[hodgesrm]

> But in a strange way, the film has become more relevant today than it was in 1999. With the rise of the smartphone and social media, genuine human interaction has dropped precipitously.

This is an interesting comment, because reading a book involves interaction with a text rather than other human beings. Yet we consider that (for the most part) a beneficial thing even though reading a thick book is kind of like putting up a "do not disturb" sign.

The problem is more that social media are extremely addictive. Users are more like Lotos Eaters [0] than inhabitants of Plato's cave.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus-eaters

[autoexec]

> The problem is more that social media are extremely addictive.

It's also constantly adapting to divide us and incite fear and anger because doing that drives engagement and it's accessed through devices which are designed to do the same thing. No matter how much of a page turner a book is, it's not popping notifications, tracking your location, learning from your habits, spying on your environment, hitting you with distractions when it detects you're most vulnerable, and preying on your insecurities etc. Books are much less harmful than social media for a lot of reasons, even if they don't involve you being social. Some people even like to be semi-social while reading. They'll go to parks, coffee shops, or libraries to read around others.

[paulmd]

Someone here recently drew the analogy to the rat dystopia experiments. Some of us become uncomfortably nervous to function, some withdraw entirely, and then there’s the “beautiful ones”.