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

‘Luddite’ Teens

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 297 posts

Re: ‘Luddite’ Teens

#161

Post by a-dub »

kritiko wrote: post #110
a-dub wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's the 2022 version of "kill your television" and i love it. in practice: i wonder how practical it is to survive as an adult without a smartphone. uber has decimated cabs and i don't think you can telephone for an uber. i wonder what else is unreachable/unworkable/etc...

In Brooklyn now, it's cheaper to use a car service than Uber/Lyft, so I think you could get by fine without those apps. Getting around without Google Maps would be pretty challenging, I think.

just checked, chatgpt can give directions...

reminds me of the old days when i used to text GOOGL for exact addresses

Re: ‘Luddite’ Teens

#162

Post by trgn »

browningstreet wrote: post #38

My college aged son refuses a phone. Uni gave him an iPad, he rarely uses it -- he has his laptop. He has no social. None of his classmates care one way or the other. It's all good.

Most of the handwringing about tech is the middle-aged projecting their anxieties on their children. It's not necessarily the kids who are threatened by social media. It's them, whole fucking 40 year olds, scrolling on tiktok (wtf!) and feeling queasy about it. Kids these days yeah right.

Listen to this kid subtly rubbing it in:

> “I still long to have no phone at all,” she said. “My parents are so addicted. My mom got on Twitter, and I’ve seen it tear her apart. But I guess I also like it, because I get to feel a little superior to them.”

Anyway, that aside. The article is complete cringe though. NYT really is 95% lifestyle branding and 5% factoids. Also, these kids, I don't know if they realize, but it's always just that little skeevy (not necessarily in a sexual nature, more generically, as-in, unseemly, too familiar, think "cool teacher"), when adults - journalists, artists, ...- worm their way in kids culture, package their growing up for the entertainment of jaded, passe 50 year olds.

Re: ‘Luddite’ Teens

#163

Post by floppydiskette »

djaouen wrote: post #139

This is a unique form of privilege. Most people don’t have the choice to “disconnect”. It’s engage or die. Not that I think technology is the be all and end all, but I think we are lucky if we are in the position to be able to shun it. That’s all I am saying. Edit: OK, I am probably wrong about this. Sorry for the stupid opinion :(

How is it engage or die?

Re: ‘Luddite’ Teens

#164

Post by echelon »

HWR_14 wrote: post #138
echelon wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're absolutely correct. The show was campy, and in time, would have become grating and fallen apart. Star Wars, once lauded, has been milked dry. There are a few good works, but by and large they're beating a dead horse. The same thing is happening to Marvel. People checked out after Endgame. Game of Thrones was so near to perfection. It had an unusually large cast of a hundred characters and an expansive…

> The same thing is happening to Marvel. People checked out after Endgame. First, it would be weird to say that was because Marvel was falling apart. It was the conclusion of a decade long movie franchise. Of course people might watch something else once the story they had been following was done. It doesn't mean they won't come back or didn't like the new movies, it means they wanted a break. But mainly, it's also n…

> it means they wanted a break

My point exactly. We tire of the familiar.

> 4 out of the top 10 movies were Marvel movies

Disney operates at a scale none of their peers can match. They have the most well tuned pipeline of any production company. I'd expect this.

Nevertheless, metrics point to declining interest. If I had time to write a longer comment, I'd be able to cite sources and offer more than just a suggestion to google "marvel fatigue".

Re: ‘Luddite’ Teens

#165

Post by yamtaddle »

ancientworldnow wrote: post #132
LarryMullins wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's a selection bias here; the ones who are performative are more likely to cross paths with a NYTimes journalist than the ones who aren't. People who keep it low key don't often rise to the notice of others.

Look up their parents. It's not a coincidence they crossed path with NY Times reporters looking to profile them. Nepotism teens doesn't have the same ring though.

Another interesting angle related to their coming from money—I don't have enough data to really even call it, well, data, but the limited glimpse I've had into properly upper-middle (as in the Fussell, social-class sense, not the "I make $130k/yr as a middle manager and live in a McMansion in a nice school district, so I call myself upper-middle class" sense) and upper classes' kids and schools, they're giving their kids phones way later than the public-school set. Like, 20% or less the ownership rate by 5th grade, I'd say. Nowhere near universal personal smartphone ownership by 8th grade, even, unlike the public schools, where nearly all the kids have one by then.

But I'm mostly seeing a single school, so it may just be that that school operates in some kind of techphobic bubble, not that the better-off are generally exposing their kids to cell phones and the Internet way less than the middle-class and lower.

... then again, maybe what I'm seeing isn't a heavily biased sample, and that's exactly what's going on, and this article is a manifestation of a real tendency of the upper classes to curtail tech exposure for their kids, compared with the general population.

Re: ‘Luddite’ Teens

#166

Post by SquareWheel »

a-dub wrote: post #108
sequoia wrote: post #41

This is interesting but I can't help but notice how intensely performative these kids are as well, at least how they're characterized in this article. They're wearing Carhartt (an unusual choice for a metropolis like NYC), reading Dostoyevski and gathering to "listen to the wind." I will say most teens are like this and I certainly was myself, but I hope they are careful not to cultivate their own "artisan" brand of…

it's the 2022 version of "kill your television" and i love it. in practice: i wonder how practical it is to survive as an adult without a smartphone. uber has decimated cabs and i don't think you can telephone for an uber. i wonder what else is unreachable/unworkable/etc...

I don't carry a cellphone. The rates are atrocious in Canada, and I don't like being rung when I'm out and about.

The biggest problem is 2-factor. Many services are starting to require it, which has led me to losing access to various accounts. Looking at you, Paypal.

Otherwise, it's fine. I make a paper shopping list. I schedule meetings in advance, and show up at the expected time. Uber isn't even in my city so there's no loss there.

Re: ‘Luddite’ Teens

#167

Post by djaouen »

floppydiskette wrote: post #163
djaouen wrote: post #139

This is a unique form of privilege. Most people don’t have the choice to “disconnect”. It’s engage or die. Not that I think technology is the be all and end all, but I think we are lucky if we are in the position to be able to shun it. That’s all I am saying. Edit: OK, I am probably wrong about this. Sorry for the stupid opinion :(

How is it engage or die?

Imagine, for example, applying for a job with no social media presence. OK, maybe “engage or die” is not the right phrase, but you get the gist of what I’m saying.

Re: ‘Luddite’ Teens

#169

Post by marzell »

Vt71fcAqt7 wrote: post #160
sequoia wrote: post #41

This is interesting but I can't help but notice how intensely performative these kids are as well, at least how they're characterized in this article. They're wearing Carhartt (an unusual choice for a metropolis like NYC), reading Dostoyevski and gathering to "listen to the wind." I will say most teens are like this and I certainly was myself, but I hope they are careful not to cultivate their own "artisan" brand of…

Anyone who thinks reading Dostoyevski is an acomplishment must be borderline illiterate*. None of his works are a hard read. Dostoyevski is the acomplishment, not the reader. Almost all fiction is a passive medium, the "work" has already been done by the auhtor. Tens (hundreds?) of millions of copies have been sold, and his works are required reading in many high schools. >I am glad to see "the kids" continuing to qu…

What I think many people would argue about Dostoyevsky is that it is easy to read at a surface level, but invites critical thinking to reveal layers of subtext and deeper meaning. Maybe you don't agree, which is fine, but I'd suggest this is why some people may associate it with high reading comprehension.

Re: ‘Luddite’ Teens

#170

Post by floren »

adingus wrote: post #66
floren wrote: post #4

I admire the hell out of these kids. If I had a little more strength in my own convictions, a little more willpower, I would probably go flip-phone only too. Yes, they're kind of posturing and pretentious, but in ways that remind me of myself in high school; I feel like I get them. Your average high school kid is a lot more confusing to me these days. I did have to laugh at this: > "I talked to my adviser, though, an…

I don't get the 'classist' argument at all. You don't need to be rich to want to stop doomscrolling, or to put your phone down for an hour. It sounds more like the kids who call it 'classist' understand phone addiction but don't want to face the fact its actually bad for them... like when an overweight person says 'Id rather enjoy life than eat that salad, I bet that in-shape person is a bore to be around!"

Oh, absolutely. When I was a teen, you'd be called some sort of homophobic slur for refusing to go along with the current zeitgeist. Now, it's more effective to force conformity by calling people classist/racist/etc., and the kids know it too.
Post reply on HN