This is….an odd take. For one the people i know that are “no phone people” are living paycheck to paycheck, and a common sentiment ive heard them express is wanting to reclaim the little free time they have. Also we live in what is rapidly becoming a surveillance state, at a certain point you being on social media is helping the tech oligarchs far more than its helping you fight them.
I’d also argue that the stuff you see online is not indicative of what most people think, just what most people online think. Spend any time in the real world away from technology and you’ll realise most people don’t have a clue what’s going on online.
You can still stay up to date with the stuff that matters to you in myriad other ways.
Yeah, I feel like this take infantilizes poor and working class people in a really harmful way. The thirty free minutes of the single mother doesn't have to be spent scrolling tiktok. It could be spent reading, writing sewing, drawing, etc. Tiktok is far from the only way to decompress after a long day of work (and is itself a poor way of doing that)
I fear this lot may be loosing the point! Social Media is accessible to almost everyone, and it is the Easiest option of entertainment. Yeah, tired mom is gonna scroll instead of burning more energy on a personal project. (Obviously not all of them, but Author is finding an individual as an example of a demographic.) Author isn’t even advocating for posting on and contributing to the apps. He’s advocating for staying connected to where to public conversation is. Poor people aren’t even the focus of the article, he’s referring to the Real People He’s Met Without Smartphones. He didn’t present them as if they represent all Phone-Free folk.
It’s a newer take in this conversation but I think he has some good points.
Agreed. The poster should keep in mind that the more one contributes to the algorithm by sharing their data, they are contributing to the downfall of the middle and lower economic classes.
I dont rlly find this to be an upper class trend. there are huge swathes of the population in the world who can only afford dumbphones.
ive talked to middle class people in India who are thinking about transitioning to them.
There are working class people who have slower phones like Cat s22, and who limit their social media use.
Its not a class specific trend. I do think its romanticisation is due to upper-middle class usage, but even they do it wrongly. its consumption based for them, they dont rlly care about the actual basis of dumbphones which is minimalism, privacy and reclaiming your time and mind. Theyre rlly not the people who we should be trying to talk to. Everyone in general should demand this No Phone/ Less Phone lifestyle
I'm really not convinced that "keeping up with the culture" is worth the price of our lives being mediated by the executives that run Meta, Google, Twitter and etc. Wouldn't the vast majority of people benefit from less of their time being mediated by these tech corporations? Wouldn't it be wise to use the internet to communicate that excessive online consumption is profaning life in overt and subtle ways? Isn't it the "no-phone" people who are conscientiously, strategically engaging with the internet by denying these platforms the intrusion that they have made on our lives?
To say that favoring non-algorithmic time is the equivalent of "sticking your head in the sand and pretending like the algorithm doesn’t exist" seems a little absurd to me. It's like saying that someone who uses an ad-blocker is simply trying to deny the existence of ads, and not try to save themselves from corporate bombardment, or savor the little leisure time they have. Perhaps I am targeting my grievances poorly, and the kind of no-phone person I'm thinking of is not the same kind that you're thinking of. My suspicion is that there is a negligible number of people who, at the same time, care about social issues, but are so disconnected from the internet that they don't know what the "reality" of the world is. I am left wondering why you decided that this group was worth calling out in this manner, and if this group even possesses the characteristics that you describe.
When Andreessen says, "...the vast majority of humanity, lacks Reality Privilege—their online world is, or will be, immeasurably richer and more fulfilling than most of the physical and social environment around them in the quote-unquote real world," how do we know that this "richness" and "fulfillment" is really as widespread as he claims, or that it doesn't come at the expense of a more real and sustainable richness? Andreessen goes on to argue that "reality has had 5,000 years to get good, and is clearly still woefully lacking for most people; I don't think we should wait another 5,000 years to see if it eventually closes the gap. We should build—and we are building—online worlds that make life and work and love wonderful for everyone, no matter what level of reality deprivation they find themselves in." This just sounds like technocratic bullshit to me. It's giving tech companies the go-ahead to further nullify our senses, to completely assume the dominion of the common person's reality and to disregard the improvement of material conditions.
Sure, there are going to be some snooty jackasses who cast judgement on people who consume algorithmic media, but if they themselves are not even present on these algorithms then how are they supposed to move the needle in any substantive way, culturally speaking?
While I recognize that the internet can be useful in militancy, civil societies have coalesced into social movements and organized themselves without it before. There is no epidemic of people of abandoning algorithms to their own detriment, but there is an epidemic of wealthy organizations co-opting technology and media to manipulate politics and the economy to serve their needs - and the algorithms function at the service of these organizations. Hence, I find it strange that you're worrying about a contingent of people who are trying to trying to avoid engaging with products that are used by the wealthy to mediate (and often manipulate) public opinion.
Anyway, I feel bad that my first comment is disparaging a post you made because I don't really think that you agree with Andreessen's conclusion. You're a lovely guy and I prefer the internet with you on it.
Thank you for writing engaging blogs and I really like your new book.
I disagree with this, and that's okay. I have one life to live and I'm not going to spend it consuming algorithmically tailored content created by an AI. I'm a working married mom of two babies and I'm not going to spend my last half hour of the day on TikTok; I'm going to read Algospeak instead. Even if I spent all my day on social media reading every Reddit thread or YouTube comment war, there would still be 1,000,000 conversations that could start that social or political trend that I DIDN'T read. My friends who are on social media can tell me anything that's actually important from it, and as more and more people disconnect from social media, it will necessarily become less important and shape our culture less and less. What I find by not being on social media is that my life is a lot nicer for it. I will happily suffer any consequences of not being on social media because the gains are far too great. If I die to the next social trend because I didn't read the right comment thread, well, I guess I'll get to die happy! (Your content was recommended to me by a friend, not the algorithm, by the way.)
What? Did you give us this hot take just to encourage argument and engagement? Because it’s working, you made me want to comment now. Suggesting that only the upper class can afford to take time away from scrolling mindlessly feels like conflating taste/intelligence with social class. Sure, I haven’t done the research into different social class screen times but this take just feels off and disempowering - would love to see your stats/sources/data backing this up, as your consistent sharing of sources was a huge reason I followed you. The working-class mom who only has 30 minutes to herself can just as easily spend it on a book or staring at a flower in the backyard, and I know folks who choose to do that. We’re all capable of choosing to disengage from the algorithmic traps, though of course different levels of education and awareness about our lives may affect our choices differently.
If anything, acting like our addiction to social media is inevitable, IS the privilege speaking. There are still plenty of folks in this world who spend their time focused on their daily survival and physical wellbeing. It wasn’t THAT long ago that we in the US lived our lives without any kind of social media algorithms, not some strange distance past - surely you can still remember that time too, Adam!
I don’t think it is meant to disempower those who aren’t wealthy from stepping away from their phones, in fact I hope that people who aren’t wealthy and find it in them to step away from the phones, because it is systemically harder for them. I think its better to compare algorithms to alcohol perhaps. There are certain minorities who are stereotyped alcoholics when its systemic problems that drove individuals to alcoholism, obviously you cant assume all these people in the minority are alcoholics, same way obviously just because you arent rich doesnt mean you will be addicted to ur phone, but its a lot easier for these systemically oppressed people to reach for an “easy solution” which harms them and we should acknowledge them. A working mom who reaches for a book rather than tiktok deserves twice the praise because there are systemic measures that make it harder for her to make that choice
Thanks for adding more nuance to the conversation, Autumn. I think you’re right, but I think it also depends on context and still feels like a fuzzy gray area to me where it seems like it would be hard to track statistics on how different social classes interact with various types of media in different ways. I’m not sure how to explain myself without furthering negative stereotypes of “poor” countries etc. But I do have friends and family in other countries who still consider a smartphone a huge luxury, so it’s not like those folks are scrolling social media in their spare time - they are usually interacting with friends and family in actual physical interaction! So I guess my larger point is that even the lower class in the United States still has access to what is considered luxury in many other places. The systemic factor that you mention is, to me, the fact that not everyone has access to the education or knowledge to understand why it might be better to stay away from social media altogether… which is valid.
Ok Cohen, fair point. I’m 33 and Instagram came out in 2010, which is the year I graduated from high school, so that’s why it’s not hard for me to remember. I assumed Adam was at least my age because he has more education than me, but if Google is correct (sorry for creeping, Adam!), he’s only 24… so maybe he really doesn’t remember the non-algorithm driven days! 😅 I could be wrong about this but I also thought the algorithm evolved over time to change the way the platforms operated, because the IG of today is so different than the IG of 2010, lol. Like I might be making this up but I’m fairly certain I remember a time when you could indeed reach the end of your feed and you received a little message that said “You’re all caught up on your friend’s posts for today… come again later” which of course feels bizarre to think about now because obviously all these platforms are now engineered to keep us scrolling endlessly. Still, in the grand scheme of life and human history, it’s been a truly VERY recent change.
Aahhh haha stop making me feel so old! 🥲 Tech evolves so fast, just you wait, maybe one day you will be saying “I remember the days before ChatGPT” lol
I was a teenager when Instagram first appeared as an app and you’re correct, there was a time when the feed was chronological and you could get to the end of your friends posts. Then the company realised they couldn’t profit of us much that way and changed the algorithm to the endless scroll and introduced ads.
I think maybe because you personally engage with upper class New Yorkers you think this is an isolated trend among the circles but nobody is less online than my fat working class Serbian uncles and cousins and their friends lol Social media is not reality and most of it is just bots nowadays anyways sadly. The internet sucks
1. in the us, at every level of education and income, dumbphone users are a small minority. smartphone adoption increases with education and income -- in the <$30k bracket, 79% own a smartphone and in the >$100k bracket, 98%. (see: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2024/01/31/americans-use-of-mobile-technology-and-home-broadband/) does it make sense to paint the dumbphone as some sort of contemptible bourgeois fancy when smartphones are, fundamentally, luxury items?
2. when you stop spending time on social media, you miss out on some of the "discourse" -- this is true. (often, it is the specific discourse of your filter bubble; often, it is very silly, no?) when you spend time on social media, you miss out on other things: reading, volunteering, talking without algorithmic mediation. i would suggest you are not losing your "epistemic basis" for understanding the world when you stop scrolling -- you are losing one and gaining others.
Thank you for providing these statistics. I agree that social media is merely a replacement from real connection, and it is the real connection that all of us need. Most of our division comes from the internet and algorithms that keep us divided, whereas if we were to socialize in person, we might realize how much in common we all really have.
Love your work, and appreciate your sentiment here, but going to have to disagree. Here’s why:
Social media is almost impossible to do “within reason.” These platforms are designed to hijack your nervous system, and maximize time on platform. Watching “just one TikTok” turns into a 2 hour black hole.
I consider myself to have a lot of “mental willpower” but I’ve never been able to moderate my sm usage. The algorithmic infinite scroll just breaks the human brain. Maybe others are more in control, but I’m not and I don’t personally know anyone who is either.
My thoughts exactly! I can respect and would personally enjoy a controlled usage of social media to stay in touch with the way most people experience the world. However, the scroll is so mind-bogglingly addictive that I struggle to envision implementing a healthy usage for myself. Maybe others could, but I've tried screen time limiters, app blockers, and deleting the apps themselves. There's always a way to get around them, thus sending me back into the vortex until my next revelation that social media is making me unhappy. The only solution has been deleting not just the apps, but my accounts themselves.
Your text is clearly about observing how people who can afford to opt out are, indeed, opting out, so I do not understand why people would make it a point to "oh but what about the people who cannot afford to be on their phone in the first place!!!"
i agree with that going phone free and being out of the loop entirely is a trend associated with wealthy people who do not need to rely on their phones/social media for work or daily problem solving.
however, the paragraph about it being important to stay in touch with reddit and youtube discourse is very weird to me. this summer i decided to delete apps like reddit, x and tiktok because they were being detrimental to my mental health, even as someone who studies media. this discourse might say something about society, but much of it i don't ever see reflected in real life and if it is that important i will find out about it on youtube, through other people or on the news.
the tiktok algorithm for the most part just served me discourse and drama videos that made me feel sad and angry (unless at 1 am where i actually got to see fun videos, i tried really hard to adjust my algorithm but it wasn't worth it), same with posts from with the x algorithm which seem to be designed in a lab to be as racist and soul draining as possible (being around algorithmic rage bait as a black person is also exhausting), and redditors are just annoying fucking people in general who are honestly insanely out of touch for the most part.
by cutting these out i have been able to not waste energy and time doomscrolling these apps and i have lost this vague sadness i was feeling before. just being in those spaces did a number on the subconscious.
i have had more time and motivation to try new hobbies, and have replaced my doomscrolling with genuinly doing fuck all and relaxing which was necessary.
so no, i don't agree that people need to stay in the loop with internet discourse on a regular basis. i don't think we were simply meant to know this many people's opinions on things.
There is also an argument to be made for a third group of people. Those who are "checked out" of or highly limit their engagement with social media because they are unable to interact safely with those things. Either because they are not in a good place physically/mentally and must limit their involvement in things other than their care/recovery; or because they are easily influenced, have limited media literacy, or cannot reliably vet new information independently. As a person who is mostly homebound and cannot engage in highly confrontational or anxiety inducing conversations without suffering profound health issues as a result of the stress, I have to remove myself from so many issues and causes that I find extremely important and valuable because I recognize that I cannot do anything to assist in most cases except argue and that is not something I can handle. (I am scared to post this even because what if someone replies something rude?) All that being said, I really like your take on this and have enjoyed all your writing and videos so far. Have a fantastic day :-)
Adam, I love your work. As a "no-phone" person myself, I am decidedly not upper class; but I admit, it is privilege that allows me to live the life that I live. That privilege is having trustworthy people around me. Sometimes I inconvenience them by not being terribly connected to the world. But the ones who want to stay connected with me do.
Your evidence was anecdotal, sadly. Of course online discourse around dumbphones and smartphone free living is going to be based around consumption, because the internet is based around consumption, this is what the medium does. I would agree with you that not everyone can "afford" to disconnect because of work or whatever, but it is not right to pretend that you are experiencing reality when you are being spoon-fed algorithmic content (with it's echo chambers, hate baits and ads), it will never replace actually living in the real world.
I'm coming back to add that I'm really sorry if my tone sounded a little too aggressive, this is not my first language and I really like your pieces :)
Online communication is hard, and upon reflection I guess I felt called out. It would be really interesting to see some research on this topic!!
This is….an odd take. For one the people i know that are “no phone people” are living paycheck to paycheck, and a common sentiment ive heard them express is wanting to reclaim the little free time they have. Also we live in what is rapidly becoming a surveillance state, at a certain point you being on social media is helping the tech oligarchs far more than its helping you fight them.
Also, It's no tragedy to "lose touch with reality as most people experience it" - as the author proclaims - when that reality is a dumpster fire.
When reality is garbage, losing touch with it is self-care.
I’d also argue that the stuff you see online is not indicative of what most people think, just what most people online think. Spend any time in the real world away from technology and you’ll realise most people don’t have a clue what’s going on online.
You can still stay up to date with the stuff that matters to you in myriad other ways.
yep.
Yeah, I feel like this take infantilizes poor and working class people in a really harmful way. The thirty free minutes of the single mother doesn't have to be spent scrolling tiktok. It could be spent reading, writing sewing, drawing, etc. Tiktok is far from the only way to decompress after a long day of work (and is itself a poor way of doing that)
I fear this lot may be loosing the point! Social Media is accessible to almost everyone, and it is the Easiest option of entertainment. Yeah, tired mom is gonna scroll instead of burning more energy on a personal project. (Obviously not all of them, but Author is finding an individual as an example of a demographic.) Author isn’t even advocating for posting on and contributing to the apps. He’s advocating for staying connected to where to public conversation is. Poor people aren’t even the focus of the article, he’s referring to the Real People He’s Met Without Smartphones. He didn’t present them as if they represent all Phone-Free folk.
It’s a newer take in this conversation but I think he has some good points.
Agreed. The poster should keep in mind that the more one contributes to the algorithm by sharing their data, they are contributing to the downfall of the middle and lower economic classes.
I dont rlly find this to be an upper class trend. there are huge swathes of the population in the world who can only afford dumbphones.
ive talked to middle class people in India who are thinking about transitioning to them.
There are working class people who have slower phones like Cat s22, and who limit their social media use.
Its not a class specific trend. I do think its romanticisation is due to upper-middle class usage, but even they do it wrongly. its consumption based for them, they dont rlly care about the actual basis of dumbphones which is minimalism, privacy and reclaiming your time and mind. Theyre rlly not the people who we should be trying to talk to. Everyone in general should demand this No Phone/ Less Phone lifestyle
I'm really not convinced that "keeping up with the culture" is worth the price of our lives being mediated by the executives that run Meta, Google, Twitter and etc. Wouldn't the vast majority of people benefit from less of their time being mediated by these tech corporations? Wouldn't it be wise to use the internet to communicate that excessive online consumption is profaning life in overt and subtle ways? Isn't it the "no-phone" people who are conscientiously, strategically engaging with the internet by denying these platforms the intrusion that they have made on our lives?
To say that favoring non-algorithmic time is the equivalent of "sticking your head in the sand and pretending like the algorithm doesn’t exist" seems a little absurd to me. It's like saying that someone who uses an ad-blocker is simply trying to deny the existence of ads, and not try to save themselves from corporate bombardment, or savor the little leisure time they have. Perhaps I am targeting my grievances poorly, and the kind of no-phone person I'm thinking of is not the same kind that you're thinking of. My suspicion is that there is a negligible number of people who, at the same time, care about social issues, but are so disconnected from the internet that they don't know what the "reality" of the world is. I am left wondering why you decided that this group was worth calling out in this manner, and if this group even possesses the characteristics that you describe.
When Andreessen says, "...the vast majority of humanity, lacks Reality Privilege—their online world is, or will be, immeasurably richer and more fulfilling than most of the physical and social environment around them in the quote-unquote real world," how do we know that this "richness" and "fulfillment" is really as widespread as he claims, or that it doesn't come at the expense of a more real and sustainable richness? Andreessen goes on to argue that "reality has had 5,000 years to get good, and is clearly still woefully lacking for most people; I don't think we should wait another 5,000 years to see if it eventually closes the gap. We should build—and we are building—online worlds that make life and work and love wonderful for everyone, no matter what level of reality deprivation they find themselves in." This just sounds like technocratic bullshit to me. It's giving tech companies the go-ahead to further nullify our senses, to completely assume the dominion of the common person's reality and to disregard the improvement of material conditions.
Sure, there are going to be some snooty jackasses who cast judgement on people who consume algorithmic media, but if they themselves are not even present on these algorithms then how are they supposed to move the needle in any substantive way, culturally speaking?
While I recognize that the internet can be useful in militancy, civil societies have coalesced into social movements and organized themselves without it before. There is no epidemic of people of abandoning algorithms to their own detriment, but there is an epidemic of wealthy organizations co-opting technology and media to manipulate politics and the economy to serve their needs - and the algorithms function at the service of these organizations. Hence, I find it strange that you're worrying about a contingent of people who are trying to trying to avoid engaging with products that are used by the wealthy to mediate (and often manipulate) public opinion.
Anyway, I feel bad that my first comment is disparaging a post you made because I don't really think that you agree with Andreessen's conclusion. You're a lovely guy and I prefer the internet with you on it.
Thank you for writing engaging blogs and I really like your new book.
I disagree with this, and that's okay. I have one life to live and I'm not going to spend it consuming algorithmically tailored content created by an AI. I'm a working married mom of two babies and I'm not going to spend my last half hour of the day on TikTok; I'm going to read Algospeak instead. Even if I spent all my day on social media reading every Reddit thread or YouTube comment war, there would still be 1,000,000 conversations that could start that social or political trend that I DIDN'T read. My friends who are on social media can tell me anything that's actually important from it, and as more and more people disconnect from social media, it will necessarily become less important and shape our culture less and less. What I find by not being on social media is that my life is a lot nicer for it. I will happily suffer any consequences of not being on social media because the gains are far too great. If I die to the next social trend because I didn't read the right comment thread, well, I guess I'll get to die happy! (Your content was recommended to me by a friend, not the algorithm, by the way.)
My exact thoughts. Thank you
This convinced me to go No Phone, can’t wait to be upper class
What? Did you give us this hot take just to encourage argument and engagement? Because it’s working, you made me want to comment now. Suggesting that only the upper class can afford to take time away from scrolling mindlessly feels like conflating taste/intelligence with social class. Sure, I haven’t done the research into different social class screen times but this take just feels off and disempowering - would love to see your stats/sources/data backing this up, as your consistent sharing of sources was a huge reason I followed you. The working-class mom who only has 30 minutes to herself can just as easily spend it on a book or staring at a flower in the backyard, and I know folks who choose to do that. We’re all capable of choosing to disengage from the algorithmic traps, though of course different levels of education and awareness about our lives may affect our choices differently.
If anything, acting like our addiction to social media is inevitable, IS the privilege speaking. There are still plenty of folks in this world who spend their time focused on their daily survival and physical wellbeing. It wasn’t THAT long ago that we in the US lived our lives without any kind of social media algorithms, not some strange distance past - surely you can still remember that time too, Adam!
I don’t think it is meant to disempower those who aren’t wealthy from stepping away from their phones, in fact I hope that people who aren’t wealthy and find it in them to step away from the phones, because it is systemically harder for them. I think its better to compare algorithms to alcohol perhaps. There are certain minorities who are stereotyped alcoholics when its systemic problems that drove individuals to alcoholism, obviously you cant assume all these people in the minority are alcoholics, same way obviously just because you arent rich doesnt mean you will be addicted to ur phone, but its a lot easier for these systemically oppressed people to reach for an “easy solution” which harms them and we should acknowledge them. A working mom who reaches for a book rather than tiktok deserves twice the praise because there are systemic measures that make it harder for her to make that choice
Thanks for adding more nuance to the conversation, Autumn. I think you’re right, but I think it also depends on context and still feels like a fuzzy gray area to me where it seems like it would be hard to track statistics on how different social classes interact with various types of media in different ways. I’m not sure how to explain myself without furthering negative stereotypes of “poor” countries etc. But I do have friends and family in other countries who still consider a smartphone a huge luxury, so it’s not like those folks are scrolling social media in their spare time - they are usually interacting with friends and family in actual physical interaction! So I guess my larger point is that even the lower class in the United States still has access to what is considered luxury in many other places. The systemic factor that you mention is, to me, the fact that not everyone has access to the education or knowledge to understand why it might be better to stay away from social media altogether… which is valid.
Adam is probably at max 30 years old. I am 20 and I have no recollection of a time before.
Ok Cohen, fair point. I’m 33 and Instagram came out in 2010, which is the year I graduated from high school, so that’s why it’s not hard for me to remember. I assumed Adam was at least my age because he has more education than me, but if Google is correct (sorry for creeping, Adam!), he’s only 24… so maybe he really doesn’t remember the non-algorithm driven days! 😅 I could be wrong about this but I also thought the algorithm evolved over time to change the way the platforms operated, because the IG of today is so different than the IG of 2010, lol. Like I might be making this up but I’m fairly certain I remember a time when you could indeed reach the end of your feed and you received a little message that said “You’re all caught up on your friend’s posts for today… come again later” which of course feels bizarre to think about now because obviously all these platforms are now engineered to keep us scrolling endlessly. Still, in the grand scheme of life and human history, it’s been a truly VERY recent change.
I was just starting Kindergarten in 2010 ha. I’ve never know anything but the internet unfortunately.
Aahhh haha stop making me feel so old! 🥲 Tech evolves so fast, just you wait, maybe one day you will be saying “I remember the days before ChatGPT” lol
Its starting to seem like I am already getting to that point 😂
I was a teenager when Instagram first appeared as an app and you’re correct, there was a time when the feed was chronological and you could get to the end of your friends posts. Then the company realised they couldn’t profit of us much that way and changed the algorithm to the endless scroll and introduced ads.
Thus we have to be aware
I think maybe because you personally engage with upper class New Yorkers you think this is an isolated trend among the circles but nobody is less online than my fat working class Serbian uncles and cousins and their friends lol Social media is not reality and most of it is just bots nowadays anyways sadly. The internet sucks
Yeah when I was reading these comments I was thinking that this must be a upper class NYC trend rather than a nationwide trend
unsurprisingly, as a dumbphone user, I disagree.
1. in the us, at every level of education and income, dumbphone users are a small minority. smartphone adoption increases with education and income -- in the <$30k bracket, 79% own a smartphone and in the >$100k bracket, 98%. (see: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2024/01/31/americans-use-of-mobile-technology-and-home-broadband/) does it make sense to paint the dumbphone as some sort of contemptible bourgeois fancy when smartphones are, fundamentally, luxury items?
2. when you stop spending time on social media, you miss out on some of the "discourse" -- this is true. (often, it is the specific discourse of your filter bubble; often, it is very silly, no?) when you spend time on social media, you miss out on other things: reading, volunteering, talking without algorithmic mediation. i would suggest you are not losing your "epistemic basis" for understanding the world when you stop scrolling -- you are losing one and gaining others.
Thank you for providing these statistics. I agree that social media is merely a replacement from real connection, and it is the real connection that all of us need. Most of our division comes from the internet and algorithms that keep us divided, whereas if we were to socialize in person, we might realize how much in common we all really have.
Love your work, and appreciate your sentiment here, but going to have to disagree. Here’s why:
Social media is almost impossible to do “within reason.” These platforms are designed to hijack your nervous system, and maximize time on platform. Watching “just one TikTok” turns into a 2 hour black hole.
I consider myself to have a lot of “mental willpower” but I’ve never been able to moderate my sm usage. The algorithmic infinite scroll just breaks the human brain. Maybe others are more in control, but I’m not and I don’t personally know anyone who is either.
My thoughts exactly! I can respect and would personally enjoy a controlled usage of social media to stay in touch with the way most people experience the world. However, the scroll is so mind-bogglingly addictive that I struggle to envision implementing a healthy usage for myself. Maybe others could, but I've tried screen time limiters, app blockers, and deleting the apps themselves. There's always a way to get around them, thus sending me back into the vortex until my next revelation that social media is making me unhappy. The only solution has been deleting not just the apps, but my accounts themselves.
Your text is clearly about observing how people who can afford to opt out are, indeed, opting out, so I do not understand why people would make it a point to "oh but what about the people who cannot afford to be on their phone in the first place!!!"
"Poor people can't afford to eat healthy as easily as upper middle class people so you should actually quit your diet and eat food from a can"
i agree with that going phone free and being out of the loop entirely is a trend associated with wealthy people who do not need to rely on their phones/social media for work or daily problem solving.
however, the paragraph about it being important to stay in touch with reddit and youtube discourse is very weird to me. this summer i decided to delete apps like reddit, x and tiktok because they were being detrimental to my mental health, even as someone who studies media. this discourse might say something about society, but much of it i don't ever see reflected in real life and if it is that important i will find out about it on youtube, through other people or on the news.
the tiktok algorithm for the most part just served me discourse and drama videos that made me feel sad and angry (unless at 1 am where i actually got to see fun videos, i tried really hard to adjust my algorithm but it wasn't worth it), same with posts from with the x algorithm which seem to be designed in a lab to be as racist and soul draining as possible (being around algorithmic rage bait as a black person is also exhausting), and redditors are just annoying fucking people in general who are honestly insanely out of touch for the most part.
by cutting these out i have been able to not waste energy and time doomscrolling these apps and i have lost this vague sadness i was feeling before. just being in those spaces did a number on the subconscious.
i have had more time and motivation to try new hobbies, and have replaced my doomscrolling with genuinly doing fuck all and relaxing which was necessary.
so no, i don't agree that people need to stay in the loop with internet discourse on a regular basis. i don't think we were simply meant to know this many people's opinions on things.
Had to make an account just to look at the comments on this one.
2 thoughts:
(1) boycotting social media is an extremely strong form of resistance in fighting Big Tech/Silicon Valley
(2) Algorithms DIVIDE us. By avoiding them, we become more UNITED.
There is also an argument to be made for a third group of people. Those who are "checked out" of or highly limit their engagement with social media because they are unable to interact safely with those things. Either because they are not in a good place physically/mentally and must limit their involvement in things other than their care/recovery; or because they are easily influenced, have limited media literacy, or cannot reliably vet new information independently. As a person who is mostly homebound and cannot engage in highly confrontational or anxiety inducing conversations without suffering profound health issues as a result of the stress, I have to remove myself from so many issues and causes that I find extremely important and valuable because I recognize that I cannot do anything to assist in most cases except argue and that is not something I can handle. (I am scared to post this even because what if someone replies something rude?) All that being said, I really like your take on this and have enjoyed all your writing and videos so far. Have a fantastic day :-)
Adam, I love your work. As a "no-phone" person myself, I am decidedly not upper class; but I admit, it is privilege that allows me to live the life that I live. That privilege is having trustworthy people around me. Sometimes I inconvenience them by not being terribly connected to the world. But the ones who want to stay connected with me do.
Are you not on a phone typing this??
I'm on a p.c.
Your evidence was anecdotal, sadly. Of course online discourse around dumbphones and smartphone free living is going to be based around consumption, because the internet is based around consumption, this is what the medium does. I would agree with you that not everyone can "afford" to disconnect because of work or whatever, but it is not right to pretend that you are experiencing reality when you are being spoon-fed algorithmic content (with it's echo chambers, hate baits and ads), it will never replace actually living in the real world.
I'm coming back to add that I'm really sorry if my tone sounded a little too aggressive, this is not my first language and I really like your pieces :)
Online communication is hard, and upon reflection I guess I felt called out. It would be really interesting to see some research on this topic!!
As i was reading your comment i thought “did alan actually successfully rage-bated us with this post?”