I’m teetotal, so I only go to the pub to socialise. That in turn requires several friends to want to go at the same time.
TV, fortunely for me, is not something I find addictive. I don’t own a TV, and the number of shows I care about seeing online or with friends is, on average, about 1h per week.
Reading more novels would be a good thing for me at this point. Long-form prose requires focus for several hours; exactly the mental state I want to have.
At one point you stop watching TV, because there are no more new things to watch, you stop reading novels because they aren't novel anymore, you stop going to the bar because there's a fixed amount of alcohol you can consume, it costs money, the bar has opening hours.
if You can get bored of novels with all their formats and styles and character arcs and high complexity why can’t you get bored of scrolling through empty one-or-two line updates of people’s lives that you know don’t r fleet reality? It’s basically a worse novel that also makes you feel bad for reading it.
That's the point: if you get bored by a book, you stop reading the book, if you get bored by infinite scrollable content, you keep scrolling looking for less boring content, that never shows up.
It's the same effect that gambling has on the brain.
You keep playing, even though you keep losing.
That's the danger and that's why books, the TV, movies, radios (music in general) and other form of entertainment are not equally dangerous, because usually you are able to stop before it gets too far.
I disagree about categorizing TV as "the safer half" of the comparison, in the same section as books or movies. If anything, TV is an earlier iteration of the same stuff.
Flipping through the circular loop of cable TV channels predates scrolling and refreshing webpages, but people exhibited the same addictive novelty-seeking. It was so common it became a cliche to say things like "N channels and nothing [good] on."
In addition, they share same emphasis on advertisements as a funding stream, whereas movies and books are typically paid for up-front.
I think I may need to explain: TV is passive, you either watch it or not
The engagement in social networks comes from being actively participating
"Your opinion matters" they say
No, they don't
But the fact that you can argue with someone on the internet believing someone is finally listening to all the important things you have to say, keeps you there refreshing over and over
it's "someone is wrong on the internet" [1]
And it's highly addictive, especially for those people who feel powerless
Same reason people eat candy and happy meals, get fat and die young of an obesity induced heart attack. It’s rubbish, but rubbish which makes you feel good when you consume it and miss it when you don’t.
A smartphone has only so much battery. It's best suited for frequent but short uses. If you want to replace TV, novels and bars with social media, your best bet is still the PC.
There's a flaw in the original comment, and I wanted to make it clear through a provocation.
You don't replace social media with books, there are books I never get bored by, I've read Dune almost 20 times, and I'm sure I will read it again sooner or later.
Social media content is based on engagement, not on enjoyment.
You don't enjoy the content, you enjoy scrolling through the content at the point that once posted, the content is lost, unless it gain real traction, you won't be able to find it again.
Books never run out of battery, when you watch TV you are not actively skipping through ad, you passively ignore them.
Think about it: when was the last time that you interrupted reading a book for watching the TV or a movie?
But how many time you've watched your phone while doing something else?
The addictive nature of the "you might miss it" content is the real danger and it's what the article talks about.
We are at a point in history where going to a bar and drink it's healthier for you mental health than staying home with your phone.
> Think about it: when was the last time that you interrupted reading a book for watching the TV or a movie?
> But how many time you've watched your phone while doing something else?
I don't think this example proves your point. For me, a book engages ~100% of my cognitive resources; a movie also engages a large amount. Therefore, those activities can't be done simultaneously with other stuff if I'm to enjoy them or benefit from them. OTOH, social media usually engages less than 50% of my brain power, so it's a perfect thing to do simultaneously with other things that barely engage my brain and otherwise would bore me out of my mind. Hence: yes, it's reasonable to watch your phone while doing something else.
For me, social media does use all available mental resources. I timed “a quick look at twitter“ once, and when I looked at the clock after what felt like 5 minuets, I found I’d spent 40 minutes absorbed in irrelevant minutae. I can’t tell you a single tweet I read in that time.
