[bustling-noose]

What Tim Berners Lee doesn’t know or understand -

Social media is like fentanyl or cocaine for the masses. It’s preying on people’s stresses and poor mental health by providing temporary relief or disconnecting from the real world. Social media being a place to connect and maybe even run a small business is like 1% of it. It’s a place for attention seeking people filling their loneliness with fake connections and content while content consumers are trying to achieve the same buy consuming instead.

Ive seen people unable to get out of instagram. Their fingers are constantly twitching and scrolling. This is just like drugs and controlled substances. The government punishes the dealers and is trying to control but failing cause there are plenty of corrupt people willing to bypass this. Same goes with social media. Zuckerberg is probably worse than Escobar.

Social medias promise of social connections was really just the same as what drug dealers offer, the good stuff for new consumers and then once they are hooked give them the cheap stuff. They really don’t care about ‘social’ part of it because the addiction potential is so high.

Start doing mass studies on cognitive problems created by instagram and TikTok. Publish them in big journals and show how social media can go from social to addictions so quickly. People already consider phones as part of their body, I won’t be surprised if people also consider their instagram account more valuable than their health.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Start doing mass studies on cognitive problems created by instagram and TikTok. Publish them in big journals

This has already happened. We didn't kick Big Tobacco by publishing research and just talking about it. We got them with bans. I don't see America doing it. But now would be a good time for e.g. the EU to start regulating social media like a utility.

[6stringmerc]

We made smoking heavily taxed and socially unacceptable as well - watch Die Hard 2. John McClain is smoking in public spaces like the AIRPORT. People still do cocaine regularly, but in secret or in bathrooms. The problem with social media is the legal SUPPORT in the US, it’s far worse than tobacco ever dreamed of accomplishing.

Banning social media in public spaces is something I would support, but HOW?

[Nextgrid]

> the EU to start regulating social media like a utility.

They could just actually enforce the existing GDPR which already makes most of these addiction-based models unsustainable.

[JumpCrisscross]

> could just actually enforce the existing GDPR which already makes most of these addiction-based models unsustainable

It would be ill advised without a popular mandate. Remember the conspiracy theories the TikTok ban prompted? You don't want to yank the neo-Nazis' Twitters on a bureaucratic point.

[Nextgrid]

That's the key - a ban on social media will be endlessly argued (what counts as social media?) and would raise suspicions.

A ban on non-consensual data collection (or rather, the enforcement of existing rules) is not only much easier to define (the laws are already written in fact) but also very straightforward to understand.

Social media is welcome to continue to exist at a loss, but the removal of the financial incentive for greater "engagement" should make it much less toxic.

[dkh]

We don't need (and shouldn't want) bans at all. We need very strict criteria on what platforms can or cannot do, how they can or cannot operate. They should be massively scrutinized, with an enormous amount of regulation and oversight, that results in such platforms being unable to take actions deemed unsafe for the public. (At the very least, in the form of eye-watering fines or disincentives, but perhaps extending as far as limiting the field to non-profits, and/or the risk of the government taking control of your platform if it does not comply.)

[JumpCrisscross]

> We don't need (and shouldn't want) bans at all. We need very strict criteria on what platforms can or cannot do, how they can or cannot operate

If you're unwilling to put a ban on the table, the law is toothless and will be flouted. Maybe not forever. But the EU's ability to enforce its will on American companies is already tentative at best.

[JumpCrisscross]

> ban on non-consensual data collection (or rather, the enforcement of existing rules) is not only much easier to define (the laws are already written in fact) but also very straightforward to understand

I worked on the TikTok bill. Nobody reads the details when you threaten to take their toys.

Like, play it out. EU says Twitter, quit it. Elon says fuck off. Now what? You fine him. Great. Elon says fuck off. You start, what, raiding the Ireland office? Seizing bank accounts? If he takes Twitter dark, do you think its users will be differentiating between non-consensual data collection and a ban? We haven't even geopoliticised it yet!

The same suspicions that would animate a ban (or regulation) will animate starting to enforce GDPR now. For this to work, it has to be bottom up. The only way I see that happening is a rally to the flag move by European leaders and a show of force with a targeted new bill.

[ulfw]

The neo Nazis are all over Tik Tok et al, which is how they spread their propaganda and lies. Much easier to lie in 20 second video sound bites than in a proper hour long sit down discussion.

[VectorLock]

We almost got there with TikTok. Almost...

[JumpCrisscross]

> We almost got there with TikTok. Almost...

Not really. The TikTok ban was rooted in national security concerns. The coalition that brought it forward would not be useful for regulating social media as the drug analog it is.

I don't see a brilliant move in America. (There is an a brilliant opportunity in the EU, Canada and Mexico to recapitulate the TikTok bill's rhetoric and structure, aiming it at both China and America.)

[kelseydh]

The TikTok ban was motivated primarily by the Israel lobby wanting to crack down on pro-Palestinian content.

[JumpCrisscross]

> TikTok ban was motivated primarily by the Israel lobby wanting to crack down on pro-Palestinian content

It really wasn't. But I agree that this was a popular take. (Funnily enough, the rumor helped shore up the bill's polling among Republican-leaning voters. And once it was up, like, yes, rule number one of politics is you generally don't say no to votes.)

The EU going after Instagram and Twitter would find its own stable of bizarre conspiracy theories.

[cscurmudgeon]

The analogies are all over the place lol.

Is social media pure evil like tobacco OR is it a necessity like a utility?

How can it be both?

EU pretends it is both while getting backdoor access.

https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/economy/2024/6/20/orwellian-eu...

[developerDan]

> Social media is like fentanyl or cocaine for the masses… Ive seen people unable to get out of instagram. Their fingers are constantly twitching and scrolling. This is just like drugs and controlled substances.

Flying is such a wild experience as you can always see the person in front of you constantly scrolling. One time I saw a young gal pay $20 for internet on a 3 hour flight and would scroll Facebook for a minute or two, switch to Instagram for a minute or two, then back to Facebook… for 4 straight hours (boarding + flight + landing). I was genuinely appalled.

[jonathanyc]

I've been the same thing now that I look for it. In a theater in December I saw at least 2 people scrolling through Google or Apple News. In the plane I saw at least 3 people on TikTok. On roadtrips people scroll through Reddit when there is a lull in the conversation.

I don't think it's necessarily worse than people reading a book! But it is certainly widespread.

[enaaem]

When you are stuck doomscrolling you will notice that it isn't even enjoyable, which is true for a lot of addiction.

[Aurornis]

Rhetoric like this is interesting to me because it so precisely mirrors what I heard growing up about alcohol. I had a large group of friends whose families were very religious in a religion that was very anti-alcohol. They had reached a critical mass where they didn’t know anyone who drank alcohol (or admitted to it, anyway) other than stories of severe alcoholics that got passed around the community. These stories were emphasized and amplified for them every Sunday. They truly didn’t believe that moderate or occasional alcohol consumption was possible, because to them the only thing they knew about alcohol was the part about addicts whose lives had been destroyed.

Even from a young age I thought it was strange how much they bounced these stories back and forth off of each other and how good they were at finding more stories about celebrities or local figures who had problems with alcohol to support their case.

It was also fascinating how self-congratulatory it all become. They weren’t simply sharing stories to earn each other away from a trap, they were sharing stories to reaffirm their own superiority as people who saw through the sham and wisely chose against it. The worse they made it sound, the more superior they could feel about being on the outside.

I get the exact same vibes when I read internet posts like this, which take the situation to such an extreme that they think comparisons like this are accurate and profound:

> Zuckerberg is probably worse than Escobar

Then there’s the idea that social media can’t be used for socializing, and anyone claiming otherwise is lying:

> Social media being a place to connect and maybe even run a small business is like 1% of it. It’s a place for attention seeking people filling their loneliness with fake connections and content

Yet many of us are out here using social media to keep up with friends without spending 99% of our time doing this fentanyl-like addiction that everyone tells us is inevitable.

I’m not saying that people don’t get addicted to social media, just as there are people who get addicted to alcohol (obviously). I’m merely pointing out that, like alcohol, the vast majority of people who participate aren’t degenerate addicts who lose control. This weird rhetoric about Zuckerberg being worse than Escobar or implied calls for government to treat it like drug dealers are fodder for the self-congratulatory people who want extra validation for their decision to stay off social media (defined in a way to exclude Hacker News, Reddit, and other social sites), but they’re hardly accurate. It’s weird to see these hyperbolic takes being so popular on, oddly enough, social commentary sites.

[rozap]

To your drinking analogy, imagine there was a version of alcohol that had all the positive effects (being drunk is fun and silly, makes social interaction flow a bit easier, etc) and none of the negative effects. But then a company called Drinkbook comes along and their version has all the same positives but also many, many drawbacks. They become a huge company and kill off all the smaller producers, and everyone uses their version :)

That's effectively what happened to social interaction on the internet. We had all the connection before, but none of the addiction. So I just don't buy the argument that the hyper addictive variants of social media are a net good.

[barcoder]

Thanks for sharing that insight. When I read the original comment I felt like I was an outlier for thinking how beneficial I’ve found social media on a personal level. If used with intention then there’s a wealth of learning and knowledge that the algorithms help deliver.

Of course there are many people who use social media purely for distraction. Which if used chronically is going to have an overwhelming negative impact.

In social media’s current for profit model it benefits from negatively impacting people. Which is a shame given if it wanted to, it could focus on the wellbeing of all its users.

An example I can give is the Reddit app that used to give a warning if a user used it for over a certain amount of time. These days it encourages it’s users to stay engaged with badges.

[diamond559]

Zuck directly controls the algorithm to his own ends, he is much worse than Escobar, he is actively destroying the minds of children. You are defending him bc you don't want to believe that we are in the dystopian nightmare we all feared.

[jwe]

I value this insight but think that you might be part of the 1% your parent has described.

[n_ary]

I believe, you are a specific minority actually. What the OP described “gal flipping between FB/Insta” is actual reality around me when I am outside and look around me. Young and adult, all are flipping, the younger they are more TikTok/Insta, older they are more FB/X.

Even some of my family members who preached the bad of smartphones and internet are addicted to Facebook/Youtube and mindlessly scroll away while I observe the insanity.

It is sad and unimaginable for those of us who can resist the claws of the addiction, but for the rest 99%, it is just escaping the boredom/loneliness/social disconnect.

Social media wanted to connect people to genuine interactions over long distances, instead it has created a whirlwind of addiction media supply. Most people’s feed are very insignificant portion of their real connections and dominant following of content farms, celebrity gossips, meme, media misinformation, polarisation and of course 66% of ads trying to sell them something related to the most common trend of their feed at that hour.

[wegfawefgawefg]

its not the worst crime in the world to be pretentious.

if i see people who are obese as lesser than me, and that hypes me up to exercise every day until im 80, is that really so bad?

it may not make me a saint, but it would make me healthy.

[watwut]

You are not superior to obese people, even if you exercise every day. Simple as that.

[wegfawefgawefg]

i am superior to obese humans in many ways

[kelseydh]

You don't need to be a degenerate alcoholic to see negative health effects from drinking alcohol. Alcohol hastens obesity by being high in calories, impairs sleep quality, damages your brain/liver and may be a carcinogen.

The point being, social media can be bad for your health even if it doesn't ruin your life.

[tayo42]

> Social medias promise of social connections was really just the same as what drug dealers offer, the good stuff for new consumers and then once they are hooked give them the cheap stuff. They really don’t care about ‘social’ part of it because the addiction potential is so high.

This is a little to cynical of a take and ignores how social media really evolved. Facebook and myspace were actual social places where we interacted with each other.

You need to look at the evolution (which mostly happened organically) where businesses started joining as people and eventually social media stopped being social and turned into a one direction communication platform. The only non-organic evolution i think is the change from chronological timeliness to algorithim

[dkh]

He does know this, he just wants it to stop.

There is a massive amount of very high-quality compelling (and damning) studies on this subject, with more coming in all the time, and very little that contradicts the premise of "yeah this stuff can be really bad for us".

But what's next? The social media companies aren't going to do anything about it. They will fight fight any attempt to admit it, discuss it, legislate it. And unfortunately it just so happens that these same companies and social networks are also most often the conduits by which people try to spread information to the masses, to make things known and to get people to care about them. Quite a predicament

[monero-xmr]

Soda is an addiction. Coffee is an addiction. Chicken wings and cheese burgers are an addiction. Watching sports is an addiction. Orgasm is an addiction. Making money is an addiction, and so is spending money.

Humans are driven by pleasure. We are all pleasure seekers. If scrolling social media is an addiction then maybe exercise self control.

I don’t care what someone tells me is an addiction. Either control yourself or shut the fuck up

[enaaem]

There is a huge difference between a chicken wing enjoyer (most people) and a chicken wing addict.

[ilamont]

> What Tim Berners Lee doesn’t know or understand

He knows, he uses, he understands more than you think.

[hilbert42]

"What Tim Berners Lee doesn’t know or understand - Social media is like fentanyl or cocaine for the masses."

First, I've a similar expression I've used for years which is Social Media is addictive electronic heroin.

I agree strongly with your comment and from my observations I've little doubt what you say is essentially correct. The evidence is everywhere; whenever I'm out and about I inevitability come across people staring transfixed at their phones, some whilst walking, others motionless, and still others walk across busy roads oblivious to traffic. These people are so engaged they really haven't a clue what else is going on around them.

(OK, critics would argue engaging in Social Media isn't all that people do on their phones and clearly that's true. But I'd counter that by saying Social Media is a large aspect of a broader addiction to electronic tech.)

Unless HN counts as one, I've no Social Media accounts—not even a Google account—so it's not surprising I'm a little curious about what so occupies those who do.

This raises questions about why so many engage in Social Media and I reckon you've answered that to a tee, it also raises the matter of why people like me find Social Media repulsive yet I've still no problem participating in forums such as HN.

Clearly, Social Media is having a large impact on human behavior and much of it negative but where's the proof and what's to be done about it? Social Media is now so entrenched that regulating it is essentially impossible.

It seems to me we need much more research into the effects of Social Media on human behavior before we can arrive at any definitive conclusions, and the most likely way to determine that is through a large longitudinal study—and that might take years.

Unless there's watertight scientific evidence that certain aspects of Social Media are having negative effects on behavior then nothing will happen to correct the problems—as commercial pressures to maintain the status quo will just quash any attempt to correct the situation.

[kavalg]

Nothing like FB/Insta (which I am not using), but for me HN still counts.

[hilbert42]

I could give many reasons for why I made that point but it'd only start point-scoring over each issue. That said, whilst Social Media has many problems HN isn't perfect either.

That common problem is the voting system—likes/dislikes, up/downvoting. There are multiple problems here and there's much to say about it, but perhaps the worst is that it's polarizing. Frankly, I'd like to see it either eliminated or the rules substantially modified. For instance, downvoters are anonymous and they affect the outcome without ever having to say why they disagree†. That's not a good system, if one disagrees one ought to have the guts to argue why.

Of course, those who run the show would disagree as fewer people would participate.

† On HN, if, say, a poster receives 10 upvotes and 10 downvotes neither the poster nor others are aware of the fact. Effectively, a controversial topic where opinion is split down the middle turns out to look like it's a matter of little interest to anyone. That doesn't make much sense.

[CaffeineLD50]

I've been down voted on simple provable facts where the down voter doesn't disagree: literally they just don't like my facts.

HN is horribly broken.

[aaronbaugher]

I came here because I figured it would be smarter and more reality-facing than reddit. I might have been half-right.

[CaffeineLD50]

If your views are mainstream with those empowered to down vote and you tend towards noncontroversial opinions and "flow with the crowd" or can pretend to do so, HN probably is better than Reddit.

Although Reddit is a very low bar.

If you like your opinions strong and you think for yourself and you resent being signaled which way to respond and think, you'll be down voted and treated with condescending comments by those who like echo chambers of agreement.

[hilbert42]

FYI, my comment above typifies the issue. It currently stands at zero votes but I saw it as high as +3 not long after posting. It's anyone's guess how many voted for and against.

When votes oscillate around zero I take it that my comment is pretty neutral, essentially a statement of fact. Shooting the messenger is a well-known phenomenon.

Incidentally, something I've noted is that I'll often get downvoted days after the main activity stops. Vote stats therefore should be timestamped. It occurred to me HN could do an analysis of voters together with their actual posts. Anonymous stats like that could tell us much about why Social Media is in such a mess.

[dleeftink]

While I'd welcome more studies, this has been on the research agenda for a while now[0]. It'll be up to implementing better technical stewardship on the developer side, renewed educational programs and revisiting our regulation. Or getting people to touch grass[1].

[0]: Leung, L. (2004). Net-generation attributes and seductive properties of the internet as predictors of online activities and internet addiction. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7(3), 333-348.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43158660

[hackernewsdhsu]

I wonder if he knows he posted a compliant about walled gardens behind a paywall.... Another form of walled garden.

[CaffeineLD50]

Oh the irony.