Gen Xers and older millennials really just want to go back in time to before the

[Max Rockatansky]

Worth noting, when I met my wife online she lived in Fresno and I lived in Hanford.  I was looking at moving to Fresno anyways in 2017 but we saw each other for awhile living 33 miles apart.  I don't think that I would conceivably met her in any scenario aside from online dating.

[Ted$8roadFan]

Being online 'all the time' is clearly having negative consequences on society.  Just ask anyone under 30 about their dating life.  Mobile apps have imploded that scene.
Then, I don't need to detail how people are being radicalized inside their customized information bubbles.
Or how twitter mobs will dog-pile on the slightest lapse in judgement in certain circumstances just 'cuz.

Suicidality and mass shootings are spiking all over the country.  It's not because we have more guns; we've always had that. It's because people's phones are destroying their mental health.  The constant online peer pressure and the fear of being branded some kind of outcast; it wears on them.  Combine that with nobody getting laid and ready-made radicalization bubble ready to swoop in to take advantage of their frustration and it's no wonder we regularly see psycho 'kids' doing bad shit.

Our brains are not evolved to handle this type of constant stream of information.  These phones were supposed to connect and unite us; instead they are mobile anxiety machines.  Always ready to remind you that shit is fucked and you should be mad/scared/angry.

But telling people to just put it down for a while; that's almost like telling people not to eat.  This shit is designed to be addictive; to hoard your attention so you spend more time with their stupid, goddamn app.  And outrageous shit holds your attention more than benign shit.  So yeah, mobile anxiety machine. And we're stuck with it until the next coronal mass ejection.

What's even more scary is that we now have one generation and counting who have always had technology in their lives, especially since smartphones essentially took over in 2012. They literally have never known life without a screen, so all of the consequences will get worse.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/04/25/1171773181/social-media-teens-mental-health

Lots of generations have had technology..

How quickly we forget the definition, but even then, the fact the older generations forget how addicted they were to TV is hypocrisy in its fullest.

Fair enough, but I don't think previous generations were watching 14 hours of TV a day.

[Max Rockatansky]

And how would anyone now who works or goes to school?  Figure the average person sleeps somewhere between 6-8 hours and that doesn't leave much time for 14 hours of TV.

[Ted$8roadFan]

But we probably are spending that much time in front of screens, be it our phones, computers, tablets, and yes, TV. No judgment, just a fact of our lives today.

[Max Rockatansky]

But 14 hours cumulatively?  That would be close to literally every waking moment of an average day. 

Speaking for myself (I don't claim to be the average person) at work I spend more than half my day either speaking to people directly or walking around doing some kind of inspection (about 4.5 hours).  I usually run and lift in the morning which takes up on average 2 hours.  I also commute about minutes each way way (rounding up to 1.5 hours).  That's 16 hours that can right off the bat attribute as non-screen time.  Out of the remaining 8 I'm definitely not on some sort screened device more than maybe 4-5 hours on the average day.  Most of my screen time largely comprises of work emails, being on sites like this while eating or writing something on my page.

[kalvado]

And how would anyone now who works or goes to school?  Figure the average person sleeps somewhere between 6-8 hours and that doesn't leave much time for 14 hours of TV.

Multitasking is the name of the game!

[Scott5114]

I think the main difference between the TV and a computing device is that traditional television can only be used as a means to passively consume content. The same is not true of a computing device–it can be used as a means for communication, for consuming some sort of interactive content like a video game, or even for creative work like drawing or writing. These use cases all engage the brain in ways that sitting there passively watching TV doesn't. 

[Henry]

Maybe Prince knew something about 1999 that we didn't ("2000, zero-zero, party over, it's out of time")...and BTW, I'd take my stacks of vintage records and CDs over the all-digital shit that we have right now.

....

The boldfaced is a popular misconception. CDs are digital–hence the ubiquitous logo.

Many CDs were processed from analog information; or the master was analog and then still transferred to another analog format to digital. See SPARS codes for more information. All-digital recording was out there during the heights of CD's popularity but far from ubiquitous.

Worrying about that stuff has never been my forte. Is the clarity and overall body noticeably better than FM radio? Good enough.

Yes, I remember the SPARS codes well. They Might Be Giants' album Flood had the particularly odd "DAD" code. There was this perception in the 1980s that "digital" was good and that a "DDD" code meant it must be really good, in response to which I remember a couple of the audio magazines trying to emphasize to people that bad music is still bad music regardless of how it's recorded.

Yes, I'm aware that CDs are digital audio (and I've never had a problem with those at all), but I want to clarify what I meant by "all-digital": the kind that you download and stream to your computer. That's the kind I hate, because if your computer crashes, you potentially lose your files unless you back them up to a flash drive. I hope this clears it up.

[Max Rockatansky]

I think the main difference between the TV and a computing device is that traditional television can only be used as a means to passively consume content. The same is not true of a computing device–it can be used as a means for communication, for consuming some sort of interactive content like a video game, or even for creative work like drawing or writing. These use cases all engage the brain in ways that sitting there passively watching TV doesn't.

I recall when I first received my Atari 2600 that my parents seemed to believe that the time I used it had to be limited.  There was a perception that it and video games would somehow do damage to a developing brain.  The term that got thrown at me a lot was "brain rot."   Truth be told those early video games probably did quite a bit to develop my childhood motor skills.  I can't help but think that some of the things being discussed in this thread with new technology are just new-age 1980s video game brain rot all over again.

[Scott5114]

I feel like social media is far more brain-rotting than TV and video games ever were.

[Rothman]

I feel like social media is far more brain-rotting than TV and video games ever were.

Hm.  Maybe.  I do like how connections have lasted longer through it, however.  My father hasn't spoken to his college or graduate school buddies in decades.  Although he has reconnected with high school classmates through Facebook, I've maintained more long-term friendships by far.

[GCrites]

I'm thinking 2003 levels of internet. The internet still works for research, fun websites and things like forums but we didn't use the internet like a hammer and everything is a nail. You still had a wide variety of media out there (and popular) instead of just the internet. Stores that sold things other than basic necessities weren't all hollowed out. White collar jobs were far more prolific -- not everyone worked at restaurants and warehouses.

[Scott5114]

I feel like social media is far more brain-rotting than TV and video games ever were.

Hm.  Maybe.  I do like how connections have lasted longer through it, however.  My father hasn't spoken to his college or graduate school buddies in decades.  Although he has reconnected with high school classmates through Facebook, I've maintained more long-term friendships by far.

I suppose that's true if you have old connections that are actually worth keeping up. Periodically I'll get a nostalgia bug and go check on some person I knew back in high school or whatever. They generally fall into one of two categories: either they morphed into a clone of every other person in Oklahoma (bearded man wearing a trucker hat or Live-Laugh-Love mom who posts about nothing but her kids) or they have an entertaining list of court records available to peruse on OSCN. Neither of those categories of person represent someone I have anything in common with, so I don't really bother trying to revive the connection.

[J N Winkler]

. . . Or they have an entertaining list of court records available to peruse on OSCN.

You're ahead of us in Kansas--getting access to that kind of information in this county means driving to the courthouse to use the data terminals on the sixth floor.

[ZLoth]

I am reminded of the AT&T "You Will" commercials from 1993:

While we got the technology in ways that weren't imagined back then, it looks way more optimistic than it turned out.

[Rothman]

I feel like social media is far more brain-rotting than TV and video games ever were.

Hm.  Maybe.  I do like how connections have lasted longer through it, however.  My father hasn't spoken to his college or graduate school buddies in decades.  Although he has reconnected with high school classmates through Facebook, I've maintained more long-term friendships by far.

I suppose that's true if you have old connections that are actually worth keeping up. Periodically I'll get a nostalgia bug and go check on some person I knew back in high school or whatever. They generally fall into one of two categories: either they morphed into a clone of every other person in Oklahoma (bearded man wearing a trucker hat or Live-Laugh-Love mom who posts about nothing but her kids) or they have an entertaining list of court records available to peruse on OSCN. Neither of those categories of person represent someone I have anything in common with, so I don't really bother trying to revive the connection.

Well, yes, misanthropes would place less of a value on friendship...

[NWI_Irish96]

I feel like social media is far more brain-rotting than TV and video games ever were.

I think I can agree with this to an extent. TV (outside of politics) and video games were mindless, but they didn't target your brain with false information like social media does.

I feel like social media has made the less educated even dumber.

[kalvado]

I feel like social media is far more brain-rotting than TV and video games ever were.

I think I can agree with this to an extent. TV (outside of politics) and video games were mindless, but they didn't target your brain with false information like social media does.

I feel like social media has made the less educated even dumber.

It was called "rumors" before becoming "fake news" on a social media.

[kphoger]

Online dating also solves the problem of there not being anyone in the immediate local area who you click with. Even if you limit it to your own metro area, it's possible there's someone who would be perfect for you who hangs out at the bar in the north suburbs and you hang out at one in the south suburbs. And, of course, it also solves the problem of finding people when your dating pool is restricted for some reason (perhaps because the people in your desired age group or gender are less common in your local area).

My wife lived in Branson, MO.  The local population is 85% rednecks, 20% meth addicts, and anyone who didn't fit into either category was probably already a member of her home church so she already knew them.  The remaining 6,520,990,000,000 people in town are tourists.

So she went online to find friends and ended up with a husband.

I don't think previous generations were watching 14 hours of TV a day.

And how would anyone now who works or goes to school?  Figure the average person sleeps somewhere between 6-8 hours and that doesn't leave much time for 14 hours of TV.

But we probably are spending that much time in front of screens, be it our phones, computers, tablets, and yes, TV. No judgment, just a fact of our lives today.

The average teenager spends about 7.4 hours per day in front of screens.  That's an increase of two hours over the last eight years.  Social media only accounts for about 1½ hours per day on average, with more than twice that amount being TV and videos.

Those between 11 and 14 years old spend an average of 9 hours in front of screens.

From 2009 to 2022, the percentage of teens using social media increased from about 50% to 95%.  One-third of them say they use it constantly.

However, those are all just averages.  What concerns me is what's behind the averages.  For example, 22% of 10th-grade girls report using social media at least seven hours per day.  And increased time spent on social media has a noticeable correlation to decreased life satisfaction for 12- to 15-year-old girls especially.

This has all coincided with a statistically noticeable (1) decrease in the amount of sleep teenagers get, and (2) increase in depression among high school and even college students.

[kalvado]

Online dating also solves the problem of there not being anyone in the immediate local area who you click with. Even if you limit it to your own metro area, it's possible there's someone who would be perfect for you who hangs out at the bar in the north suburbs and you hang out at one in the south suburbs. And, of course, it also solves the problem of finding people when your dating pool is restricted for some reason (perhaps because the people in your desired age group or gender are less common in your local area).

My wife lived in Branson, MO.  The local population is 85% rednecks, 20% meth addicts, and anyone who didn't fit into either category was probably already a member of her home church so she already knew them.  The remaining 6,520,990,000,000 people in town are tourists.

So she went online to find friends and ended up with a husband.

I don't think previous generations were watching 14 hours of TV a day.

And how would anyone now who works or goes to school?  Figure the average person sleeps somewhere between 6-8 hours and that doesn't leave much time for 14 hours of TV.

But we probably are spending that much time in front of screens, be it our phones, computers, tablets, and yes, TV. No judgment, just a fact of our lives today.

The average teenager spends about 7.4 hours per day in front of screens.  That's an increase of two hours over the last eight years.  Social media only accounts for about 1½ hours per day on average, with more than twice that amount being TV and videos.

Those between 11 and 14 years old spend an average of 9 hours in front of screens.

From 2009 to 2022, the percentage of teens using social media increased from about 50% to 95%.  One-third of them say they use it constantly.

However, those are all just averages.  What concerns me is what's behind the averages.  For example, 22% of 10th-grade girls report using social media at least seven hours per day.  And increased time spent on social media has a noticeable correlation to decreased life satisfaction for 12- to 15-year-old girls especially.

This has all coincided with a statistically noticeable (1) decrease in the amount of sleep teenagers get, and (2) increase in depression among high school and even college students.

Compare that to mere 3% of 14-15 year old having done binge drinking within past month. I wonder how that number changed over time..

[thspfc]

Basically all of the issues mentioned in this thread are due to peoples' inability to use these technologies responsibly and in moderation.

Asked whether they would like to return to a time before humanity was "plugged in" –meaning before people had wide access to the internet and smartphones–77% of Americans age 35-54 said they would, the highest of any group.

What portion of that 77% would say that they themselves spend too much time looking at screens? Probably a lot. But obviously it's easier to complain about what everyone else is doing than it is to fix your own issues. When it gets to the point of aimless scrolling, put it down. I struggle with that a lot, especially right before going to bed and right after waking up. The aimless scrolling is what kills mental health.

Of course, the reason this article exists is nostalgia. There was no rational thinking or appreciation for current life involved in the answers to this question. Only looking through rose-colored glasses.

What we need to do is go back to the 1970s.

Nah.

But TikTok? If TikTok shut down tomorrow the world would legitimately be a better place. Poisonous, disgusting app.

[kalvado]

But TikTok? If TikTok shut down tomorrow the world would legitimately be a better place. Poisonous, disgusting app.

That's what I often hear about Walmart and Chik-fil-a:
1. No reason for them to exist, nobody in their right mind goes there
2. They are too overcrowded anyway.

[Max Rockatansky]

7.4 hours of screen time feels definitely more plausible for an average.

[kphoger]

Basically all of the issues mentioned in this thread are due to peoples' inability to use these technologies responsibly and in moderation. ... What portion of that 77% would say that they themselves spend too much time looking at screens? Probably a lot. But obviously it's easier to complain about what everyone else is doing than it is to fix your own issues.

Addictions are hard to break.  Whether or not it's clinically a form of addiction, I think it's apparent that a great many people want to moderate their smartphone usage but find themselves unable.

[thspfc]

Basically all of the issues mentioned in this thread are due to peoples' inability to use these technologies responsibly and in moderation. ... What portion of that 77% would say that they themselves spend too much time looking at screens? Probably a lot. But obviously it's easier to complain about what everyone else is doing than it is to fix your own issues.

Addictions are hard to break.  Whether or not it's clinically a form of addiction, I think it's apparent that a great many people want to moderate their smartphone usage but find themselves unable.

Please. Everyone is 100% capable of moderating their smartphone usage. If we treat every overindulgence of a thing as a legitimate addiction, the actual real and dangerous addictions will be watered down to people and they'll get worse.

And what's your point anyways? That we shouldn't have smartphones because some people are addicted?