[constantcrying]

The ultimate question here is what the values of the "Society" are. Preferring real social interaction over isolation is a value judgement, clearly many people do value real social interaction less and less. There are two options here, either an outside force changes these values or these values are accepted as normal.

None of this has to do with technology itself, people are actively choosing to be anti-social. If you aren't going to accept their choice, what are you going to do?

[JohnFen]

> Preferring real social interaction over isolation is a value judgement

Yes, it's the value judgement that society is a good thing to have. Without real social interaction, there can be no society.

[DangitBobby]

It's not necessarily only a value judgement if it turns out being less social is actually less healthy for everyone.

I haven't chosen to be antisocial, the people around me have, which makes it harder for me to be social. Others don't choose to be antisocial but are anyway mainly because they can't help but be glued to their screens.

Arguing that this has nothing to do with technology is (social media, in particular) is like arguing heroin has nothing to do with homelessness.

[JoshTriplett]

> It's not necessarily only a value judgement if it turns out being less social is actually less healthy for everyone.

It would still be a value judgement in that case. There's the value of people having the choice to do less healthy things (as long as they're not hurting other people in doing so), versus preventing people from doing less healthy things.

[soco]

Historically saying, people doing less healthy things got culled out of the evolution of the humanity and society. Today we have "solutions" to alleviate these consequences of the less healthy hings - AI friends, therapy, you name it. So humanity can obviously go on with those less healthy things, with consequences which I cannot predict.

[DangitBobby]

Emphasis on _only_.

[JoshTriplett]

Fair, thank you for calling attention to that.