Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We need to reclaim our attention

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 458 posts

Re: We need to reclaim our attention

#101

Post by dredmorbius »

tomxor wrote: post #27

> wearing a gas mask for two days a week outside isn’t the answer to pollution. It might, for a short period of time, keep certain effects at bay, but it’s not sustainable, and it doesn’t address the systemic issues. I don't think this is the most accurate analogy. The most attention draining parts of the web/internet are some kind of social platform. I needn't list them, you know what they are... they are not analog…

Air surrounds us.

Social media --- those site which we don't need to name because we all know what they are --- surround us socially. I don't use the F, or the T, or the IG, or the YT, or the TT. But I sure as heck live in the world they create. In most of the West they've permeate politics and culture. It's often difficult to engage with businesses, or governments, or your own job, without having a presence on these systems. And in parts of the world they've played a major role in insurrection, revolution, and genocide. Sometimes celebrated for that role, increasingly looked on with a sense that something's gone horrifically wrong.

So no, disconnecting personally is not the solution.

Re: We need to reclaim our attention

#102

Post by fullshark »

slibhb wrote: post #42

> Some scientists say these worries about attention are a moral panic, comparable to the anxieties in the past about comic books or rap music, and that the evidence is shaky. I agree with them. It's hard to pay attention to something for long unless it's entertaining. Reading a book, reading a paper, etc -- these activities take discipline that most people don't develop or don't often apply. This isn't new. The mista…

Another possibility: the moral panic about comic books / rap music / low brow culture was justified and its ubiquity has done active harm to our society.

Re: We need to reclaim our attention

#103

Post by shukantpal »

37 wrote: post #63
telxosser wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just don't agree really. That analogy is pretty absurd. It is hugely powerful to not get caught up in all this nonsense at the individual level. I know so much more than what I knew in early January 2021 because I spend my time reading books, doing tutorials or taking MOOCS instead of wasting my time watching TikTok. I literally don't even know what the user interface to TikTok looks like and never will. If anythin…

It's both. Yes it is good that you spent early 2021 not mindlessly scrolling TikTok, and yes it is true that as individuals we do have some agency in the matter. But, it is also true that in this 'attention economy' the large companies are hiring psychologists to try to break your agency, to try to take it away from you. And they are doing a pretty damn good job, and aren't going to stop any time soon. "Stolen" in th…

> “Stolen" in the title of the OP is not really an exaggeration.

Theft can happen only when it’s involuntary.

> the problem is systemic, essentially baked into the business model of advertising/marketing, and it should be addressed

That’s not the root cause. It is just a choke point for blame.

The root cause is the choice people make, which we’ve established exists. If people want help, there are plenty of mitigations for social media, like alternative front ends.

Re: We need to reclaim our attention

#104

Post by batch12 »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #76
batch12 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Respectfully, these examples- radio and TV aren't even in the same league as the manipulation and engagement that comes from the algorithmic feedback loop that backs these services. The comparison is dangerously dismissive.

Right, I think addiction is probably the bigger story rather than attention.

Yes, though these are linked. Attention is the goal while addiction is the means.

Re: We need to reclaim our attention

#105

Post by Swizec »

mwattsun wrote: post #100

I had a dream last night that expressed my recent concern that Mark Zuckerberg and Meta are Pied Pipers leading our kids into virtual worlds where Meta controls everything including allowable expression and thought, where even certain concepts are banned with no allowable word for them [1]. My concern is that kids are getting VR headsets and going to a place where there is no parental control because adults don't und…

> kids are getting VR headsets and going to a place where there is no parental control because adults don't understand VR or how to join their kids there

Sounds like early social media. Hanging out without parents was the crucial feature.

I’m 34 now and having parents on social media still feels like an odd concept

Re: We need to reclaim our attention

#106

Post by batch12 »

rightbyte wrote: post #90
bootlooped wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder what kids raised on iPads with big childproof cases will be like when they grow up, or even just when they get into high school.

I had that discussion this week end. I wonder if it will be any different from our Game boys? Or is the problem that smaller children get their hands on them?

The problem is the child's mind vs the bidirectional feedback drip. I don't think these two devices are in the same class in respect to this.

Re: We need to reclaim our attention

#107

Post by wyre »

rightbyte wrote: post #90
bootlooped wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder what kids raised on iPads with big childproof cases will be like when they grow up, or even just when they get into high school.

I had that discussion this week end. I wonder if it will be any different from our Game boys? Or is the problem that smaller children get their hands on them?

It will be different. Playing Pokémon or Mario is much different than the endless scroll of TikTok, YouTube Kids, or a lot of the games.

Re: We need to reclaim our attention

#108

Post by annadane »

criley2 wrote: post #29
wrnr wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The entire way the old media reports on the new media is unironical scaremongering about how the internet is hacking the fear response of your amygdala. They should instead be positive and publish articles like "Here are 10 youtube channels that go into more depth that the master program of any university".

Why would old media publish articles that people don't want to read? No one would read "here are 10 youtube channels that are more in depth than a master program". They would go out of business in a quarter. It's not like old media doesn't publish a variety of content and then evaluate which gets the most views already. They know we don't want to sit through fifty hours of academic lectures instead of reality tv. I a…

Why is this downvoted?

Re: We need to reclaim our attention

#109

Post by trwhite »

slibhb wrote: post #42

> Some scientists say these worries about attention are a moral panic, comparable to the anxieties in the past about comic books or rap music, and that the evidence is shaky. I agree with them. It's hard to pay attention to something for long unless it's entertaining. Reading a book, reading a paper, etc -- these activities take discipline that most people don't develop or don't often apply. This isn't new. The mista…

Video games are immensely addictive. The burst of adrenaline some of the recent online FPS' give me doesn't compare to any other feeling or experience I've had as a human being. They didn't just happen to be this way. They have been designed to be so thrilling that normal life cannot compete.

Re: We need to reclaim our attention

#110

Post by sascha_sl »

thegrimmest wrote: post #98
sascha_sl wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This presupposed the "voluntary" part of capitalism, which I find objectionable, but I didn't want to go on a tangent for too long. FWIW, I wouldn't want to prescribe a particular habit of eating healthy or not binging media, but I also don't consider the current status quo neutral. It is true that it is simply a product of profit incentives, but that doesn't mean the outcomes are good, desirable or natural.

My point is that "good, desirable or natural" are not real . They are not concrete things that we can derive from observations about the world. They are akin to religions beliefs. Reasonable people can hold opposing views, and there is no oracle to divine the one truth. Given this situation, the only reasonable way forward seems to be tolerance of the full diversity of belief, and refrain from imposing one's own beli…

This is why I wanted to avoid this discussion. Because philosophically, I really don't disagree with this statement, but the discussion has pivoted past the important part, where we talk about whether total economic freedom is itself ideology (or "an imposition of belief"). It doesn't exist in a vaccum. It is a way to maximize one particular aspect of freedom, but at the expense of other aspects. You will always have to make this trade off somewhere, paradox of tolerance and all, and I don't think this is the one we should make.
Post reply on HN