[bsghirt]

Why is the exact device the problem?

20 years ago everyone on suburban trains would be looking at a newspaper, magazine or book throughout their journey. Then they would watch a couple of hours of TV at home. Why is 'looking at a phone' such a problem, when most of the looking replicates those activities, with much of the rest being basic utilities which didn't exist previously - consulting a map, ordering food or shopping, looking up timetables or schedules?

[fn-mote]

You're ignoring the engineered addiction to the games on phones. Loot boxes, 2 free hours of play with double bonuses, etc.

There is no engineered addiction to reading the New York Times, so people just put it down when something else wants their attention.

Looking at a phone is a problem to the extent that it cuts you off from real interactions in society. It is a problem to the extent that the attention you pay to the phone does not go toward solving real problems.

It can be a problem because it allows kids to escape from uncomfortable situations like struggling to learn something, and the Instagram-perfect view of the world makes their own lives feel inferior.

[bsghirt]

But the New York Times on a phone is not particularly more or less addictive than the same content on a piece of paper. Nor does reading it on a phone cut anyone off from the rest of society any more than focusing on the printed paper or a book or a Walkman.

If the problem is games, social media, or porn, why don't we identify those as social problems and try to fix them? Rather than blaming the device.

[throwaway2037]

    > Looking at a phone is a problem to the extent that it cuts you off from real interactions in society.

I am confused here. Is reading the New York Times in paper form, on an e-reader, or a mobile phone different? If you are reading on a mobile phone, can you "just put it down when something else wants their attention"? Also, I was a subscriber to NYT for about 15 years, but quit about 10 years ago when the content got more and more click/rage-baity. (This is probably true of most large US newspapers.)

Final comment about paper vs digital newspapers: I much prefer paper because the adverts are print-only (no motion/animation) and there are no auto-play videos. It is much less distracting.

[spiderice]

> There is no engineered addiction to reading the New York Times, so people just put it down when something else wants their attention.

Tell that to all the absolute news addicts out there. News is very clearly addicting, just like loot box games.

[throw0101d]

> 20 years ago everyone on suburban trains would be looking at a newspaper, magazine or book throughout their journey.

Some folks did this, others chatted with the 'regulars' that they sat with that had the same schedule as them. There were television series based on this:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train_48

Some folks didn't want to chat, and in the Toronto-area commuter rail there are designated zones for that:

* https://www.gotransit.com/en/travelling-on-go/quiet-zone

[bsghirt]

What you are demonstrating is that already in 2003, people talking to each other during their commute was a fantasy rather than an actual occurrence.

[elzbardico]

I had a long commute in public transport during the mid 2000s, made lots of acquaintances, even dated some girls I met on this bus. Definitely, people were more open to engage in conversation if you started it.

[majormajor]

Nah, the portion of people on phones vs reading newspapers/magazines/books is much higher. Most people 20 years ago didn't find enough interesting in the average paper or magazine (and didn't read for pleasure much anyway).

So it was a weak background distraction at most. Course, different places had different accepted levels of conversation - London tubes aren't chatty - but there's a difference in brain activity, patterns, anxiety, etc sitting in silence with your thoughts vs having the phone constantly trying to get "engagement" with attention-grabbing provocations.

Similarly, watching TV at home was more "background" than "constant binge." The types of shows reflect this - intentionally repetitive, fairly low stakes, things are back to normal at the end of the episode, because most people weren't so hooked that they watched the same stuff every week at the same time.

"Background phone use" is much more conversation-killing.

[jimbokun]

The amount of time spent on phones is FAR greater than the time spent on all those activities you describe combined.

[hirvi74]

What did you do with the other time? (Serious question)

[sersi]

I remember meeting a lot of people by just talking to them in the subway during y daily commute. That happened both in France and Japan. Nowadays with phones it happens a lot less..

[bsghirt]

I commuted by public transit for around two decades before the ubiquity of smartphones and never experienced or witnessed this.

[throwaway2037]

You spoke with "a lot" of people in Japan on the subway during your daily commute? I am stunned here. Can you provide more details? (Years / location / line?) I find this very hard to believe. Metro trains in Tokyo and Osaka (and suburbs) are basically silent except very late when people are drunk, talking with their friends.

[fn-mote]

> talking to them [...] Japan

Really struggling to imagine people talking on the subway during their morning commute in Japan!! Culture changes.

[nunez]

Today, instead of 3 hours of TV at home, it's 4-6 hours of TV in 10-sec snippets at max volume on devices that are much too big

The secondhand socials are driving me nuts

[SchemaLoad]

There is an absolutely massive difference between reading a map and scrolling tiktok. The level of engagement and entertainment social media provides is off the charts compared to what people used to distract themselves with.