[dijksterhuis]

> That's a bit like saying addictive drugs themselves aren't a problem.

I mean... They're not. They're inanimate f----- objects. They've never maliciously set out to cause someone harm because they're inanimate f----- objects. They don't have an understanding of the concept of morals or ethics because they're inanimate f----- objects.

When I ingest them into my body -- that's when all hell breaks loose. They become a problem for me when I use them.

> Technology is designed to trick humans into engaging with it. They use us for profit.

Who is this mythical "they"?

Technology is designed to do many jobs. Some of them include gamification to "maximise engagement" or some other cringeworthy buzzword. Some of them are literally as simple as "turn the lights off at 10pm" or "wake me up at 10am".

It's how we, as a collective species, implement and use technology that's usually the problem.

"technology" itself is, again, an inanimate f----- object.

> It's asymmetric warfare. One or two parents, with jobs and responsibilities, against kids with peer pressure and billion dollar industries hawking them on, claws in their back and brain.

I think this is called life? Yes, lots of things all happen at the same time and there's alway societal pressures one way or another.

But calling it warfare is pretty extreme and may be something useful to reflect on.

[pbhjpbhj]

So, how about when your schoolwork requires you to 'ingest the drugs', you visit YouTube to watch the video your teacher picked out (they did a bad job IMO, but hey) ... then you're supposed to leave [cold turkey!] and get on with your work, except the website is highly animate and designed carefully to entice you to stay. All of a sudden you're spending the afternoon watching dross on YT because kids lack self-control and companies know how to exploit that.

Of course there's some blame goes to the teacher, but hey.

I think your response is disingenuous.

Aside, I don't know what tech you're using but mines all been blinken-lights and conditioned-response dings (by default) for years.

There is certainly a conflict, OP might have been slowly melodramatic in their choice of words but just as casinos foster their whales, so too tech companies use the psychology of addiction against consumers.

[dijksterhuis]

In your YouTube example there are are few people that have responsibilities:

- teacher

- video maker

- YouTube Devs

- companies

- "kids"

- individual

- school

- etc

YouTube (the drug) is just a series of instructions that make a slab of glass light up in a certain pattern and a speaker to oscillate in a particular fashion (depending on hardware).

It's an inanimate f----- object. It doesn't have "responsibilities".

That's the point I'm getting at. Why don't we, collectively, stop blaming the drugs/tech and start finding solutions to the actual problem?

It's easy to point the blame finger, it's harder to solve a problem.

[pbhjpbhj]

A key difference is that YouTube/companies in part work to increase 'engagement' (which in turn encourages overuse, and encompasses the courting of addictive behaviors) even when it reduces utility.

The other parties want to maximise utility.

[dijksterhuis]

Do you not think drug dealers aim to "maximise engagement" too? It's not the drug's fault for the dealers actions. So how about we stop blaming an inanimate f----- object and work to find a solution to the problem.

In your schoolwork example I can come up with four potential solutions off the top of my head:

- Speak to the teacher about concerns and ask about other ways of doing what is required

- Speak to parents and ask them to help with the homework

- Buddy up with a friend and watch the required video with a friend to avoid falling down a rabbit hole

- Use software like youtube-dl to download the video locally, to avoid temptation of watching another video

Then we come back full circle to the parent comment. It's not the drug's fault. It's not the phone's fault. It's not some software instruction's fault.

Blaming and ascribing fault is only helpful in identifying the problem. After that, the question becomes what can I do about it that will helpful for me today? What is my solution for how this affects me?

i.e. learning to develop personal responsibility.

[lishzen]

You know, technology doesn't just materialize spontaneously, it is made with a human purpose and that purpose (with all the subjectivity of everyone that participates in creating and fostering the technology) is imbued in those inanimate objects. When you use technology it guides you in its intended use according to its purpose, when you open a door by its handle, when you put your headphones on.

Phones and youtube specifically are made to make money by gaining and keeping one's attention. They achieve it with tactics that trigger addiction. Some people become addicts, some not so much, but if you have a human brain you will feel the pull to abuse them.

In the case of phones and youtube the "mythical they" are the ones who profit from them and don't care about the effects of their tactics on the users. Maybe it is not warfare but it sure is asymmetric.

[dijksterhuis]

I agree on some of your points, but you've missed what I'm getting at here it seems.

I'm saying that it's not the software's fault. In the immortal words of Philip K Dick: "dont blame the drug dude".

Blaming some faceless, mythical "they" gets everyone exactly nowhere. It doesn't solve anything.

There's a bigger question that everyone could be asking...

[michaelt]

> They're not. They're inanimate f----- objects. [...] They become a problem for me when I use them.

In common usage of the english language, a thing can be a 'problem' without being sentient or unavoidable.

A pothole in the highway can be a problem if it's damaging people's cars - even if they could avoid it by driving more cautiously.

[dijksterhuis]

I see what you're getting, and I like the pothole analogy. I agree with the fact that it can be used like that in the English language, but I disagree with the idea behind it.

In the pothole analogy - it's like saying potholes are the reason for all these people's cars being damaged.

If no cars were driving over the pothole then the pothole wouldn't be a problem as no damage would ever be caused! It's an inanimate f----- object. It's just there.

It's the fact that people are driving cars on a road that has potholes that causes their cars to be damaged. It's some action that was taken that causes an effect to occur.

Then we get into the murky world of who is actually responsible and what is the solution. Which I don't have an answer for.