[hervature]

I'll be the first to tell you that humans are social beings that need social contact. I'll also be the first to tell you that social media is not necessary for that. I assume you're being hyperbolic with Whatsapp being vital for life, but do you honestly not know how humans got their fill of social interaction 12 years ago? And no, the answer isn't Facebook.

[closeparen]

It’s no longer socially acceptable to make unprompted PSTN voice calls, unless you and the recipient are on very familiar terms.

Even with my parents, we always arrange a time via messaging first.

[hervature]

Ok, and where exactly is Whatsapp a vital life necessity in your world of messaging before calling? Those also aren't forms of meaningful social interaction. I assume you again use messaging and/or voice to set up the actual interactions such as Christmas (or whatever you celebrate) and family get-togethers. I'm assuming you don't show up to those events and talk to your loved ones via Whatsapp.

I don't have social media, barely text (my plan has 100 texts per month), and hardly talk by phone (100 minutes per month). However, I have multiple friends and family that can claim that I'm the only one to have ever come to visit them at their house. This is either so strange or such a positive impact on them that I somehow hear it from other friends/family even though I'm surrounded by ether. The moral of the story, the ether isn't as thick as you think and the vast majority of people's "social interactions" are so shallow that showing up to a friend's door to drop off a bottle of wine will be a highlight of their year.

[closeparen]

WhatsApp and its substitutes (iMessage, Facebook Messenger, Telegram, Signal, SMS) are where plans for richer interactions get made. If you don’t have any of these in common with a prospective social group, someone has to be highly motivated to relay plans to your landline.

[maigret]

Signal/SMS is not the same beast as WhatsApp in terms of surveillance, nudging and all of those things falling into "forced addiction". When is the last time a SMS app wanted to give you recommendation or force you online?

[closeparen]

WhatsApp has never done any of those things for me; it is exactly analogous to iMessage, just with a different user population.

[maigret]

It looks like the same in the interactions, but it has critical differences beneath the surface. Start with the money - their business incentive is totally different. Apple sells devices, Facebook sells ads. One of those two companies have been regularly in the news regarding privacy breaches and disregard of their user data. And if you don't like or trust Apple, take Signal.

[adamsea]

What if someone lives abroad and is very close with a large extended family (plus immediate family), all of whom regularly communicate on WhatsApp?

Probably not uncommon as Whatsapp was at first widely used outside the US or for folks living in the US to be in touch with family abroad.

Very often one person is not able to change an entire family dynamic. Sure, they could not use WhatsApp, but then they’d rarely talk with their family!

Point being, we don’t know the poster’s specific circumstances enough to offer any sort of informed critique.

That said, the question of generalizing from the poster’s experience is, imho, a valid one.

If we want to get all analytical about it, that’s my two cents ;).

Which is to say, my opinion is barely worth the paper it’s written on.

And since this is all on a screen ... ;)

[izacus]

> Ok, and where exactly is Whatsapp a vital life necessity in your world of messaging before calling? Those also aren't forms of meaningful social interaction.

These days, in many worlds countries, especially in Asia. In those places, WhatsApp is also a primary venue for business communication and vital human interaction like setting up job interviews, doctors' appointments and pretty much any other communication with other humans.

Sorry, but your point comes across as horribly oblivious - criticizing usage of WhatsApp is one thing, but acting like it hasn't become a critical part of society structure just shows a major failure of looking outside your bubble.

[sriram_malhar]

That would mean your parents and you are not on very familiar terms. Perhaps that is the situation for you, but it is by no means generalisable.

I live pretty well without any personal social media. I call friends and family often, while being mindful of their time. Voice calls are wonderful.

[closeparen]

I no longer use anything with posts and likes and a feed, but direct and small-group messaging are pretty important among my peers. May I ask what generation are these people with whom you use only voice (and maybe snail mail)?

[sriram_malhar]

That's a good distinction between diff types of messaging.

I use email and messages as well, but the voice call is the big component. Generation-wise, it is from 7yrs old (nieces) to 90yrs old (no surprise there; oldies love to chat).

[hcurtiss]

This site has posts and likes and a feed.

[CaptArmchair]

It's hyperbole, but it still indicates a hidden very real and well known social dynamic: humans have an intrinsic drive to belong to a tribe.

This is a very real behavioral mechanism which was essential to human survival as early as the paleolithicum and the emergence of the first hominid species. Not belonging to a tribe meant being exposed to hardships that you might not survive.

Feeling lonely is part of that mechanism. That's your subconscious kicking you into high gear and go seek companionship in order to ensure your chances to survive as an individual.

Kurz Gesagt explains this dynamic in more detail. [1]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3Xv_g3g-mA

Modern technology, industrialisation and social advancements in healthcare, politics, law enforcement and agriculture have created circumstances in which you don't need to physically belong to a tribe 24/7 in order to survive. You can perfectly live alone and have your basic needs covered.

However, that drive for social connection is still there. That's hard wired into us. And that's what social media companies are exploiting.

Fear of missing out is exactly that. You don't want to be "out of the loop", you don't want to miss out on what's going on, you don't want to find yourself "outside" of a group. Think about how it was when you were in school, and you found out your friends had a get-together over the weekend and you weren't invited: it totally sucked. Well, that's basically that primitive part of your brain kicking into high gear, warning you that your survival may be at stake.

12 years ago, few people were on social media. And the vast majority of your friends contacted each other via cell phones, e-mail or MSN and such. You were less likely to miss out because you knew that the available channels didn't cater to 24/7 real time action with video and audio, plugging you in the middle of the action remotely.

Today, that's totally different. Modern communication is literally that: 24/7 high intense social contacts with video/photo/audio fragmented across dozens of group chats, group calls,.. and dozens of channels to keep track off.

Net result? Studies indicate an increased prevalence in anxiety, depression, loneliness, suicide, self harm and so on. There's a clear correlation between the two. As is shown in the documentary.

The trade off of weaning off from all of that, for many, is having to battle with and against those engrained behavioural changes that make one grasp for their smartphone every other minute. And that's, basically, the very definition of addiction.

Moreover, unlike other addictions, there's a very real chance that if you don't look at your smartphone for a day that, yes, you will miss out on information the in-crowd - peers at school, friends, co-workers with watercooler talk,... - deems important to know.

[raxxorrax]

There are some mechanisms like that but I think this explanation, as well as that from the video, is layman psychology at best. Yes, there are factors or mechanisms that drive your desire for belonging, but it is a pretty unconvincing observation. It doesn't have to be tribalism to prefer being around people you trust.

But if so, being enlightened about the failures and limits of human psychology certainly would constitute a tribe of its own, no? Because it seems to be en vogue to have simple explanations. FOMO is more connected to the fear of the unknown and fear of loss in my opinion. A "tribe" would shield you of course, but it is mostly a sign of other needs not being met. Advertisers use it to their advantage for decades. Some appeal to their audiences to be the source of other peoples FOMOs. "think different" instead of "stay connected".

There are less suicides than in the 90s. That there is a suicide epidemic is a media scare. The main factor reducing the numbers seem to be economic perspectives, not some facebook group where taste was made illegal.

A much worse effect is that social media seems to push questionable characters in focus. Naive viewers and exploitative "influencers" can do quite some damage.

[DanBC]

> There are less suicides than in the 90s

It's difficult to compare suicide over time because the method of counting changes, sometimes drastically.

[CaptArmchair]

> I think this explanation, as well as that from the video, is layman psychology at best

Well, kurzgesagt back their statements with references to academic research:

https://sites.google.com/view/sourcesloneliness/startseite

They also vet their videos with experts and are transparent in their methodology:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtUAAXe_0VI&vl=ar

> Yes, there are factors or mechanisms that drive your desire for belonging, but it is a pretty unconvincing observation. It doesn't have to be tribalism to prefer being around people you trust.

Why would you assume that I didn't consider other explanations?

> FOMO is more connected to the fear of the unknown and fear of loss in my opinion.

In what way wouldn't "the fear of the unkown" or "the fear of loss" be less connected with the fear of likely missing crucial parts of the conversations your social network is having?

e.g. you might miss out hearing about a party, where someone makes an personal announcement (e.g. getting married, moving to another country,...). So, now your friends have a shared experience of having heard the news first hand that you aren't part of.

> A "tribe" would shield you of course, but it is mostly a sign of other needs not being met. Advertisers use it to their advantage for decades. Some appeal to their audiences to be the source of other peoples FOMOs. "think different" instead of "stay connected".

What "other needs" are these?

> There are less suicides than in the 90s.

How is the number of suicides 30 years ago relevant to a dynamic observed over the course of the past 15 years?

> That there is a suicide epidemic is a media scare.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db362.htm [2] https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/suicide.shtml [3] https://afsp.org/suicide-statistics/

The exaggerating wording you're using here hints towards minimizing the issue, rather then a willingness on your part to acknowledge that social media usage and mental health are a public health concern.

> The main factor reducing the numbers seem to be economic perspectives, not some facebook group where taste was made illegal.

... but also seems to correlate with social media usage. They aren't mutually exclusive.

Look, we both know that establishing definitive observations on something as sensitive as suicide is hard. It's widely understood that suicide is underreported, and in many cases it's quite hard to establish exactly what compelled individuals to commit suicide.

The documentary equally stated that there's a correlation between increased social media usage after 2007 and an increase in suicide rate. But that's as far as it goes. In and of itself, I think that's compelling enough to warrant paying attention to.

Finally, this is touching upon a serious mental health issue, there was absolutely no need to make your comment sound as dismissive as it did.

[raxxorrax]

Their sources aren't convincing. The questions about loneliness don't support the conclusion.

https://ourworldindata.org/suicide

I didn't say social media usage isn't a public health concern, there are many things that drive addiction. Social media use is convenient and it doesn't expose you to risks. Perfect for any form of escapism.

I doubt suicide is underreported. There are certainly cases misattributed, cases of attempts are excluded perhaps, but concluding something on that assumption seems premature.

I still remain convinced that a lack of perspectives in life is probably a main cause. Maybe social media paints a wrong or a more realistic light, but it is probably not the source of increased suicide.

I specifically criticized the explanation about tribalism. It seems wrong and isn't underlined anywhere.

> In what way wouldn't "the fear of the unkown" or "the fear of loss" [...]

People have the fear that people are bonding while they are absent. Mostly the same sources that are the foundations of envy.

> What "other needs" are these?

Fulfilling companionship or friendship for example.

I think this is a case where the conclusion "social media sucks" was determined before the analysis of issues.

> How is the number of suicides 30 years ago relevant to a dynamic observed over the course of the past 15 years?

To have a reference. Especially if we only have social media for 15 years, it is self evident to lock back a few more years.

[DanBC]

> https://ourworldindata.org/suicide

This is not a credible source for suicide data.

> I doubt suicide is underreported. There are certainly cases misattributed, cases of attempts are excluded perhaps, but concluding something on that assumption seems premature.

There are lots of complicated reasons why suicide may be under-reported.

In the US the work to get standard definitions, in the NVDRS, to be used across the country is relatively recent. This document is from 2011.

https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/Self-Directed-Vio...

> Despite the large volume of data on certain types of SDV, the utility and reproducibility of the resulting information is sometimes questionable. Mortality data are problematic for several reasons: geographical differences in the definition of suicide and how equivocal cases are classified; jurisdictional differences in the requirements for the office of coroner or medical examiner affecting the standard of proof required to classify a death as a suicide; and differences in terms of the extent to which potential suicides are investigated to accurately determine cause of death.18 The quality of the data on nonfatal suicidal behavior is even more problematic than that of suicides. The concerns about discrepancies in nomenclature19-23 and accurate reporting11,24 apply here even more than with suicides. Also, except for rare exceptions there is neither systematic nor mandatory reporting of nonfatal suicidal behavior in the United States at the state or local level, nor is there routine systematic collection of non-suicidal intentional self harm data.

> These “system” problems with data collection have been discussed for more than a generation. Over 35 years ago, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) convened a conference on suicide prevention at which a committee was charged with recommending a system for defining and communicating about suicidal behaviors.25 More recently, two scientific reviews that addressed the state of suicide-related research also remarked on the need for consistent definitions. The Institute of Medicine issued a report entitled Reducing Suicide: A National Imperative.4 This report states ”Research on suicide is plagued by many methodological problems... definitions lack uniformity,...reporting of suicide is inaccurate.” “There is a need for researchers and clinicians in suicidology to use a common language or set of terms in describing suicidal phenomena.” The World Health Organization issued the World Report on Violence and Health.2 In the chapter addressing self-directed violence the authors note “Data on suicide and attempted suicide should be valid and up to date. There should be a set of uniform criteria and definitions and – once established – these should be consistently applied and continually reviewed.”

[raxxorrax]

The criticism at the data is valid, but there is still more evidence that points in the direction that suicide is on decline globally. And if the methodology of acquiring data is flawed to such a degree, we also wouldn't be able to make a statement in the other direction.