of teens and don't give them enough independence. You see this in a lot of different ways from parents wanting to text their kids, to only letting kids do highly managed structured activities, to treating teens as their best friends, to helicopter parenting protecting kids from all adversity, etc etc

And a similar thing happens not just with parents, but society, there are not a lot of places teens can just hang out. A lot of fun things teens would do increasingly ban minors.

If you want teens off devices, you need to give them alternatives

View on HN

Many parents I talk to have this notion that idle-time/free-time for their children is unproductive, a waste of time, and thus bad for their children. And that's why they feel the need to micromanage their kids' time - "If I don't give Timmy productive things to do, he'll just rot away."

There's a number of articles about this topic, but I just don't see parents accepting the message: boredom is good for young people. Heck, boredom is why I got into programming my Commodore-64 back in the day - Midwest winters are long and boring as shit, lots of time stuck inside.

- https://youthfirstinc.org/why-its-important-for-your-child-t...

- https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/19/well/family/kids-summer-b...

We took away my kid's screens for a week because we caught her lying to us about something.

She was understandably upset and bored for a few days, and then found ways to occupy her time. Not productive ways - but ways that reminded me of what I did as a kid without screens.

Maybe that's why so many of the best demoscene coders are from northern Europe—Germany, Scandinavia, Finland? Bored kids with nothing to do but faff with their computers?

...who spends half the year in darkness, to boot. It's so bad they even have a national holiday to grieve the departure of the sun and call for its return!

There's also the symptom that almost our entire society is addicted to staring at their phones for at least 4 hours a day. Go literally ANYWHERE and just look at the people around you if you don't think so.

Why is the exact device the problem?

20 years ago everyone on suburban trains would be looking at a newspaper, magazine or book throughout their journey. Then they would watch a couple of hours of TV at home. Why is 'looking at a phone' such a problem, when most of the looking replicates those activities, with much of the rest being basic utilities which didn't exist previously - consulting a map, ordering food or shopping, looking up timetables or schedules?

You're ignoring the engineered addiction to the games on phones. Loot boxes, 2 free hours of play with double bonuses, etc.

There is no engineered addiction to reading the New York Times, so people just put it down when something else wants their attention.

Looking at a phone is a problem to the extent that it cuts you off from real interactions in society. It is a problem to the extent that the attention you pay to the phone does not go toward solving real problems.

It can be a problem because it allows kids to escape from uncomfortable situations like struggling to learn something, and the Instagram-perfect view of the world makes their own lives feel inferior.

But the New York Times on a phone is not particularly more or less addictive than the same content on a piece of paper. Nor does reading it on a phone cut anyone off from the rest of society any more than focusing on the printed paper or a book or a Walkman.

If the problem is games, social media, or porn, why don't we identify those as social problems and try to fix them? Rather than blaming the device.

Oh! It definitely is, and it was engineered to make it more. The comments make sure of that, then you've got the alerts for Breaking News, the sense of urgency in animated visuals with shiny colors. Of course, the NYT in a phone is far more addicting.

I’m confident that people watching porn on suburban trains isn’t the problem.

Naming the device where we consume addictive content is just a convenient shorthand.

If we just stuck to the same NY Times articles we would have read in the paper that would be fine. But very few of us have the will power to pick up our device and not wonder into social media apps.

    > Looking at a phone is a problem to the extent that it cuts you off from real interactions in society.

I am confused here. Is reading the New York Times in paper form, on an e-reader, or a mobile phone different? If you are reading on a mobile phone, can you "just put it down when something else wants their attention"? Also, I was a subscriber to NYT for about 15 years, but quit about 10 years ago when the content got more and more click/rage-baity. (This is probably true of most large US newspapers.)

Final comment about paper vs digital newspapers: I much prefer paper because the adverts are print-only (no motion/animation) and there are no auto-play videos. It is much less distracting.

That would be fine but it’s not how people use phones. It’s far more time spent on addictive social media and games.

> There is no engineered addiction to reading the New York Times, so people just put it down when something else wants their attention.

Tell that to all the absolute news addicts out there. News is very clearly addicting, just like loot box games.

News doesn't get created that fast.

There's a lot of commentary addicts and such. Cable "news" started this, the internet has magnified it even more. "Screens" wouldn't be the problem if we all used them for mental enrichment, but instead they've been taken over by "engagement"-hunters trying as hard as possible to get you to see just one more ad... and then another one... and another one...

>News doesn't get created that fast.

They are repeated many times with slightly different wording to create appearance of many news, since they aren't limited by print.

> 20 years ago everyone on suburban trains would be looking at a newspaper, magazine or book throughout their journey.

Some folks did this, others chatted with the 'regulars' that they sat with that had the same schedule as them. There were television series based on this:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train_48

Some folks didn't want to chat, and in the Toronto-area commuter rail there are designated zones for that:

* https://www.gotransit.com/en/travelling-on-go/quiet-zone

What you are demonstrating is that already in 2003, people talking to each other during their commute was a fantasy rather than an actual occurrence.

Do you think the airborne drops of Operation Overlord were a fantasy because someone made a television (mini-)series on them (i.e., Band of Brothers)?

Certainly I would not take the television series as proof that they happened with regularity or in the way depicted.

You have simply gone in the other direction: taking the television series as proof something did not happen, that it was "fantasy".

I had a long commute in public transport during the mid 2000s, made lots of acquaintances, even dated some girls I met on this bus. Definitely, people were more open to engage in conversation if you started it.

Nah, the portion of people on phones vs reading newspapers/magazines/books is much higher. Most people 20 years ago didn't find enough interesting in the average paper or magazine (and didn't read for pleasure much anyway).

So it was a weak background distraction at most. Course, different places had different accepted levels of conversation - London tubes aren't chatty - but there's a difference in brain activity, patterns, anxiety, etc sitting in silence with your thoughts vs having the phone constantly trying to get "engagement" with attention-grabbing provocations.

Similarly, watching TV at home was more "background" than "constant binge." The types of shows reflect this - intentionally repetitive, fairly low stakes, things are back to normal at the end of the episode, because most people weren't so hooked that they watched the same stuff every week at the same time.

"Background phone use" is much more conversation-killing.

The amount of time spent on phones is FAR greater than the time spent on all those activities you describe combined.

What did you do with the other time? (Serious question)

I remember meeting a lot of people by just talking to them in the subway during y daily commute. That happened both in France and Japan. Nowadays with phones it happens a lot less..

I commuted by public transit for around two decades before the ubiquity of smartphones and never experienced or witnessed this.

You spoke with "a lot" of people in Japan on the subway during your daily commute? I am stunned here. Can you provide more details? (Years / location / line?) I find this very hard to believe. Metro trains in Tokyo and Osaka (and suburbs) are basically silent except very late when people are drunk, talking with their friends.

Kyoto 2005 to 2008. Mostly Kintetsu and subway (mostly between Kyoto and Nara). Later keihan from demachiyanagi to shijo kawaramachi. I am the one who often initiated the conversation (apart from some osaka bachans who did initiate. I'm using that term of endearment not criticism despite their fearful reputation Osaka bachans are great). There were also significantly less tourists back then. Made a few friends with whom I still stay in touch. Also met my first wife like this.

I had the same experience of meeting people in the same way in Shanghai in 2004 (bus and subway). And before that, in France，the bus line I took near my university was filled with students.

I spoke with Japanese people on the subway. They were very friendly to this gaijin.

> talking to them [...] Japan

Really struggling to imagine people talking on the subway during their morning commute in Japan!! Culture changes.

Today, instead of 3 hours of TV at home, it's 4-6 hours of TV in 10-sec snippets at max volume on devices that are much too big

The secondhand socials are driving me nuts

There is an absolutely massive difference between reading a map and scrolling tiktok. The level of engagement and entertainment social media provides is off the charts compared to what people used to distract themselves with.

The counter to phone is dog.

My dog stares up at someone until they acknowledge him. Then I end up talking to the person. And everyone has a nice interaction. Usually they get a nice serotonin bump.

Yeah. As someone who spends way too much time on their phone... I'm pretty sure that I have access to all kinds of alternatives, and that I have the agency necessary to getting off my phone.

I'm pretty sure there's an awful lot more to it.

For sure, and you at least acknowledge it. As do I, I'm ashamed of my screen time reports. I feel weak.

At some point I started spending more time on my computer to reduce my phone screen time.

And the worst part is that that made sense to me for a few days.

Big screen = professional tech person. Small screen = phone addicted loser.

HN tabs open on both.

The addictive substance is the network,not the phone. Nobody gets addicted to any phone disconnected from the internet. OTOH, as you experienced it's easy to spend just as much time on the laptop or desktop when that has a persistent internet connection.

First thing I did to beat my addiction was keep my phone in airplane mode at all times, and just rely on wifi. After porting my number to a voip provider, i just canceled my cell phone subscription and then the device was no longer a phone, but a wifi tablet. a boring tool i could easily leave at home most of the time until I never took it with me again.

I often leave my phone in a different room, and that's pretty effective, too.

I've started leaving my phone at home when my wife and I go places together.

It's not a problem without solutions, of course. It just takes an amount of discipline that feels unreasonably burdensome to me (as in "ugh why is this so hard?!").

> Nobody gets addicted to any phone disconnected from the internet.

I'm not certain about that. I remember spending enough breakout time on my iPod that I had to replace the battery.

I think it is the same as with food, we just have to not get tempted. It probably would take something as radical as getting a dumbphone, DNS blocking additive sites, ditching the toilet-scroller. I'm on a website before I realize it.

Computers still have a lot of pre-24/7-internet applications and patterns compared to phones. You can get all the brain-killing stuff on them, but you also have more options for doing interesting stuff.

(Most HN use arguing with strangers is not that. Clearly I'm guilty too.)

Ironically for the "you'll rot your brain" panic of the eighties and nineties, a lot of video games are similarly better. Invest 60 hours into a complicated game and you've worked your brain out MASSIVELY more than 60 hours scrolling or watching tiktok.

Hell, at this point making it through a pre-2000s TV show or movie can be an attention-span challenge. Where's the constant payoff every 30 seconds like with memes??

May I introduce you to Factorio or Satisfactory, for example? :D

But yes, I agree. A regular computer offers more "productive" options than a phone. It's just that in my case, I'm an alt-tab away from going back to brain rot, and I am very good at hitting alt-tab.

> As do I, I'm ashamed of my screen time reports. I feel weak.

While not everyone agrees with all the precepts/concepts, may be worth noting the first step:

> 1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol—that our lives had become unmanageable.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve-step_program

One of the reasons 'God' ("as we understood Him") is invoked because you are admitting that you do not have it with-in you to control things (anymore) and that you need 'something' external to help you clamp down on your behaviour.

Literally lock it in a safe for a month and see if after you recalibrate, if you are happier. Not carried a phone in 5 years and one of the best choices I ever made. Nothing you want to do in life requires you owning a phone if you are resourceful.

Yesterday I had a meeting with a friend and wound up having to wait 20 minutes for him. Instead of being bored out of my mind, I doom scrolled.

That's the problem actually. Not a second of "boredom", where there isn't something happening. Downtime is important, and I don't mean popping on the TV and vegetating until it's time to go to bed.

That's abominable, sir. We need you to take care of your brain :)

bring a mechanical puzzle, or a book to read, or a lock to pick, or a tiny pocketable laptop that allows you to actually be productive, and leave the brainrot device at home, or get rid of it.

5 years free of doom scrolling and never been happier or more productive in my life.

> but society, there are not a lot of places teens can just hang out. A lot of fun things teens would do increasingly ban minors.

What fun things ban minors? I’m genuinely asking, because I don’t see that around here.

When I was a kid in the 1980's and early 90's the mall was the place to go and hang out. Go to the food court, arcade, shoe stores, Spencer's gifts.

Google "malls that ban teenagers" and you will find a lot of articles. I have been to a few places that have signs "Anyone under 18 must be chaperoned by an adult."

>When I was a kid in the 1980's and early 90's the mall was the place to go and hang out. Go to the food court, arcade, shoe stores, Spencer's gifts.

It's so wild looking back at those times. My friends and I would take the bus to the mall, which took (what felt like) forever. And we'd hang out there, browse stores, etc. for HOURS. Even though none of us had any money to spend. Sometimes we'd get a fountain soda at the food court for $.50. it's amazing we'd spend so much time at stores when we had no money.

Usually that's the result of an incident with premeditated mayhem from an unsupervised gathering.

Maybe there's some rare incident, maybe they're just annoyed the teens don't spend enough per hour. It doesn't really matter. Teens aren't some special danger, and it's bad when places want to give off the impression of being a nice public place but fail to be one in significant ways.

It doesn’t matter to a non stakeholder like you. For the business owners, it clearly matters.

What they think has very little relevance to the problem of teens having nowhere to go.

And in general the US has been really lacking in third places.

The late 80's and early 90's was peak mayhem but kids still hung out unsupervised at the mall.

Sure. But the end result is still teenagers losing a place to go.

its usually from shoplifting

Malls, movie theaters, arcades all require a parental escort. Not to mention the general problem society has with free-range kids.

So I am empathetic when the kids want Minecraft to be that space since society doesn't give it to them.

>Malls, movie theaters, arcades all require a parental escort

I don’t know where you are, but that sounds like a horrible place to raise kids. I’m in a California suburb, and my teenage kids go to the local malls and theaters wi their us all the time - it’s great for their independence and social life.

There lucky if they even exist. Where I grew up the local malls and hangouts that were within <30 minute drive had all died _and_ society had already moved into the “unattended minors are a threat to society” model

I tried walking 2-3 miles to school or to a friends and got picked up by the police and brought home, so I stopped going outside and became a homebody nerd. I’m not really surprised it got worse decades later with better entertainment on machines and even worse busybodies outside

In my household no one has cell phones, so we set expectations of checking in once a day via chat over wifi from laptops, radio, meshtastic, or picking up a public phone... and otherwise learn to be resourceful, self confident, and independent.

I am convinced these skills will benefit a kid more than being good at doom scrolling.

I was intrigued enough by this comment to create an account.

I noticed you mentioned ‘radio’. Do you mean HAM? Like you key up on local 2m repeaters with your HTs? (Our twins got their tech licenses in middle school and we had appointed check-in times during the day).

I applaud you for being in the heart of the tech Beast but not subject to it.

We have some friends (husband and wife) that we met because our kids play together and they are the first people I’ve met that are licensed ham operators! They each have their operator number on their license plates for their respective cars since our state has radio operator plates you can upgrade to!

    > In my household no one has cell phones

Do you live in the Bora Bora caves!? Seriously, in many highly developed countries, you need a mobile phone for essential government services.

Hardly. I run a b2b tech company in silicon valley, frequently travel the world, and have a fairly active social life.

No essential services ever -require- a phone. Just say it is against your unspecified religion and watch them fall over backwards to create alternatives for you.

It is always hilarious to watch someone at a theme park or restaurant produce a paper map or menu just after saying they no longer exist moments earlier.

If I travel overnight my only tech is a tiny laptop to work on the go, but when it is closed it is off, and not able to notify me.

It’s a tight feedback loop, use of phones is a symptom caused by problems caused by use of phones. To break it you have to stop using the phone. This is far simpler and more broadly applicable than figuring out who has dopamine disregulation and putting them on meds.

My ADHD is clearly genetic and I’m heavily medicated for it and even still I have difficulty with phone addiction and self control. I would appreciate an environment that aided in this by making tempting things harder to access.

For a long time we were told it was self control causing the issues of weight gain and not changes to the food, diets, and eating patterns. We were told that such problems couldn’t be solved with a magic pill, well for me that magic pill was ozempic and it really did solve 95% of my problems. I had uncontrolled weight gain after taking the Covid vaccine and now 4 years later, two on a rather low dose of ozempic and I’m finally back to normal. I was as disciplined before taking ozempic as I was after so it’s clear that the ozempic had a drastically positive effect.

I think an aversion to empathy leads us to blame people as the cause of their own predicaments, but this blinds us to other causes and fixes. Sometimes it really is the environment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com