The human pool of Attention is slow growing and finite (the limit being number of minutes in a day*people). Yet Content keeps exploding to infinity.

Just like inflation devalues money, content inflation devalues individual Attention.

In traditional economics, more money chasing the same goods = inflation. In the Attention Economy, more content chasing the same attention = engagement inflation (harder to get noticed, costs more to be seen).

The real winners - Platforms, since they act like central banks controlling both supply (content) and demand (attention via algorithm).

The Attention Economy behaves like a manipulated market where demand is fixed but distorted, and supply keeps increasing, benefiting the gatekeepers (platforms) while exhausting the participants (creators, advertisers, businesses, users).

History teaches us where the story goes.

In some sense perhaps, but I now value my attention more since there is so much more competing for attention. Out with Twitter/X, in with Hacker News; out with daily papers, in with long news: Aeon and Atlantic and Foreign Affairs. And zero broadcast TV.

It's just so damn hard for any in-person activities to compete with instant gratification and addictive rage. In college in 2022, I was a member of several clubs with varying subjects and members. Every one of them struggled to get anyone to attend. The CS club hosted drone races and 3d printed model painting. The improv club had weekly themed meetings. The theater department hosted at least 1 large and 1 small show per semester and we couldn't even get people to sit in the audience. And this is college, where demands on participants' time are relatively lacking (compared to kids and a 9-5). I imagine a lot of social activities have failed to get members and then just ceased to exist as a result. Several of the clubs I was in no longer exist due to a lack of participants to take up leadership after my class graduated.

Don't even get me started on how people talk and talk about causes they admire on the internet but then never actually volunteer their time to make anything better.

I really think society has just fucked itself over by letting social media companies run rampant with our attention, feeding us lies and gossip that doesn't matter 24 hours later. I genuinely just don't know if most people can be conscious and disciplined enough to get themselves out of the trap. At the very least, it will take a few generations to develop new mores and standards and who knows what new tech will be around to ruin their lives by then. I find it hard to believe that anyone was ever hopeful about working in this industry.

Does it? When else has this happened before? Or do you just mean manipulated markets specifically?

I think my book is missing that chapter -where does it go?

I did a soft launch earlier this week by posting on NYC subreddits to get early feedback and test out my hypothesis . The reaction has been very positive with many comments saying they like the concept. Obviously there's a long way to go to really nail down the product market fit and build a sustainable business around it but the early feedback makes me feel like there is really something there.

I suppose theoretically it should lead to more connections based on interests and commonalities, as opposed to superficial characteristics (at least in the case your app, going off of your Reddit post; Tinder is a bit of a different story). I do feel like something is lost in the process, though. There are many people who have good friends that they have very little in common with.

1) Swipe based interfaces inherently cause users to see other people as more disposable. I'm trying to have my app be centered around plans, which is a mix between a traditional event with a set time and location and a social media post.

2) Paradox of choice. I'm testing whether providing people with fewer good options will make it easier to commit to something instead of having endless choices.

3) Friend dates are awkward. When people meet through traditional friend making apps, the first meeting is usually dinner, coffee, etc. I think people become pickier when this is the common mode of meeting because if you don't really click at the meeting, it's a waste of time. My theory is that when the meetings are more focused on doing an activity you already like, even if you don't completely click with the group you meet with, it can still be an enjoyable time. I'm hoping this makes people more open to getting out there more.

I share your enthusiasm for making it easier for people to connect in person, focused around shared interests (incl. established online social networks). I'm sincerely concerned about the potential outcomes of our current and growing social isolation.

That said, I believe that "third spaces" are still essential. Effective third spaces can provide safe, neutral ground for those who are unacquainted to get to know one another on their own terms. I think that the thought of inviting a strangers into your personal space is pretty uncomfortable to many people. I also think people want to get out of their cave every now and then--especially with the rise of work-from-home.

I think the failure of traditional third spaces (cafes, bars, social clubs, libraries, etc.) has more to do with them being unable to adapt to the needs of modern society & socialization.

My thought is that there needs to be a new type of third space which meets those needs. Perhaps something like WeWork, but geared towards the third space? Something that can adapt to and support the diverse interest/hobbies/networks that have come about due to the internet. Something that tics all of the "Great Good Place" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_place) boxes and more. I have some ideas, but need to develop them further.

I agree that third spaces are very valuable but the reality is that they are declining in the current market and the trend doesn't seem to be changing any time soon. I think some venues will figure out how to make it work in the modern market but ultimately there will be fewer of these places in general.

And you're right about people being uncomfortable with strangers in their home but most people will meet in public first before having people over. This is a pattern I've seen a lot in NYC where a community will have public events to attract newcomers. Once these people are vetted, they are invited into a private Whatsapp or Discord. Once accepted into the private chat, people will organize private events which sometimes takes place at someone's home. In a way, my platform hopes to formalize this pattern and make it more accessible for individuals so it's less dependent on having formal organizers/hosts. This pattern still requires public spaces but I think it's a bit more flexible.

There is obviously variety is what tools groups use though.

I'm also on discord as com2kid

How many people think today's children are having better lives than the last generation? 25% of US university students on antidepressants.

We optimize for a big GDP number but never for a population happiness level.

Are they on anti-depressants because life has gotten worse or because of decreasing stigma resulting from greater accessibility to better-informed patients? Until the turn of the century, just mentioning you saw a shrink in any sincere capacity would get you funny looks in most parts of the country.

> Unfortunately it involves stopping staring at screens 10 hours a day, which is the funds supporting half of this forum's careers.

There's an old joke where a reporter asks a bank robber why he robs banks. The latter's response: "Because, that's where the money is". The bank and bar of today is the Internet. It's what funds and facilitates most social ventures, even the ones that take place IRL.

Happiness isn't a quality you can optimize for on a national or global scale as it's a purely individual affair.

This right here is exactly what's wrong. People are put into impossible conditions and then blamed when they can't magically make themselves happy with the arrangement.

Tell me, are animals happy to be in a zoo? Why not? Why can't they just make themselves happy?

> Tell me, are animals happy to be in a zoo? Why not? Why can't they just make themselves happy?

Not every animal views a zoo (or for that matter, a farm or a pet-owner's house) as a prison. For a significant population of zoo animals, life in captivity is the only life they know. For the most part, they are as happy and content as they are well-fed.

Not if they are given a space which is too small and not stimulating enough for them, then they just pace around for their whole lives.

The conditions that make someone miserable are just as variable. Some of the most content people possess little education and are mired in the throes of poverty. If you started a national misery program where the government impoverishes its population left and right, there would still be a minority who find enjoyment, even thrive, in such circumstances.

You need to factor in alcohol and drug use rates for previous generations, crime rates of youth and so it. It is not that current situation is optimal, but when I was young, you would not get antidepressants even if you actually desperately needed it. The taboo against admitting even to yourself that you might have mental health issue was too high.

Conservative minded people like to complain about lack of risk taking among youth ... but quite a lot of risk taking was pure self destruction or destruction of whoever you got pregnant (if you was a guy).

Is it because they're emotionally worse off, or is it because pharma is advertising them more aggressively, kickbacks, etc

https://www.cdc.gov/healthy-youth/mental-health/mental-healt...

Increased pharma pushing is an easy scapegoat, but it would have to be making these youth more depressed before they were ever taking antidepressants.

Social media and phones have been disconnecting real interactions and pushing people onto fake digital "connections." Then when people are more lonely than ever, we're now pushing them "AI bot connections" to help loneliness, purely because VC's see $ in it, basically giving desperate people soda to help their hunger.

It is like a hyper version of de Tocqueville now. No matter how poor someone is, they still don't feel that far from being rich and famous in America.

This creates enormous status anxiety coupled with the reality of student loans and inflation it is a really bad deal for young people's mental health.

We're living in a world system where almost all societies are based on the idea that one class of people has a right to the labour of almost all the rest. I'm not sure why you suggest furthering it is a solution to our current predicaments.

I'm failing at finding it via google, but I also recall a study that showed drivers tended to view other drivers/cars on the road not as a person in control of a vehicle, but rather an inanimate object, which I think further supports your point. If anyone has a link to the study, I'd be grateful.

One major issue is that affordability is down bad, many people cannot afford cars and they are stuck in environments where cars are required to do everything and as a result have turned to the internet for their social needs. Which as we know is a mirage for social interaction.

Dense areas where walking/public transit are enough to see friends are becoming more expensive as well.

If your environment is isolating and the internet replaces easy socialization then you become isolated.

If your environment is low friction for socializing it is less likely.

my life is drastically different today since I’ve ditched ALL social media. unlike other addictions, this came without withdrawals (10-20 minutes on HN helps :) )

I don't know how to make that a movement, but I'll be more mindful of it.

In any case - approaching this as if it is damage, will end up putting you in opposition to choices people are making.

You can be incredibly alone in a crowd of people. You can be empty when people are singing your praises.

Meaning - is different simple social interaction. People can find their comfort zone of personal interaction is much smaller than others.

TLDR: Treating it like a problem, results in bad suggestions. Treating it like a choice, suggests that one look at the options available to people.

It may turn out that people aren’t hanging out at bars, but at home. Frankly, why wouldn’t people stay at home, if home is where they have put their time and effort into setting up.

If you want a good place to find solutions, look to boredom and monotony.

Do note - polarization started well before the personal computer showed up in the geological record.

Yes: Finland. Purportedly the happiest country on the planet. A bilingual nation who will merrily shut up in two languages simultaneously. Whose complete lack of small-talk is legendary.

Hell is other people.

Ob-disclosure: I'm a Finn.

The article thinks the problem is declining quantity, but I'm unconvinced. Americans have always been low on quality, since as far back as slavery and native american genocide.

If anything I think the "meditation" mentioned in the article is a really good sign.

90% of everything is crap. 90% of everything that remains is still crap. With the endless yammering cut out, there is simply a lower volume of garbage competing with your limited bandwidth and attention.

> Americans have always been low on quality

I'm intentionally stripping this out of your provided context, because I don't think aligning the sentiment with atrocities helps. Obviously this is coming from an outside observer's point of view, so take it with a grain of salt - from what I've seen, the American culture is obsessed with self-promotion and hustle. Peoples' ear canals are flooded with demands for attention, and everyone is incentivised to drown out everyone else.

Almost as if the agreed solution to the needle-in-a-haystack problem is "more hay".

>He was building on global comparative research by Stanley Engerman and Kenneth Sokoloff, which found that “societies that began with relatively extreme inequality tended to generate institutions that were more restrictive in providing access to economic opportunities.” Nunn’s research showed that although of course slave counties had higher inequality during the era of slavery (particularly of land), it wasn’t the degree of inequality that was correlated with poverty today; it was the fact of slavery itself, whether on large plantations or small farms. When I talked to Nathan Nunn, he couldn’t say exactly how the hand of slavery was strangling opportunity generations later. He made it clear, however, that it wasn’t just the Black inhabitants who were faring worse today; it was the white families in the counties, too. When slavery was abolished, Confederate states found themselves far behind northern states in the creation of the public infrastructure that supports economic mobility, and they continue to lag behind today. These deficits limit economic mobility for all residents, not just the descendants of enslaved people.

That "public infrastructure" mentioned includes healthcare and welfare, contentious issues in the US even today. Without them, we get inequality, hustle culture, and the US dropping in that list of "Happiest Countries in the World".

"It may turn out that people aren’t hanging out at bars, but at home." I understand that entertaining at home has been in decline over the last few decades, and is at or near an all time low. Putnam discusses this in Bowling Alone, and all research I've seen lines up with that.

My belief is that most people agree that the decline of community is a problem (I'll cite the Surgeon General's report, for example). I'm open to reconsidering my position if you have sources for the opposing viewpoint.

I went through the surgeon generals report to better understand your point.

Hopefully this brings us closer to congruence:

1) Loneliness and being Alone are different. You can be lonely in a group of people. The Surgeon General captures this where they talk about quality of connection.

2) An underlying issue highlighted in the report, is economics. Resources can set of virtuous cycle, increasing health and time for social connection. Lack of resources decrease this.

If there is a short answer, it’s worth pointing out that causative factors are what solves problems. Forcing people into proximity, for example, wouldn’t alleviate loneliness.

Meaningful interactions, and the ability for people to afford them, is what matters.

It’s like the physical exercise which until the 20th century was just a part of everyone’s life. We sought relief from it whenever possible, but that wasn’t often possible. But in modern life we can go weeks without much physical exertion. And we know the consequences of that.

"We find that despite short-term fluctuations, partisanship or non-cooperation in the U.S. Congress has been increasing exponentially for over 60 years with no sign of abating or reversing"

"Partisanship has been attributed to a number of causes, including the stratifying wealth distribution of Americans [2]; boundary redistricting [3]; activist activity at primary elections [4]; changes in Congressional procedural rules [5]; political realignment in the American South [6]; the shift from electing moderate members to electing partisan members [7] movement by existing members towards ideological poles [8]; and an increasing political, pervasive media [9]."

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

The Internet does give ordinary people the opportunity to be mean to each other on a daily basis rather than having wars. I'm genuinely not sure that's an improvement, since at least people would think twice before going into combat. The level of desiring to harass each other seems roughly constant.