Yeah sure, there's this impending Euro zone collapse, millions of death due to famine in Africa, rampant obesity throughout the world, decades of war in the middle east. What really is destroying the world is an internet software feature 99% of the planet never heard of.
Should I use dental floss tonight or not? Because you know, I like to ponder about the important things in the world.
I don't really think that tone is needed here on HN. Matt does bring up a valid point. Ability to concentrate will be a differentiating factor in an information age defined by the ability to create efficiently.
sometimes I wonder why people post comment like this. I mean does every articles or point of view posted here has to be 100% politically correct, addressed all the little semantic issues and cover all possible counter-arguments?
it's called opinion for a reason. people do think out loud. discuss or dissect it. don't belittle it with snark.
Well, even though distractions are not direct cause of suffering, they are taking our attention away from coming up with creative solutions to those problems.
The title is obviously hyperbole, but I think it's a fair point - I believe there was actually a discussion last week or so here about how the key differential in the workforce will be able to focus for distinct periods of time.
I'm actually still resisting a smart phone (much to my friends' chagrin), because while I'm at the computer 10 hours a day, the rest of the time, I actually enjoy not "having" to check my email, twitter, facebook constantly because of push notifications.
I have a smart phone, but rarely SMS, don't use twitter, barely ever check FB on it, and don't even have my email notifications turned on (can check it if I'm expecting something, but am not bothered by it).
It's nice to have, but maybe not worth the extra cost TBH...
He's completely right in his reasoning, but just like a lot of pessimistic predictions made about people, this one doesn't take into account the human ability to realize and fix something like this if it becomes a real problem.
I quit using a cell phone once I realized it was killing my concentration (and a Palm Pre is a hard thing to give up). I haven't used Twitter in months, Facebook sees me like once a week, and my email is quickly sorted (with the help of Webos 3.0's amazing mail client) once in the morning or whenever I feel like it.
I have a feeling a lot more people will try this in the next few years (and they'll love it).
I think that you're partly right, and it ties in with one of the points in pg's essay about addictive technology[1], that societies eventually develop antibodies to addictive new things. The problem (also noted in the essay, which grows more frightening the longer I think about it) is that most of the people who succumb to the addictive thing will not change their lifestyle to overcome it. Meanwhile, many companies in Silicon Valley are working to make their products as addictive as possible, soaking the most vulnerable users for the most money. The poster boy for this behavior is Zynga, but you see it everywhere.
What's the solution? Maybe we need to try harder to add addictive properties to activities we value. Or maybe we need a cultural movement away from things that are low-value and addictive to things that are high-value but not very addictive. It's difficult, because almost anything that's fun is potentially addictive. Reading, coding, and exercise are all valuable and can all be addictive. Not all addictions are equal. Running for two hours a day is probably better than playing Farmville for two hours a day.
I think that Matt's comments hit home because we're often in a position now of building things that lock people into harmful addictive behaviors. We all have to ask ourselves whether the work we do is valuable, or just lucrative.
He's completely wrong. If everybody on earth decides by their own volition to waste their entire life consuming blog updates and Twitter feeds, what basis exactly do you have to say they aren't to live their life the way they see fit?
You have absolutely no real basis at all. And if you're going to open up that can of worms, there are roughly a zillion other issues that have to then be judged harshly and treated with equal disdain.
That slut you slept with last night, the one you picked up for a one night stand from the bar. How dare you waste your time in such a shallow and frivolous fashion. Sluts are destroying the world!
What you're talking about are lifestyle choices on how people choose to spend their time. You might as well start taking up positions against homosexuality and judging people for their lifestyle choices more broadly, because it's exactly the same thing.
It is amazing how people develop antibodies when exposed to a treat. When I traveled around the world one of the worst thing you could think is: look, this water source is safe to drink, all locals do and they are fine. I did learn the painful way.
As an early adopter of mail, facebook and tweeter(back from the early days, "hey, HN could you test my idea?") I had to develop antibodies for distractions and I don't use tweeter, for facebook anymore(mail only at the end of the day). Reading only HN briefly. It works like a charm.
"to the detriment of creativity and productivity."
I don't think those are necessarily the only or most important things losing out to all this "panem et circenses", which is really what a lot of these things are. Distraction has been used for a long time!
Maybe Matt hasn't heard about turning something off. Matt is worried that engaging technologies interrupt peoples lives and disrupt productivity and creativity. He is probably right, until you realise you can disconnect yourself from these notifications.
Its like Twitter. It can be horribly distracting and engaging. It can interrupt your work and even conversations you may be having. At the same time you can turn off whatever app you have and it will disappear completely from your life until you turn it back on.
The majority of people know their limits and can decide how much they want a specific app/technology/whatever to impact their day-to-day lives.
>The majority of people know their limits and can decide how much they want a specific app/technology/whatever to impact their day-to-day lives.
I would say some people know their limits, but if you look at the number of people who walk around with their eyes glued to their iphone, I'd really question that the majority do.
Devices have off switches. People's social expectations don't. For instance, there aren't too many salaried people with enough autonomy to decide that they don't want their bosses e-mailing them after hours, over the weekend, or on vacations and that they're not going to indulge them with prompt replies, regardless of the impact.
Separately, what's with the sarcasm? Do you think that tone makes you more persuasive?
Mullenweg should be more concerned about how his software causes users to do more work than is necessary.
People prefer posts with photos that scroll, not a slideshow (WordPress Gallery). Many posts I do (mainly the ones about Occupy Wall Street) can have over one hundred photos. These photos have to be placed one-by-one manually. There is no "Place All" button that just plops them all into a post (we have bulk upload now, but not bulk Place).
If he is so concerned about making the world a better place, he can start there. That is something he can actually do.
The gallery shortcode supports this, just add these attributes wherever you use [gallery]: columns="1" size="full". That tells it to make it one-column instead of the default three, and for the images to be the width of the post. (They'll resize automatically if you switch themes.) Hope that helps!
This is the reason I keep my phone on silent. Not even vibrate anymore, but silent. Keeping distractions under control has greatly improved my mental well-being.
Technology and elements of our modern lifestyle such as multitasking really do make our brains less tolerant to stillness and slowing down. So he has a great point.
Plus it wouldn't hurt if people though about the WHY of what they are dOing
The premise paints a terrible picture of people, such that they aren't the ones making a completely volitional decision about how they want to spend their time. If people want to spend their time reading blogs and Twitter, who are you to say otherwise? It's not your choice, it's not your life, it's none of your business.
Might as well question whether soap opera's, tabloids, espn, disney, movies, television in general, music, and just about every other form of entertainment and media stimulation are destroying the world. After all, isn't modern music crap? Was FRIENDS really worth spending all that time watching? Who really needs to watch 50 NFL games per year? Could there be a greater waste of time than NASCAR? Most movies are an extreme waste of time because they're so terrible, so why make them?
It's a completely absurd premise, and it applies just as well to all media as it does to Twitter or Facebook or Wordpress.
I don't think the premise is absurd at all, and it need not paint a terrible picture of people.
There are often two camps when it comes to topics like this - the free-will proponents who posit that people's behaviors and choices are based on their own conscious, controllable volition. Then there are the contextualists, who would have us believe that people behave as the system dictates and can be held blameless for their failings.
The truth is, naturally, somewhere in between. We can suggest that people are negatively influenced by certain things without denying them free will and personal responsibility.
> "It's not your choice, it's not your life, it's none of your business."
Note that Mr. Mullenweg didn't suggest that systems be designed to actively curb this behavior. There are no Big Brother nor Nanny State overtones to this at all.
> "If people want to spend their time reading blogs and Twitter, who are you to say otherwise?"
Again, nobody has tabled that we should disallow people from reading blogs all day. Mr. Mullenweg seems to be feeling guilt that he's helped create something that may have a negative overall impact on many of its users.
Imagine if you've created the world's most addictive cigarette and completely cornered the market. People all around the world are lighting these things up by the packloads. You wouldn't feel any concern, or even guilt? Surely this is not as simple as "these people are adults, if they smoke like a chimney it's their own damn fault". That logic applies just as easily to crack cocaine or war, and represents the most extreme end of the "free will" argument.
> "and it applies just as well to all media as it does to Twitter or Facebook or Wordpress."
And it does. This is the nation that, after all, invented the TV dinner and the couch potato. In fact, TV's influence on society is a big can o' worms. If Mr. Mullenweg wants to feel better about his role in the creation of new media, he may want to take note that the Internet is the first thing in 50 years to get people off the damn couch and onto a far more interactive, more informative medium. The Internet has some serious information addiction problems that we're just scratching the surface of - but IMO it beats the pants off what it replaced.
Information addiction in general does not have me overly concerned about the future of society and the Internet. What does worry me is the growth of the personalized web - we are very, very rapidly sailing into a future where a person would never have to hear a single word of dissent to their own beliefs. This troubles me more than any other issue that faces the Internet today.
[+] [-] Zarathust|14 years ago|reply
Should I use dental floss tonight or not? Because you know, I like to ponder about the important things in the world.
[+] [-] joelrunyon|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] puppymaster|14 years ago|reply
it's called opinion for a reason. people do think out loud. discuss or dissect it. don't belittle it with snark.
[+] [-] mattront|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tar|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] robryan|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] suprememoocow|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joelrunyon|14 years ago|reply
I'm actually still resisting a smart phone (much to my friends' chagrin), because while I'm at the computer 10 hours a day, the rest of the time, I actually enjoy not "having" to check my email, twitter, facebook constantly because of push notifications.
[+] [-] unimpressive|14 years ago|reply
I would say the same thing, except that resistance implies that there's a significant chance that I'll give in.
No matter how it's spun, I'm not putting a GPS spying device in my pocket.
[+] [-] will_work4tears|14 years ago|reply
It's nice to have, but maybe not worth the extra cost TBH...
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] firefoxman1|14 years ago|reply
I quit using a cell phone once I realized it was killing my concentration (and a Palm Pre is a hard thing to give up). I haven't used Twitter in months, Facebook sees me like once a week, and my email is quickly sorted (with the help of Webos 3.0's amazing mail client) once in the morning or whenever I feel like it.
I have a feeling a lot more people will try this in the next few years (and they'll love it).
[+] [-] pemulis|14 years ago|reply
What's the solution? Maybe we need to try harder to add addictive properties to activities we value. Or maybe we need a cultural movement away from things that are low-value and addictive to things that are high-value but not very addictive. It's difficult, because almost anything that's fun is potentially addictive. Reading, coding, and exercise are all valuable and can all be addictive. Not all addictions are equal. Running for two hours a day is probably better than playing Farmville for two hours a day.
I think that Matt's comments hit home because we're often in a position now of building things that lock people into harmful addictive behaviors. We all have to ask ourselves whether the work we do is valuable, or just lucrative.
[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/addiction.html
[+] [-] adventureful|14 years ago|reply
You have absolutely no real basis at all. And if you're going to open up that can of worms, there are roughly a zillion other issues that have to then be judged harshly and treated with equal disdain.
That slut you slept with last night, the one you picked up for a one night stand from the bar. How dare you waste your time in such a shallow and frivolous fashion. Sluts are destroying the world!
What you're talking about are lifestyle choices on how people choose to spend their time. You might as well start taking up positions against homosexuality and judging people for their lifestyle choices more broadly, because it's exactly the same thing.
[+] [-] DanielRibeiro|14 years ago|reply
[1] http://joekraus.com/were-creating-a-culture-of-distraction
[+] [-] forgottenpaswrd|14 years ago|reply
As an early adopter of mail, facebook and tweeter(back from the early days, "hey, HN could you test my idea?") I had to develop antibodies for distractions and I don't use tweeter, for facebook anymore(mail only at the end of the day). Reading only HN briefly. It works like a charm.
[+] [-] mipapage|14 years ago|reply
I don't think those are necessarily the only or most important things losing out to all this "panem et circenses", which is really what a lot of these things are. Distraction has been used for a long time!
[+] [-] bobsy|14 years ago|reply
Its like Twitter. It can be horribly distracting and engaging. It can interrupt your work and even conversations you may be having. At the same time you can turn off whatever app you have and it will disappear completely from your life until you turn it back on.
The majority of people know their limits and can decide how much they want a specific app/technology/whatever to impact their day-to-day lives.
[+] [-] joelrunyon|14 years ago|reply
I would say some people know their limits, but if you look at the number of people who walk around with their eyes glued to their iphone, I'd really question that the majority do.
[+] [-] alexqgb|14 years ago|reply
Separately, what's with the sarcasm? Do you think that tone makes you more persuasive?
[+] [-] mikecane|14 years ago|reply
People prefer posts with photos that scroll, not a slideshow (WordPress Gallery). Many posts I do (mainly the ones about Occupy Wall Street) can have over one hundred photos. These photos have to be placed one-by-one manually. There is no "Place All" button that just plops them all into a post (we have bulk upload now, but not bulk Place).
If he is so concerned about making the world a better place, he can start there. That is something he can actually do.
[+] [-] hdctambien|14 years ago|reply
Why wait for Matt and his team to do it for you?
[+] [-] photomatt|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maresca|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AznHisoka|14 years ago|reply
Plus it wouldn't hurt if people though about the WHY of what they are dOing
[+] [-] indubitably|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ClHans|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] aneth|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] adventureful|14 years ago|reply
Might as well question whether soap opera's, tabloids, espn, disney, movies, television in general, music, and just about every other form of entertainment and media stimulation are destroying the world. After all, isn't modern music crap? Was FRIENDS really worth spending all that time watching? Who really needs to watch 50 NFL games per year? Could there be a greater waste of time than NASCAR? Most movies are an extreme waste of time because they're so terrible, so why make them?
It's a completely absurd premise, and it applies just as well to all media as it does to Twitter or Facebook or Wordpress.
[+] [-] potatolicious|14 years ago|reply
There are often two camps when it comes to topics like this - the free-will proponents who posit that people's behaviors and choices are based on their own conscious, controllable volition. Then there are the contextualists, who would have us believe that people behave as the system dictates and can be held blameless for their failings.
The truth is, naturally, somewhere in between. We can suggest that people are negatively influenced by certain things without denying them free will and personal responsibility.
> "It's not your choice, it's not your life, it's none of your business."
Note that Mr. Mullenweg didn't suggest that systems be designed to actively curb this behavior. There are no Big Brother nor Nanny State overtones to this at all.
> "If people want to spend their time reading blogs and Twitter, who are you to say otherwise?"
Again, nobody has tabled that we should disallow people from reading blogs all day. Mr. Mullenweg seems to be feeling guilt that he's helped create something that may have a negative overall impact on many of its users.
Imagine if you've created the world's most addictive cigarette and completely cornered the market. People all around the world are lighting these things up by the packloads. You wouldn't feel any concern, or even guilt? Surely this is not as simple as "these people are adults, if they smoke like a chimney it's their own damn fault". That logic applies just as easily to crack cocaine or war, and represents the most extreme end of the "free will" argument.
> "and it applies just as well to all media as it does to Twitter or Facebook or Wordpress."
And it does. This is the nation that, after all, invented the TV dinner and the couch potato. In fact, TV's influence on society is a big can o' worms. If Mr. Mullenweg wants to feel better about his role in the creation of new media, he may want to take note that the Internet is the first thing in 50 years to get people off the damn couch and onto a far more interactive, more informative medium. The Internet has some serious information addiction problems that we're just scratching the surface of - but IMO it beats the pants off what it replaced.
Information addiction in general does not have me overly concerned about the future of society and the Internet. What does worry me is the growth of the personalized web - we are very, very rapidly sailing into a future where a person would never have to hear a single word of dissent to their own beliefs. This troubles me more than any other issue that faces the Internet today.