[rmholt]

No. It's not the smartphones that are the problem. Smartphones are a wonderful invention, capable of connecting anyone anywhere.

It's the apps, which overcharge everyone's (not just kids!) brains, by algorithmically "mAxImiZinG eNgaGeMent"

It's time to ban them all. Okay that's a bit much. Ban all algorithmic feeds, all apps must adhere to strictly chronological feed of the strictly subscribed authors.

There, the phone addiction crisis solved.

[anonym29]

If we can all agree that cannabis is bad for the still-developing mind, and can generally get on board with the idea that kids should be kept as far away from it as possible, because it's addicting, because it causes long-term alterations to brain development, because it diminishes motivation and hijacks executive functioning networks, why is it so hard for society to consider treating smartphones, social media, and highly-immersive video games like MMORPG's, with essentially all of the same effects, the same way?

I am part of the generation that grew up with MMORPG's from early childhood (I was about 9 years old when I made my first RuneScape account), but approaching 30, I don't game at all anymore for the exact same reasons I don't touch cannabis anymore. Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, Facebook, it's all the same thing for teenagers. At a neurological level, these platforms are as highly addicting and neural-network-altering as actual psychoactive pharmaceuticals, legal or otherwise.

Paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions, and god-like technology is a combination that we're not nearly as well-adapted to as we think we are.

[rmholt]

> why is it so hard for society to consider treating smartphones, social media, and highly-immersive video games like MMORPG's, with essentially all of the same effects, the same way?

I agree with you. I would consider social media and games addictive. It's just that the SMS app on my phone isn't addictive. Telegram app, the Photo app also isn't.

> Paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions, and god-like technology is a combination that we're not nearly as well-adapted to as we think we are.

Agreed. But my paleolithic emotions aren't addicted to the radio waves of my phone, but to the TikTok app specifically.

[anonym29]

Sorry if my post was unclear, when I say "platforms", I am talking about Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, open-ended MMORPG's, etc - I agree that the problem is the addiction-optimized psychological experiments, not the operating system or device itself.

[rmholt]

Yes!!! That's why I would ban just the "addiction-optimized psychological experiments".

I would also ban them globally, not just for kids but like I'm sure that would be a whole 'nother discussion.

[rmholt]

Because phone is just a box of wires, without apps it's inert.

It's the apps, which corrode everyone's attention span. And unlike weed, I doubt there will be "algorithmic feed" dealers, because no one actually wants an algorithmic feed.

[anonym29]

Sure - to be clear, I am not suggesting banning technology itself. Computers and the internet were also a boon of joy and discovery for me. I self-started programming in TI-basic back in middle school because "computer science" classes that covered anything beyond typing and "here's how to use to a web browser, here's how to use a text editor" skills weren't available until high school for me. I have vivid and fond memories of learning visual basic and making my own GUI apps after this, before eventually starting to learn javascript, python, and "real" programming languages like C.

None of this exploration ever required or involved Facebook or other social media platform or highly immersive video game, save YouTube.

And to be clear, I'm no proponent of the state simply passing universal bans, or infringing upon privacy of adults with facial recognition requirements for using social media, this is a responsibility of parents, many of whom I fear themselves haven't been adequately warned about how addicting these platforms are.

I don't think DARE-style assemblies for both students and parents would be the worst idea to warn both groups about the risks of these platforms, provided they were done honestly, rather than being filled with hyperbole. It doesn't infringe upon anyone's rights, and wouldn't really "cost" anything, but would help educate those who might lack the awareness on the subject.

[rmholt]

> I don't think DARE-style assemblies for both students and parents would be the worst idea to warn both groups about the risks of these platforms, provided they were done honestly, rather than being filled with hyperbole.

Yeah that's fair. Probably can't hurt anything with that. But it's hard to get the actual danger across.

> None of this exploration ever required or involved Facebook or other social media platform or highly immersive video game, save YouTube.

That's why I am gunning to limit these kind of platforms, specifically.

> It doesn't infringe upon anyone's rights, and wouldn't really "cost" anything,

Well it depends. If these assemblies worked, they would "cost" the platforms potential engagement and potential revenue. Which is kind of a pointless distinction, I just thought it's interesting

[ThrowawayR2]

No, that doesn't address the incentives that cause all those things: maximizing engagement to maximize ad impressions for money. You have to choke the money supply off at the source or the big corporations will just find other engagement mechanisms to hook users to get at more profits.

Instead, tax ad impressions per day per user on a sliding scale that makes it quickly unprofitable to display more than a handful of ads and use the money to fund media literacy classes in schools. Restrict the number and types of advertising that can be shown to children and adolescents, like forbidding animated ads.

[vohk]

> There, the phone addiction crisis solved.

I think you're putting too much emphasis on The Algorithm. It's a problem, and I agree it's probably the worst offender, but similar problems were observed decades ago with children (and adults...) allowed to watch too many hours of uninterrupted TV. Cutting back to chronological feeds might improve some things but I don't think that's the root of the issue.

I would suggest the primary difference between then and now is accessibility. As a kid, my screen time was limited not just by my parents indulgence but the social pressure from using a shared device. Smart phones let you carry your personal distraction with you.

I agree they are a wonderful invention but I'm not sure grade school students need to be connecting to anyone, anywhere throughout the entire school day.

[rmholt]

> I think you're putting too much emphasis on The Algorithm. It's a problem, and I agree it's probably the worst offender, but similar problems were observed decades ago with children (and adults...) allowed to watch too many hours of uninterrupted TV.

Yeah that's fair.

> I agree they are a wonderful invention but I'm not sure grade school students need to be connecting to anyone, anywhere throughout the entire school day.

Well to their friends in other classes ("Wanna go out after 3pm lesson").

Additionally, and socially, smart phones, if banned, would be instantly seen as a status symbol. And it would also accelerate strong anti-autority sentimentality. The kids won't understand it, hell adults wouldn't. So it's also the case that you can't really ban them without really adverse social effects.

[hx8]

> And it would also accelerate strong anti-autority sentimentality.

Probably something we should be encouraging in our youth.

[rmholt]

Sure, but the natural consequence is that they will be more inclined to distrust society, authority, and vote for anti-estabishment populist parties.

To quote a great man, we live in society. And it's better to work within a system and get to know it rather than it is to just hate it. And if the first experience of a large portion of youth is system beating them down, you can see how that's gonna grow a strong "tear it all down" mentality.

[kmoser]

I don't buy arguments from parents about why they can't just take away their kids' phones, or simply decline to buy them a phone in the first place.

My family didn't have a TV growing up. (This was way before the Internet, when TV was king and HBO and cable were a status symbol.) Me and my siblings tried every argument in the book to get them to buy one, to no avail. Out of the loop on TV pop culture? Boo-hoo. Peers make fun of you for not having a TV? Too bad, so sad. The result was that I participated in more activities that engaged my body and brain. Aside from being bad at TV pop culture trivia from those decades, I turned out just fine.

At the end of they day, parents need to set the standards that they want their children to live by, and stick with them. Even today, a phone is a luxury that a kid doesn't really need, and will likely contribute to low attention span and cause them all manner of anxiety. Don't take my word for it; many studies will back me up.

[dartharva]

You sound like one of the author's students. Just restricting juvenile phone use to dumb phones is obviously the more feasible solution than banning or manipulating entire platforms.

[rmholt]

I never said ban platforms? TikTok, Facebook could still very well exist and still make more money than any of us ever will. Just without the brain rotting engagement algorithm

[kmoser]

People will still easily find ways to become addicted to content streams, regardless of the algorithm. The algorithms just make it that much worse.

[Arisaka1]

Why not educate the users about the dangers misuse and abuse lead to the attention span, instead of banning things?

I vaguely recall too students back in the era where our biggest distraction was MSN messenger and our university forums. They kept both off until late at night.

We're letting people experience the downsides of the attention economy when it's almost (if not entirely) too late to avoid the negatives.

[rmholt]

> Why not educate the users about the dangers misuse and abuse lead to the attention span, instead of banning things?

Because social media is precisely in the short term benefit x long term risk that human brains are bad at conceptualizing. Same reasons for why we mandate belts in cars.

[prussia]

> Same reasons for why we mandate belts in cars.

Hardly anyone in the "west" gets pulled over by police for seat belt checks (unlike say, India, China), yet nearly everyone still wears them, because they understand if they don't, they'll probably become a stain on the asphalt. I imagine if tomorrow, a law passed that seat belts no longer had to be worn, most people would still use them. Perhaps the regulation and enforcement are only needed initially when not everyone is educated on the long term risks.

[odo1242]

To be fair, belts and phones aren’t the same things. Belts are popular now because wearing them is barely an inconvenience compared to the improvement in safety - abstaining from phones is way harder for the average person.

[ourmandave]

You'll also have to ban all the addictive games.

[rmholt]

To be honest I would, if only to be consistent with the above policy.

[layer8]

You’d have to ban websites with algorithmic feeds as well, like this very site we’re on.

[rmholt]

Fair. I suppose a "highest upvote" kind of feed would also be acceptable - so we don't kill reddit or hacker news

[layer8]

Reddit and HN can be very addictive, and Instagram and YouTube and TikTok with mere “highest upvote” per topic would still be. I’m doubtful that your strategy would do very much about the problem.

I’d actually prefer HN and Reddit to be just chronological (or “newest comment” on the above-thread level), like traditional forums.

[AlienRobot]

It's not acceptable. Being able to read only the upvoted messages warp our perception of the average. Chronological is better.

[Duwensatzaj]

Even on something as anonymous as 4chan where all comments are posted in chrono order I see a difference in behavior after they added direct links to comments so one could easily see how many reactions your comment got as opposed to actually reading every comment.

[James_K]

I've no clue why people have downvoted this; you're right as rain. A phone is nothing short of a digital slot machine and shouldn't be put in front of adults or children. These algorithms are designed for profit, not humanity. They have far greater control over us than they should.

[rmholt]

The funny thing is, they don't even have control. They can't push propaganda. They can just accelerate human desire. Through all the brain rot they have created, they didn't even gain anything significant, just a few % bump in "kEy pErFormAnce iNdiCatoRs".

And they doomed a generation in the process

[James_K]

Capitalism is a system that rewards the selfish and greedy. If you don't pursue every bump in key performance indicators you can, then someone else will and they'll eat your lunch.

[rmholt]

Agreed, the problem is capitalism /s

But seriously agreed, that's why I propose what I propose - when it's banned no-one can do it and no one can eat your lunch (*)

(*) Subject to exceptions, as the War on Drugs can attest, but I think it would work in this instance

[atemerev]

Including Hacker News, presumably.