Some people are alcoholics. They can't exist near an open can of beer without their life going to shambles. But most people aren't and don't have the urge to binge drink.
I'm not sure how this is any different. The author of this article is an Internetaholic, therefore I should cut my tether to the Internet? And what of my LTE connection?
One big difference is that alcohol was not engineered to be addictive. Whereas at Facebook and many other companies there are a lot of smart people continuously trying to improve metrics like DAU, UAM, response frequency, etc. And they do it with no apparent regard for the impact on users' lives. Heck, many game companies proudly advertise how they are the most addictive thing you can get right now.
Well okay sure, but engineered or not, alcohol is very addictive. There are probably more addictive substances, but alcohol really is up there on that list. You could probably engineer a better addictive substance, but not one nearly as pervasive in global culture.
There's something truly unique about alcohol that isn't true of any other addictive substance on the planet.
> There's something truly unique about alcohol that isn't true of any other addictive substance on the planet.
Except nicotine, sugar, caffeine, etc.
Honestly I'd say your argument is a much better fit for sugar.
I'm saying this as someone who went off it for a few years, and now back on it, trying to quit.
Tremendously addictive, and it's EVERYWHERE.
Birthday? Cake. Meeting up with friends? Drinks. Easter? Candy. Date? Chocolate. Did something good? Reward with cookies.
I sound like I'm on some bandwagon, but I'm not trying to argue that honey or agave or anything else is better, but there's very little sugar naturally in any real food, and we can't escape it.
Alcohol is at most gatherings, but it really isn't nearly as pervasive.
By the way, if you're looking for a way to get a clean break from sugar, following the paleo induction plan "Whole30" has worked well for me. The initial withdrawal symptoms are not fun, but the limited time span and the clarity of the program made it relatively easy to do.
Feel free to email if you want to discuss. I'm so glad to be off it again; I feel healthier and my mood is so much more positive and even.
I didn't have any trouble quitting last time, but having a family and more commitments now makes it tougher to completely revamp your habits.
What I find most fascinating is how I can look outside myself and notice how my rational brain time and time again gets disregarded by impulse, while knowing what I know. It's like observing someone else.
I have clear memories and notes over how (as you describe) my mood was better and I felt healthier, yet an immediate impulse with a fleeting effect takes priority, while knowing it will only prolong the problem.
Somehow I've never really had a sweet tooth at all. I usually decline sweet foods when people are handing around cake or cookies, or only accept to be polite and take a small slice. But get some nice savoury food near me and I'll scarf it all down. For some reason umami is to me what sugar is to others.
I'm the same way. I call it a salty tooth. I couldn't care less about desserts, but if someone offers me some smelly camembert, or bread and olive tapenade, or a bonito rice ball, you better watch out because it's all going into my mouth.
The problem with sugar is, IMO, glycemic index. With glucose being an index of 100, no sugar being an index of 0, and something that takes a moderate amount of time to convert from starches/etc to sugar being 50, things that are higher than 50-60 tend to spike your blood sugar and cause insulin to scavenge the sugar out and store it in fat. Doing that often causes things like insulin resistance and obesity as you get hungry again when your blood sugar drops.
Fruits have a surprisingly low glycemic index because they aren't processed and you have to get through fiber and digest the cells before having access to all of the sugar. I've changed my diet to avoid sugar and notice that I very rarely feel actively hungry/crashy vs. before, and most fruit is just fine.
A perhaps better measure is glycemic load, which takes mass into account. 400 calories of frosted flakes is about 100g. 400 calories of watermelon is 1.3kg. Watermelon's glycemic index is worse, but at reasonable serving sizes, fruits generally end up being way better.
You also cherry picked, figuratively speaking. More literally, you didn't pick the cherries at an index of 22. There are a lot of fruits in the 20s to 40s. I tend to stay away from both pineapple and watermelon.
Sure, that is naturally occuring, and I wouldn't advise eating too much of it either, but at least the ratio is offset by a lot of fiber (and water), so you get somewhat full.
But I get your point, it shouldn't really be about what's naturally occuring, but how it affects your body. I stay away from fruit as well.
> There's something truly unique about alcohol that isn't true of any other addictive substance on the planet.
Alcohol is a viable a substitute for carbohydrates for feeding nerve cells. Ethanol -> acetate -> ATP. Some research was published a few years ago about how the brains of heavy drinkers switch to running on acetate....
pervasiveness is a factor. If you think of the addiction as an "infection" then relapse/reinfection is a lot easier when the reinfection vectors are pervasive.
I read this in a drug information pamphlet a long time ago; basically it said that cocaine and heroin both bind to a different set of receptors to the other, but alcohol binds to both. Which is what makes it uniquely addictive. Its obviously not as strong as either of those drugs but combines the nature of both.
What you're both implying is that, unless something is EVERYONE'S problem, no one should share their experiences. The author constantly makes the case that maybe this is too extreme for you, and you can choose not to do it. But for a lot of us here, as is clear from the activity on this thread, this IS a problem, and I'm glad the author made the post.
But Facebook is a problem. Social media has its place somewhere in society but Facebook in particular is definitely a problem, for a multitude of reasons.
As a digital nomad for the past several months, Facebook has been crucial in keeping in touch with friends and family back home, but also a perfect platform for staying in contact with new friends I make on my travels :-)
I am an immigrant. I've been living mostly away from home for 10 years. I have people (friends, relatives, family, people that I know and love) that are easily reachable on Facebook. I deleted my facebook account and realized that I can still reach all the people I want to reach if I had really wanted to. Stuff that is "on Facebook" seems optional to me. When the only way I know them is their Facebook profile then I'm fucked. Now I learned to ask people for their email addresses, I personally think it will live far longer than Facebook.
Sorry, I can no longer edit my comment, so I am adding another comment here. I'm in no way criticizing your way of communication. I think Facebook is an excellent communication tool.
However, to me, there is something special about emails that makes them a much personal way to communicate. When I send an email to a friend, I feel like I made a personal connection. I feel I like the person a lot more when I write an email to them and get an email back. When I commented on/liked a facebook status, it just feels like it's some shit I have to do when I am bored. Since I deleted my facebook, it turns out that there are very few friends/acquaintances that I added on Facebook that I feel like I need to connect on a personal level. That's very strange.
I'm a few months into the no-facebook game and it certainly is strange to realize how vacant most of our interactions on the platform were.
In some ways it feels like I've never been this lonely before. It makes me realize just how superficial most of my connections really were. I moved around a lot and had a sizable group of friends I would interact with on facebook, but now that it's gone... only three of them still make the effort to text or call me at least once a week to catch up. Sure, I have more friends who are simply indisposed and busy, but because they have social media they don't seek much interaction outside of it and so we don't talk.
It honestly hurts and the last two nights I've actually broken into long crying fits over how lonely I feel, because I feel like I don't connect with anyone, even the people I do talk to. I know facebook wasn't providing that level of connection I desired, but I realized it had tricked me into thinking it did. I realized that in the past, when I felt this kind of loneliness-induced depression creeping up, I would get on social media just to look at other human beings and remind me I'm not on a rock by myself and other people are dealing with the same emotions. Decent short-term solution for getting rid of the symptoms, but it did nothing to address the problem itself.
Incentivised social media like Facebook is really not healthy for the developing psyche. It's shaped the way I think and feel, and what triggers my brain's reward systems, and now I'm suffering for it.
I'll list two because I've been on HN too long today already.
1) Facebook is part of an initiative to lay down internet infrastructure in Africa, with the catch being that access to Facebook, Google, et al. is heavily subsidized. They are attempting to trap an entire continent on their platform, with subsidized tax money, knowingly simultaneously creating the most advanced social monitoring tool ever to exist. The CIA already has "social unrest" prediction mechanisms and, regardless of what some people involved think they're doing it for, this tool will be used to enslave the continent, continue preventing its people from achieving economic parity with the West, and provide better data for three-letter agencies to use in their sociopolitical and economic targeting (targeted propaganda, red herring social issues, media blackouts, even full-scale political coups)
2) They have better data than anyone else with respect to gauging addicting user behavior, and instead of taking the Nintendo approach ("Why don't you take a break and play outside?") they actively exploit these behavioral patterns to increase user engagement. 1/4 of the world's population exists on an insulating platform that does not have their interests in mind. They are unwittingly paving Facebook a permanent highway over our social systems. This creates negatively-reinforcing social vacuums and a massive chilling and normalization effect. But even worse than this normalization is the ideological reinforcement and mass hyper-emotional response that tends to result from an network of humans all checking their emotional response against others in a social vacuum. To make things even worse, Facebook capitalizes here as well and exploits users' emotional response mechanisms.
Here's a paper from a few years ago exploring this concept. I wanted to find a more recent article that was quite good but I couldn't locate it with a quick search:
The article I wanted to find mentioned one of the ways Facebook would exploit peoples' emotions to provoke their addictive behavior:
Facebook knows John spends about 10 minutes going through his feed at a time. During work hours, this number is 3 minutes. Right when Facebook thinks John might be about to put his phone away, they will suddenly show him a post from a friend he likes. He might stick around a little longer and comment. He scrolls a little more just because he is used to the behavior, and when Facebook thinks he is about to leave again they show him a post from someone he doesn't like. Bonus points if Facebook has determined the post is positive in nature. This triggers a negative emotional response in John and he scrolls a while longer, looking for a post that will give him another dopamine rush and return his "happiness" to him.
It's disgusting. It's predatory. It's abusive. It's no different than the CIA knowingly spreading crack and fentanyl to control the population and create pockets of crime that call for increased enforcement.
I am really curious about this last technique you mentioned (predicting when the user might be about to put their phone away and intervening at that moment with enticing content). If you remember any clues that might lead to it, or find it again, please post. Thanks!
I still couldn't find it and it really bugs me. If I do, I'll shoot you a PM.
In my search, I did come across this[0] and it concerned me. Seems like Facebook is expanding the ability of its users to enforce the chilling effect by allowing them to report "mentally unhealthy" posts so the users can be targeted for behavioral modification and automatic reporting to mental health agencies, as opposed to say, just messaging their friend directly and saying, "Hey, you OK man? You seem a bit sad."
They are also using ML to do the same thing, automatically. Just further separating us in the name of bringing us together.
GeoHot talked about FB in a few interviews how they used machine learning entirely for the purposes of tricking people into using FB more, which is why he quit working there.
I think this blog post is entirely too idealistic about the benefits of turning off the Internet, but I don't think comparing excessive Internet use and Alcoholism is appropriate.
Having personally been on the fringe of "high functioning" alcoholism on a few occasions, I don't think the comparison works. Alcoholism is inherently negative. Drinking alcohol in moderation may not be extremely harmful, but is still not necessarily great. While I certainly won't tell anyone how to live their life, cutting out alcohol use is still a "good" thing. Even if it's not a problem for you. Edit: I also still drink periodically because I enjoy it.
Internet use is not inherently negative. "Addiction" to the Internet may not be great, but is not necessarily all bad. The tricky thing about Internet use is that it's generally not something with negative social connotations. So even if someone is "binge consuming", one is not likely to feel negative social pressure because of it.
So I ultimately agree that he shouldn't be touting no Internet as a solution for all people, but I can't get behind the Alcoholism comparison.
> Drinking alcohol in moderation may not be extremely harmful, but is still not necessarily great. While I certainly won't tell anyone how to live their life, cutting out alcohol use is still a "good" thing. Even if it's not a problem for you.
I just don't know about that, even though I know you're trying to be fair and reasonable. Even ignoring the reported possible health benefits of alcohol in moderation, if it's slightly bad for your physical health it can still be a net positive in your life.
I also don't drink[0], but when I did I saw it as a positive thing as it got me outside and I was able to socialise with people when I was drinking. That was all just a state of mind though - there isn't anything magical in alcohol that makes you more confident (other than removing
Since I've quit I've made many new friends and my relationships with them are much deeper than any of my previous 'drinking buddies'.
[0] I occasionally drink kvass which has very small amount of alcohol (usually <1%). It is more natural (not pasteurised and filtered like most alcoholic drinks), so I wouldn't be surprised if it also has the same or greater health benefits.
It's not just an increase in confidence or ability to socialize, and there's no inherent reason why friendships need to be shallow or dependent on alcohol like the phrase "drinking buddies" implies. Alcohol causes euphoria, plain and simple. I don't see any reason why responsible moderate use can't result in a net utility gain over the potential health decrease. I'm thinking along the same lines as other dietary treats (like candy or comfort food) that are probably not part of any theoretical "ideal" diet but which can still make people happy.
My point is mostly focused on the extremes. I realize that I brought up the moderation bit and the true benefit/harm of moderate alcohol use is up for debate.
But if you look at extreme overuse of alcohol, there is nothing good about it. Pretty cut and dry.
Extreme "overuse" of the Internet - may have negatives attached, but is still in that "debatable" territory. True impact (positive or negative) depends on what the person is spending their time on, depends on the nature of their work and personal relationships, depends on what they have access to away from home, etc. etc. Even the definition of "extreme" or "overuse" is entirely relative and depends on the specifics of the situation.
I have to disagree that internet addiction is not something without highly negative social connotations. There is a significant number of people who fall into poor social circumstances via too much exposure to internet. There are a lot of internet communities out there that amplify deviant and antisocial behavior in people who spend way too much time on the internet. I agree that it's a different beast than a substance addiction, but there's no way you can simply dismiss binge internet user issues. Though my point may seem anecdotal, a lot of people have friends who were a lot better socially adjusted before they started letting the internet change their perspective and priorities.
That's fair, and to be clear I'm not entirely dismissing the issues related to binge Internet use. I do think this can be a very real problem that has very real consequences. I'm mostly unable to accept the alcohol comparison.
Some alcoholics are genetically predisposed to addiction and some are just using it to cope with something traumatic. Some basement dwellers (predisposed) gravitate towards depraved social forums and some well adjusted people are radicalized by political memes on Facebook.
While I certainly won't tell anyone how to live their life, cutting out alcohol use is still a "good" thing.
See, I'm not so sure about that. I spent probably 7-8 years without alcohol. It was never that I drank often, but my ex really had issues with it along with mental health issues. Part of making a good environment for him was to keep alcohol out of the house, and I couldn't really afford to be that impaired.
After we broke up, I started drinking casually. Its been years, and I still don't drink much, but it is a unique occasional enjoyment. I neither have pressure to drink nor real consequences from it - after all, I'd be spending the money on other entertainment anyway.
It was much harder to not be part of social media networks, honestly. No one cares if I drink, but folks will simply not talk to others if they don't share the social network.
There are many things for which use normal use is ok, even beneficial. E.g., alcohol, gambling, work, food, and sex. But for some people those become addictions. They are not inherently negative, but they can be abused.
If there is a distinction between those things and internet use, you haven't made it clear.
An alcohol manufacturer rarely has an army of designers, data scientists and engineers working non-stop to make their product more addictive and measuring their success on engagement growth.
> An alcohol manufacturer rarely has an army of designers, data scientists and engineers working non-stop to make their product more addictive and measuring their success on engagement growth.
They have at least the first two, and tobacco companies have, or historically have had, all three. Job titles are slightly different, but basic functions are the same.
This is just not true. Go visit a vineyard, distillery, or a brewery. People may be trying to improve the quality of the product, but they are not relentlessly trying to increase "user drinking minutes" or any metric like that. They do try to sell more of their product, but their main goal is getting better reviews, wider distribution, and more customers, not stuffing people like foie gras geese.
> . Go visit a vineyard, distillery, or a brewery. People may be trying to improve the quality of the product, but they are not relentlessly trying to increase "user drinking minutes" or any metric like that.
Yes, that's exactly what the marketing arms of the firms involved, and the advertising agencies they employ, are trying to do. (There's some actual product-development involvement there, too; light and ultra-light beers were invented pretty much exactly to maximize user drinking minutes.)
That's really only true for big companies like Ab-Inbev. You aren't going to see any of that at your mom and pop vineyard or craft microbrewery. You also don't see much of that pathological, exploitive behaviour in 1 person indie game shops either, however.
Yes, and tons of indie developers are beholden to big publishers like Sony and Microsoft. That doesn't change the fact that there are plenty of properly independent folks.
Also, I am not aware of the craft microbreweries owned by the big companies engaging in the sort of abusive behaviours that the main brands engage in, are you?
As others have pointed out, alcohol/tobacco manufacturers do in fact have these.
However because addiction is a known factor in their industry, I think they are kept somewhat in check, if only for legal reasons. I don't think Internet companies have any such qualms, so I would agree that they basically are trying to 'weaponize' this addiction.
I would be utterly shocked if most of the big ones didn't, and I'd be even more shocked if they (along with tobacco companies) had helped to develop techniques now taken for granted in the digital world.
I do think that a lot of people are very dependent on the internet in this way—and that there's very few things in life that we find to be indispensable to ever be disconnected from—air, sustenance, light, and... internet?
The fact that many find it to be so inconceivable to go from having the internet 24/7 to having the internet for your entire workday and any time you spend in a public place with internet, really points out how psychologically dependent we've collectively become on the web.
I think the problem is that apparently many people default to some level of potential "internetaholicity"; it explains the insane success of something like FB after all. People take time to recognize the various Skinner Boxes and develop the kind of sophistication so many on a site like HN take for granted. MMORPG's, Mobile F2P Skinner Boxes, and messaging programs really are going right to the core of human behavior.
How many of us didn't at least go through a phase of abusive use around the internet, or games, or something like that? When you add that having an FB account and the like is often seen as ultimately normal, it starts to add a lot of pressure for some people. As someone who has always hated something like FB, it's been disturbing to see it sink hooks into so many.
That said, I saw it coming because when I was a teenager I was hooked on mIrc for a while!
SO no... don't cut your tether, you're either naturally immune or like me developed an immune system. You should recognize though, that plenty of people aren't going to have such a successful outcome playing with that particular fire.
I think comparing it to alcohol is incorrect. It's more analogous to cigarettes. You start and it's very hard to stop. You increase your intake and it's very hard to even reduce it. Honestly, I think the internet is much more addictive than cigarettes and more comparable to very hard, addictive drugs.
It should, but English lacks a suffix for "addicted to...", so people have taken the "-holic" of "alcoholic" and reinterpreted it to fill that void. The genie is out of the bottle now, so to speak, and we will probably continue to use "-holic" for all forms of addiction as long as English is spoken.
I was wondering this too after reading the "call to action" -- do I get to keep my data plan? (Did the author keep his?) I assume the answer is supposed to be no, but that might be good to note explicitly as this wouldn't be nearly as life-changing if taken a little too literally. (Not to be too nitpicky -- the article makes great points!)
I find for myself that using my iPhone's porn filter to block timesuck sites like Reddit, Facebook, and ironically, this one—is a nice middle ground, where most of the time it's too inconvenient for me to go through deactivating the filters, but I can when I want to do something related to the service (like administering this hacker news post). Coupled with not having the native apps installed, it makes for a decent first step in reducing dependence.
My general heuristic is that anything with an infinite feed is designed to suck you in—so avoid apps that provide them, as much as is feasible for your lifestyle.
I'm not sure how this is any different. The author of this article is an Internetaholic, therefore I should cut my tether to the Internet? And what of my LTE connection?