I went to an anti-tech rally, where Gen Z dressed as gnomes and smashed iPhones. Here's what I learned. | Business Insider
(www.businessinsider.com)
from zloubida@sh.itjust.works to technology@lemmy.world on 18 Oct 06:58
https://sh.itjust.works/post/48130774
from zloubida@sh.itjust.works to technology@lemmy.world on 18 Oct 06:58
https://sh.itjust.works/post/48130774
It’s under a paywall for some, so here’s the archived version.
threaded - newest
Get out of my head!
<img alt="" src="https://c.tenor.com/-r1yQah9m8EAAAAd/tenor.gif">
Big rally. Wonder how they organised so many people.
Ha! Good one.
Apparently this was advertised on Substack, some sort of “media platform” (??)
I’ma be real with you. Choosing to dump technology entirely instead of learning to use it responsibly and finding things that aren’t dominated by corporations looking to control us seems really short sighted and leaning into false promise of things being different at best.
It’s quite like the whole Climate Change movement and how we won’t do anything to constrain giant corporations or billionaires in how they impact the planet, but instead individuals (often poverty stricken) are expected to shoulder the burden through recycling programs that don’t even end up recycling what those individuals take the time to sort.
It’s also eerily similar to the anti-AI movement which focuses on all the most negative aspects of AI generation, ignores the benefits of locally-hosted models as opposed to giant models owned by corporations run out of energy and water hogging data-centers, and similarly ignores that the AI that consistently is a failure is general purpose AI whereas highly specialized AI is often very successful. I am by no means an AI lover, I don’t use it at all in my every day life, but I think it’s foolhardy to write it off entirely instead of making regulations that prevent this kind of environment-destroying investment in endless data centers for profit. Much like the Climate Change issue, it’s the smallest and weakest among us shouldering the burden, making our own lives harder, while nothing materially changes and AI advances anyway.
These modern Luddites are not wrong that some aspects of the modern era are terrible, but some of the things they decry are the same things that are so beautiful about it. When I was a young person, finding LGBTQ+ or atheist groups was basically impossible without the internet. As someone who grew up in a relatively rural area, it was hard to make friends and connections even in a mostly unconnected world (I am in my forties, for reference, so I grew up in the era of CompuServe and AOL being the only “online” options). Having the internet suddenly opened me up to finding people who I could actually be open and vulnerable with, something I couldn’t say was true about most of my IRL peers at the time. Returning to that, especially at a period where Christofascism is taking hold, is asking to let the Christofascists dictate how society looks and functions and removing those footholds of access for people who are queer or atheist or disabled. It returns us to an unconnected world where people suffer in silence for decades not knowing that there is nothing wrong with who they are deep down as they are regularly shamed and abused by their IRL peers for not appearing or acting the “right” way.
Especially with the likelihood of modern communication methods being clamped down upon, embracing the technology and finding ways to use it to benefit humankind instead of deciding it’s all evil is the way forward. The world was, for example, a better place with Fred Rogers in it, who leveraged the technology of television, often villainized as terrible for children, as a way to connect with children and educate them in a healthy, humane, and loving way. I see shades of that type of villainization in this movement, equating screen time with being unhealthy.
All tools are able to be misused. All tools are able to be used positively. It’s all in who is using those tools and what their aims and intents are. A hammer can be used to both create and destroy in positive ways in the trade of construction. A hammer can also be wielded as a violent, dangerous weapon. It all depends on whose hands it is in, and what they aim to use that tool for.
Dropping technology instead of standing for using it in positive ways will always be tantamount to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Holy shit. I think this is the best comment I have ever read in my entire life. I’ve been complaining about the exact same things to my IRL peers and they all think I’m nuts for having these “beliefs”. Especially the one about recycling.
One counter point is young people drive the technology trends. Look at how social media and the Internet in general took off in the early 2000-2010s, it was driven by younger generations using these technologies. Now everyone is on social media after the younger generations at the time pioneered it.
If younger generations do rejected apps, smart phones, and surveillance capitalism, maybe there could be change in the direction.
Standing ovation 👏
Yeah I think the focus should be on technological sovereignty, not abstinence. We need control over our data, control over our software, control over our devices, control over our hardware, and through these things we can gain control over our lives while still accessing these extremely useful tools. We need our own search engines, our own operating systems, our own applications, our own email, our own social media, our own video hosting, etc etc. We can never go back, the only way out is through.
This is extremely hard and expensive, though. It’ll require mass organization of millions of people, we can’t do it as individuals.
That’s correct. We can’t put the genie back in the bottle. We have to increase our mastery of it instead.
The core relationship is rather simple and needs to be redefined. Remote compute does not assign numbers to any of us, we provide them with identities we create.
All data allowances are revokable. Systems need to be engineered to make the flow of data transparent and easy to manage.
No one can censor us to other people without the consent of the viewer. This means moderation needs to be redefined. We subscribe to moderation, and it is curated towards what we individually want to see. No one makes the choice for us on what we can and cannot see.
This among much more in the same thread of thinking is needed. Power back to the people, entrenched by mastery.
When you think like this more and more the pattern becomes clearer, and you know what technology to look for. The nice thing is, all of this is possible right now at our current tech level. That can bring a lot of hope.
That is actually a really interesting approach to moderation, huh.
That is just the tip of the iceberg with the moderation framework I have in mind.
Anyone can become a moderator by publishing their block / hide list.
The more people that subscribe to a moderator or a moderator team, the more “votes” they get to become the default moderator profile for a topic (whatever that is on the given platform, subreddit for reddit etc).
By being subscribed to a moderation team (or multiple), when you block or hide, it gets sent to the report queues of who you’re subscribed to. They can then review the content and make a determination to block or hide it for all their subscribers.
Someone who is blocked or hidden is notified that their content has been blocked or hidden when it is by a large enough mod team. They can then file an appeal. The appeal is akin to a trial, and it is distributed among all the more active people that block or hide content in line with the moderation collective.
An appeal goes through multiple rounds of analysis by randomly selected users who participate in review. It is provided with the user context and all relevant data to make a decision. People reviewing the appeal can make decision comments and the user can read their feedback.
All of this moderation has a “karma” associated with it. When people make decisions in line with the general populace, they get more justice karma. That creates a ranking.
Those rankings can be used to make a tiered justice system, that select the best representative sample of how a topic wishes to have justice applied. The higher ranking moderators get selected for higher tiered decisions. If a lower level appeal decision is appealed again, it gets added to their queue, and they can choose to take the appeal or not.
All decisions are public for the benefit of users and accountability of moderators.
When a user doesn’t like a moderator’s decision they can unblock or unhide content, and that counts as a vote against them. This is where it gets interesting, because this forms a graph of desired content, with branching decision logic. You can follow that train of thought to some very fascinating results. Everyone will have a personally curated content tree.
Some will have a “cute” internet, filled with adorable content. Some will have a “violent” internet, filled with war videos and martial arts. Some will have a “cozy” internet, filled with non-triggering safe content. And we will be able to share our curations and preferences so others can benefit.
There is much more but the system would make moderation not just more equitable, but more scalable, transparent, and appreciated. We’d be able to measure moderators and respect them while honoring the freedom of individuals. Everyone would win.
I see a future where we respect the individual voices of everyone, and make space for all to learn and grow. Where we are able to decide what we want to see and share without constant anxiety. Where everything is so fluid and decentralized that no one can be captured by money or influence, and when they are, we have the tools to swiftly branch with minimal impact. Passively democratic online mechanisms.
As another LGBT person who grew up during the advent of the internet and learned that there were words for things I had felt for years thanks to the internet (despite living in a very liberal area), I completely agree with both of you.
However, I want to make one counterpoint that reframes these movements to where I think these people are coming from: People like us here on Lemmy, who are aware of FOSS projects and the like are a minority group.
I see these groups as a reaction based on the belief that you either have to deal with the corporations or give it up entirely because nobody else can offer what they do, and the corporations need us a lot more than we need them. They’re effectively a general strike against the nightmare of corporate walled gardens that the internet at large has become in order to force a correction in the ecosystem, and I think if these groups were made aware of the alternatives out there, we’d probably see a large swing in adoption.
This is why I think we need to get organized. There are these spontaneous masses of people who would be very receptive to libreware and federation, but the message isn’t getting out to them. You have to be a turbonerd to even be aware of this stuff, but the outrage is fertile ground if the message could just get out of obscure corners of the internet.
Excellent, insightful comment and I very much appreciate and resonate with this response.
I do think the protest serves to raise awareness, even if it’s a bit extreme. The desired effect is not really to encourage the complete rejection of tech, but bring attention to the issues and get the average person to think a little more about their usage of it. I’m actually kind of proud of these young folks for being able to snap themselves out of the social media-induced hypnotic state their generation seems to be stuck in.
The rare comment that is so good, I upvote all comments that applaud it!
The newer generation of tech users know only of a narrow subset of technology from big tech / ad tech. They know little of anything at all the grassroots era of technology.
There‘s a lot of emotions there that lead to irrational decisions. I can‘t really blame them. These tiny slabs robbed them of a childhood that me and many other generations got to enjoy.
Appstinence is something that I couldn‘t imagine doing because it‘s so drastic and I don‘t have that kind of relationship with my phone where that would be preferable or necessary. But they definitely do and maybe they will learn to have a more healthy relationship to technology afterwards. This could be a necessary step toward a better future for them.
Even bob marley was a small axe.
Nah, ludditism is the way. Sincerely, a tech bro.
I think you make a wise point for most people. I’ll bet it’s a pretty cool community, though. You can maybe avoid the worst things about tech through smart moderation but you can’t step back in time to the pre-smartphone era that way. If crowds of young people are rediscovering drugs, card games, and sitting around fucking each other I’d call that good news for the world.
I have no idea what smashing perfectly functional devices is supposed to accomplish. I mean yeah, it’s an anti-tech rally, but creating e-waste is kinda shitty.
Actually, I don’t think I get the point of this whole thing at all. They’re not rallying against climate change or fascism, it’s just “phone bad”. I guess I’m just too old to get it…
Destroying perfectly functional tech really bothered me too from an environmentalist standpoint. I am always trying to rescue old but working tech and trying to find a use for it or fix it up to pass on to someone in need.
It’s similar to burning books IMO.
Buying something just to destroy it will always be moronic no matter what the item is.
It only accomplishes to make the company that makes those items make more money, so they can make even more items.
Can’t open source Apple phones.
So basically, getting rid of tech that spies on you and can’t be used anymore after a certain point I guess.
And unlike books, tech has made some things worse. Job applications for one thing. When we were young, recruiters had to physically read the letters and/or places hiring had to physically see you in person.
Now hiring agencies just use automated tools (even before AI) and you get ghosted constantly.
Renting and housing has gotten more expensive because prices can be changed on the fly based on market data available 24/7 (effigy is illegal in many places, but that law rarely enforced).
And that’s not getting into brainrot AI content and manipulative machinations of social media.
There’s definitely reasons to be frustrated at tech for the younger generation. And even justifiable reasons to destroy closed source tech.
Comparing to book burnings is only a false equivalence, as you’re not destroying information, you’re destroying locks that require special keys, unlike FOSS.
There are enough people that are perfectly fine with having any phone or any device to do basic stuff like making calls. And besides, if you wanted to get rid of something there are more responsible ways to do that than “me don’t like, me smash” IMO
It’s very easy to not use social media (in a harmful way) and not consume brainrot AI content in my opinion. Sure, it’s getting more difficult to differentiate I guess, but it’s still not that difficult if you try even a little bit
Which is why I didn’t make that comparison, I guess you wanted to reply to @Buffalox@lemmy.world
And those people will already have at least a feature phone. The poor don’t stop eating because someone else burns gilded pork fat. In both cases because those things are needed (food, communication in modern society for basic services and work).
It actually isn’t. The algorithms for most social media are designed to release dopamine, and humans tend to be social creatures. Sure, if more of society and people knew of the harms it causes, especially particular ones, then it would be easier. But right now? It’s like trying to tell people they shouldn’t smoke in the 1950s.
Btw, we’re using social media right now. Lemmy isn’t immune, and there’s definitely bad actors here that use social media negatively. You either have to avoid All or constantly block communities.
Whoops yeah, that last part was for them.
Yeah, job applications haven’t changed that much.
It was still a dismissive black box, it’s just that the process was more manual. Instead of AI tools throwing your application away, someone skimmed it looking for a particular bullet point, if they don’t find it in 10 seconds your resume is tossed in the bin. Whether it was AI or a manager, either way you’re probably not getting a call back to let you know they tossed your application.
I’m totally with you on this. It’s not book burning because this generation doesn’t own anything to burn in the first place. You don’t buy a movie, you “buy” a license to stream that movie for a period of time. Tragic.
The manual review though does improve your odds than an algorithm looking for keywords.
Not to mention sometimes you got feedback of what your odds were of getting hired. If you gave someone your physical resumé, and they just laid it down in a random spot and we’re dismissive, you at least knew immediately that you should probably not expect a call back.
I mean… It’s a human looking for keywords…
Ok, I guess you could just drop off your resume in person, but then what would happen is you give it to the person at the counter/reception desk/front office/whatever, and then you’d have no idea if it ever even get to a hiring manager. More often you’d just email your resume to the manager/HR (yes we had email in the 90s), so you’d know it would get to the right people, but then would have no idea if anyone actually ever looked at it unless you got a call back.
To be fair I was referring to the 80s 👴
yeah you are very likely too old to get it
Symbolism is a very important aspect of public protest and the consequential reporting on and influence of it.
I didn’t read the article in full, but it was pretty clear to me right away from the top. They’re saying: We as a society should prioritize real human connection over consuming big tech platforms.
Like a pizza cutter. It’s all edge and no point
Ah the humble beginning of the rallies where they smash androids ALA Stanley Kubrick’s A.I. the kids ain’t alright.
I might be one of the few in this thread who really empathizes with the perspectives of the protesters here
I’m not in a position to cut tech out of my life, but for people who are and dont need or depend on it for something important, it may do a lot of harm for little benefit.
But whether there’s important benefit will vary from person to person. I have a very isolating sleep disorder, and the internet allows me a little bit more connection than I would get otherwise. And home automation helps shoulder some of the load of managing environmental variables that impact my sleep. And there are also technological things that bring me joy.
But not everyone is in a position where their only connection to others is through the internet (if you’re queer in a small town, maybe it is, if you’re queer in a big city or you’re straight that probably isn’t an issue)
There are ofcourse benefits to technology, some of which you can better access through FOSS software, or community projects, or self hosting. But not everyone needs those things, and even those things can have harmful downsides. I think the hyper convenience that much of tech provides is not exactly great for us. Even the fediverse platforms can be addicting, can prioritize stuff that makes you angry, etc, because they copy the underlying design of proprietary social media (even without recommendation algorithms). I struggle to manage how much time I spend engaging with these platforms. Not as much as with reddit, but I still do, and am now creating structure around engaging more in moderation.
I don’t love creating e-waste though. I get that it’s symbolic, I still think it’s wasteful and has no meaningful upsides. It feels deeply privileged to not grasp how that could be a lifeline for poor people who need a way to connect, keep up with work, handle digital tasks like banking and telemedicine, etc, and to smash it on the ground instead of donating it to someone who couldn’t afford a reliable device.
I think a lot of us empathize with the protesters. I don’t actually see any posts saying “this is dumb”.
I am still confused though. I mean I understand protesting Trump, ICE, and the government in general. I can’t control that, so protest is one of my only courses of action. But with technology… we can just not use it. I think I haven’t used Facebook in over 15 years, I’ve never used Twitter. And I’m happier for it, they’re right, that works. I use a smartphone, but I limit the kind of apps I want to put on it. If I find that something, a phone, app, website, whatever, is impacting my life, keeping me from dealing with daily responsibilities, I know it’s a problem, so I’ll stop using it. My point is, I do have control over my tech use, so why rally about it? After all, all the protests in the world won’t give you better self control, that’s a skill you need to build.
Yeah, I mostly just meant in terms of how much I directly relate with the perspectives of the protesters, it seemed at the time of my comment like most of the commenters looked at things somewhat differently to them (which is fine)
I do think you might really be underestimating how deeply addictive tech can be for many people. For people who grew up on platforms like facebook, Instagram, and twitter, and spent enough time there before reflecting on that pattern, those deeply engrained habits can be difficult to shake to the extent of causing not insignificant anxiety
I had social anxiety as a kid (still do) and so used those platforms almost none because they stressed me out (until I joined reddit in highschool), and even I really struggle with some amount of technology addiction I’m working really hard to replace with better patterns.
I pick my phone up and check all the apps for no reason. I feel a bit anxious if my phone isn’t near by. I run out of time in one app I have a time limit set for and immediately jump to another one. I feel a bit stressed when I have to put it down. Not intensely so, but the more I pay attention the more I can tell it’s there and see how it’s molded my behavioral patterns over time.
I have pretty good solutions to those problems, and think I’m making decent progress, but technology absolutely 1000% has warped my life to be about it. With me often serving it rather than it serving me. I can only imagine how difficult it might be for folks who spent lots of time on those platforms, and are less inclined to tinker with their tech and play with open source stuff, and take alternative technological routes
I honestly wish I didn’t have to rely on apps made by corpos just to stay updated in school. And I would probably need to use Google and Windows products once I start work. Ugh
This brings person of interest scenario, where someone was using a guy to do protests etc, with messages against the government and AI(the machine). Correct me if I remember wrong.
Really stupid.
They should sell them and use the money for something productive.
<img alt="" src="https://reddthat.com/pictrs/image/622040d6-0e0c-466d-8906-95b26a124d0a.jpeg">
Came here to say this lol
What’s the reference here?
Old school runescape gnome child. Don’t think there is more meaning to it then just that they are dressed as gnomes lol
I’m a fan of taking back control over my tech, not giving up control. They’re treating it like there’s no other option.
Its hard to believe that someone would be aware enough to go to something like this, while not being aware of the existence of alternative solutions that give you more control. But these people do definitely exist. At the same time i think that this group of people is probably quite diverse with some being complete hardliners that want zero tech while others are just against the kind that is extremely damaging to society and the world.
I dunno.
Multiple people in my friend group are aware of the issues with big tech companies.
But the second you bring up FOSS with them, or Linux gets mentioned, they either disengage completely or get angry. One of these people heads an IT department.
I don’t know why they react that way. The weird part is, they’ll happily use FOSS software like VLC or something Minecraft launcher. The second you say it’s FOSS they actually seem less into the software, not more.
Yeah i know these creatures exist, but i will never understand them. Im always maximally hyped when i see good FOSS alternatives even if they have some minor drawbacks. For example this beautiful app which does OCR and translation completely offline in one app f-droid.org/en/packages/dev.davidv.translator/
It’s the same with vegan food
I think few open source projects enjoy the user satisfaction that VLC does. Even Linux itself is not as friendly to its users.
VLC (by cause or by effect?) also doesn't have evangelists trying to push it. It doesn't need them. Contrarianism is a strong motivator in today's culture.
VLC definitely has evangelists, they have just become the dominant culture so you don’t really notice it. They don’t have an advertising budget, it got popular through word of mouth.
I think Linux enthusiasts appear more evangelical because of the deep entrenchment of Windows; you are noticing the push back and debate, whereas with VLC you just see people recommending it and people being grateful for the recommendation.
Angry about what specifically?
I get it. My first introduction to FOSS was getting insulted by people for not knowing about FOSS, and it really put me off of things. It was made abundantly clear to me that only smart people know about Linux, and if I didn’t know about Linux, I was too stupid to run Linux and needed to stick to Windows like the loser I was.
So I stuck to Windows because I’d rather be a loser than an asshole. I have since tried linux, but everybody hates that I think Ubuntu is good for n00bs, so there is no winning.
This comment makes me sad. But I also feel like I’ve seen this. I honestly don’t know where the hate for FOSS comes from. Has this person that hates FOSS ever explained their hatred? Genuinely curious how someone could hate options.
I think it’s a product of having grown up during the time when accessing commercial applications was about as easy as accessing the free ones at a time where many of the free ones were just pale imitations. And before the enshitification had really gotten going.
The author works for business inside. He’s 100 % on board with all the heinous shit tech companies are doing
If you listen between the lines we are given by tech companies, right now there is no other option.
Being anti AI is one thing. Being anti tech is just stupid. Gen Z really is the useless Generation.
Okie dokie boomer
Remember, no war but class war, stay focused grandpa! Now is not the time for enemies, but for understanding, support and communication.
If you understand tech, computers and the ramifications of how this work, then teach it. Tell them about linux and the libre world of tech they could have. If you’re just here to rant about young people, then you lost yourself.
More like your pissed off older millennial brother who watched Gen Z literally piss everything away by siding with the boomers and Gen X and then act stupid when things went to shit.
As an IT person I get it.
Especially printers.
Cheaper to buy a new one than more ink. Fucking extortionate.
Toner all the way.
Yeah but the cartridges that come with a new printer are usually only 1/3 full. As another guy said, get a printer that uses toner. They’re more expensive (because you’re actually paying for the printer) but you don’t have to worry about ink drying out because it’s toner, it’s supposed to be dry.
Inkjet printers are basically a scam, if you don’t print all that often, the ink will probably be dried up when you go to use it, and if you print frequently, it’ll be cheaper to have a laser printer that uses toner in terms of per page cost.
Refillable inkjets are starting to become a thing. Cool thing about those is that they’re often smaller than a color laser.
Given that I don’t print very often these days. I like having a small printer that I can chuck in a drawer or a closet during the 360 days of the year that I don’t need it.
I want this bad boy: www.crowdsupply.com/open-tools/open-printer
If it would run a open source firmware or be open source hardware, it would be nice. But they are using a non-OSI/non-FSF license, so it is not open source.
PC Load Letter?! The fuck does that mean?
It means load Letter size paper. The printer is out of paper.
Haha. I know. 😁
I was quoting Office Space.
That brought back some printer PTSD
youtu.be/N9wsjroVlu8
Fuck yes. Especially printers.
But my IT guy advice on the matter is this: ink jet is a scam, don’t buy one, ever; don’t accept one for free. If you print a lot, get a laser printer for home, if you only print a few times a year, get a laser printer for home.
I got a 90$ laser printer for home 5 years ago. I’ve printed at least 600 pieces of paper, and have only had to change the toner cartridge once (recently). I can get a 2 pack of toner for about 24$.
This is how i think about printing now: i needed some black paper in a pinch once, so i printed a solid black image on both sides of a sheet of paper.
laser all the way
Inkjet printers are good for furry artists who sell prints at conventions. Hmm… that’s actually so specific that it reinforces your point.
Throwing the baby out with the bathwater because they think all tech is is walled gardens on toy hardware. Sad. We failed the next generation.
Late stage capitalism is what this is.
The term “late stage capitalism” is not a call to action, it’s a call to apathy. It’s promoted by online influencers to make it permissible to participate in capitalistic endeavors (it doesn’t matter the collapse is inevitable) so they can entice people to buy their merch so they can be rich. It’s a sign that leftism has been successfully captured by capitalism.
At least it’s a practice what you preach example. I know far more people that love to preach and the attention it gives them and then mostly does the exact opposite. Sometimes so much to the opposite that they’re more predatory than things/people they preach against
Lmao what the fuck
Its a call to be present.
There is nothing inherently wrong with wearing headphones on the train, but ask yourself why you’re doing it.
If you put on Headphones to keep people from talking to you, you’re making the choice to opt out of the human experience.?Make that choice every day on a 45 minute commute and after only a week 7.5 hours where you’ve opted out of chance encounter, conversation, possibly meeting a new friend or partner. It might not be a bad idea to make the choice to NOT disconnect, actively choosing to engage in the world around us makes a huge difference in how we percieve it, and how it percieves us.
An experiment I’d suggest, if you’re the type to default to using your phone as an idle activity:
Next time you’re idle and get the urge to pull out your phone, instead look around you and find the most interesting thing you can see. Why is it interesting? Is there anything abnormal about it? Is it’s place significant? Take that and note it in your mind, have a conversation with a coworker about it later. Then take note, how did this pointless conversation make me feel?
Being present by choice, especially if done often, will create chances to engage with the World, and its inhabitants.
The other day someone told me life was boring. Put the phone down, make more than the 2 meter cone you can see from around your phone visible, and you’ll find the World has a lot of engagement to offer.
I don’t any randos talking to me on the train. Commute is worse enough without people trying to “connect with me” during it.
That’s kinda what I’m saying though. Those aren’t randos! They’re other people taking the same commute as you, every day. Make a connection with one and you might start to notice them more. Maybe you have a similar hobby or interest.
Give people a chance to enter your life and they often become more than randos on the train. Maybe you find a commute partner, someone to chat with or bitch to about Jane in Accounting.
I’m not gonna try to convince you, Clearly you saw my point and chose to reject it, that’s your choice. I’d urge you to give different thinking a chance though.
They’re random people I most likely have never seen before and probably won’t ever see again. I live in the city, not a small town where everyone knows each other. The idea of trying to connect with the poor sobs who ended up in the same train as me sounds both crazy and draining as fuck. Not the least bit because where I live, most people cherish that moment to themselves and you’d be fucking that up and bothering them.
If I was commuting with the same four people every day I’d be more likely to talk to them but not in a full ass train with random people.
And why do you think that? Have you paid attention to the people around you? If you and another person get to work at the same time, and live in the same area then odds are you will encounter them again. There might be a million people in your city. But how many of them have the exact same commute as you?
Also so what if you never see them again on the train? What if you end up really liking them, get their number, and stay in contact?
Because I have eyes and easily recognize faces. And a shitload of people have the same work schedule and commute in and out the same time. And it’s a big ass train.
Or getting hit on. I’m just trying to go home, I have no desire to chat with you. I’m busy go away.
Lots of research shows that random social interactions are far more enjoyable than people expect them to be.
psychologytoday.com/…/if-socializing-is-so-good-f…
I expect it not to happen and hope it stays that way since. Please jusr don’t bother me while I’m on the train
Noted. If we ever see you we’ll ignore you.
Just post your name and photo so we know what you look like. Thanks.
I’m the person on public transit
But I don’t mind people talking to me so how do others differentiate us?
It’s easy. One is reading a book or otherwise minding their own business and the other is lunatic trying to make eye contact with everyone
Headphones is a good start…
It’s like 90% drunk homeless people that talk to you on trains and buses though. It gets tiring.
If I want chance encounters with sober people, I’ll go to the bar. I mean eventually the people there get drunk too, but it’s a nice “5 hours and 10 beers” drunk not “what month and/or year is it” drunk.
I’m the guy who takes a shot at a random conversation on the plane.
Doesn’t often turn into anything, but sometimes it’s a nice little glimpse into humanity.
Guess I don’t know what trains you’re on that are so full of the drunk and homeless, but that sounds like a problem in its own right.
It’s not that the trains are so full of drunk homeless people, but that trains are affordable and also conductors aren’t going to physically throw out a person that could get violent. Planes you don’t really get on without a ticket. An entire class of people are filtered off the plane because of that.
And anyway, said group are a minority, but they’re the only ones who randomly talk to strangers most of the time. Everyone else minds their own business in my experience.
I’m not going to question your experience too much, but it’s sad to me that this would be true.
A random conversation in a random interaction with somebody you could have easily not talked to can be great fun.
It is great fun! That’s why I essentially lived at a bar for over a year and nearly always went alone. So many chance encounters and some people I still talk to. Plus even if you’re away for a year or 2, the regulars will remember you and come talk to you. Downside was spending 500 euros a month or more on beer.
But public transport? Nobody wants to be there. You’ve got a goal and it’s not socialising, it’s getting somewhere. Maybe you’re anxious about going to the doctor, maybe you’re anticipating a shitty workday. It’s annoying to have to talk to other people when you’re trying to think about things.
In our culture this is seen as normal: you keep to yourself in public unless at some place where socialising is the norm. And small talk is really hard for us. Other than the weather, wtf do you talk about even. That’s why you don’t surprise attack people with small talk.
Fully with you.
I would argue that a large chunk of the people you describe above are not “trying to think about things”, they’re just trying to get to point B. They’ve got a goal, after all.
And again, research consistently shows that these interactions tend to be viewed much more positively after they happen than those same people expected them to be, and it holds for either side of the interaction.
I’m sure I’m preaching to the atheists here in the comments. All those replying here all seem to be convinced already, and that’s fine.
Guess I just think it’s interesting that those that would bother to come on the internet to talk to strangers are so convinced that it would be annoying to talk to strangers.
People on the bus or train are just people.
This might be a me thing. I am never not thinking, planning, solving problems. My brain doesn’t do idle very easily.
You’re from a different culture probably. Literally, most people don’t want unsolicited interactions where I’m from. If someone’s approaching you to start a conversation out of the blue, they’re going to be asking you for booze or cigarettes. Or money. Or they already got their booze and now they’re making small talk. And for 50% of the population, the other 50% of the population can be seen as threatening based on gender alone. So it’s polite to just shut up and let other people be. You gotta have a reason for talking to people who aren’t expecting to be talked to. Not bothering anyone is part of our culture. You don’t go to the ER unless there’s an axe in your skull, because going there just because you’re only MILDLY dying, would be bothering the doctors and nurses and all in all just too much of a fuss.
You’ve talked a lot about this with others I take it? Got good data to work with?
These percentages do make your vibes and intuition much more convincing.
It’s not impolite, sure.
I do have a reason. You just don’t personally like it, except for the other times when you choose it. You’ve convinced yourself that I must want something, so stranger danger bad.
Which culture is this? How is “bothering” defined? You seem to be acting like eye contact and a smile means I’m after your money
You assume I’m bothering people. I assert that I don’t believe it to be true. My point of view had some evidence, which I have linked throughout these comments. Yours are stated as fact despite clearly just being your vibes.
On a plane? That’s much worse, you can’t just change seats or get out if you want to avoid the person. Oh god
Or… shudder… shut down the conversation with your words and body language.
Oh god the anxiety of it all.
Yes the sort of people who start unsolicited conversations with others on a plane sure is the type to take a subtle hint
So don’t be subtle.
So now you arw putting the pressure on other people to stop you from bothering them insteas of not just bothering them. Not to mention the other person will have no idea how you will take the rejection, what your intentions are and so on.
Seems pretty selfish to put them in that position.
I’m not trying to get into the “how to disengage from a stranger” conversation, but your assessment of people interacting in public seems to be predicated with an assumption that they dont understand people.
You have made some additional bad assumptions about how you think the interactions I’m proposing should go, and how and when they should stop.
The good news is that this hostility toward the world that you seem to set on projecting from these comments is usually pretty obvious, so I probably wouldn’t have bothered.
Just put your headphones on and your hoodie up so you can get back to arguing with strangers on the internet, and continue your transit in misery.
It wouldn’t cost you anything not to bother others, especially in situations where they can’t leave. I’m sure your intentions are good (even though other’s can’t know that) but you will be making a lot of people uncomfortable in your attempt to connect with them. There’s better places for that than public transit or a plane. That’s all.
Also doesn’t cost anything to bring some joy, or if not joy, at least novelty, into people’s lives.
I think you dramatically overestimate how many people are made uncomfortable due to your own anxieties about it. I also think you’re missing out on little opportunities for joy in your life.
I can keep posting links, but it’s pretty clear you’re not reading them. (ETA: they might have been in other threads)
There are also plenty of worse ones.
But you won’t know if it will bring them joy or not. But you push ahead, even in situations where people are stuck. It just feels self-serving.
That’s true. Hard to predict the future.
I’d say it’s a lot more likely that joy or anxiety are the outlier cases, and just a kind of indifference, with a positive tone, is the baseline.
And now we’re back to bad assumptions and straw men.
Fine fine, one more link.
psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fa0037323
Non-paywall summary: npr.org/…/want-to-feel-happier-today-try-talking-…
Did you not earlier say how you initiate conversations with people even on planes?
.
Yes. What is your point?
I’m sorry but I don’t understand what the bad assumption and straw man is when you yourself said that you’re “the guy who takes a shot at a random conversation on the plane”
These two words completely mischaracterize the situation.
Guessing you haven’t bothered with the links I posted, since you haven’t spoken to them and continue to just try to find ways to pick at some point that I’m not trying to make, but I encourage you to take a few minutes to read them with an open mind.
But you know there’s a chance that they’re bothered by you, that they’re stuck in the situation and you still carry on with trying to connect with them. What wording would you use for the situation?
I like to think of it as giving people an opening.
Make a comment or two that invites discussion. If it takes, great. Maybe chat for a minute, maybe for a while.
If not, oh well, better luck next time.
Wo is interested and who is not is extremely easy to discern, in my opinion. The fact that you clearly think otherwise is not surprising, but I do think it’s easier than you give it credit for.
A lot of people pretend so as not to seem rude. Also you never know how the other person will react otherwise.
I know you find enjoyment in it, I’m just saying that planes and such places where people are stuck with you are pretty risky.
And I will respectfully point out that you seem to be arguing entirely from vibes and anecdotes.
You agreed that you never know how the situation goes. And I’m guessing we agree that people are stuck in planes. So why risk it, if you’re going to potentially be making the situation suck for the other person, I’m wondering
Because there’s almost no risk involved.
Answers to this question, and more, are provided in some of the links provided.
The chances of making “the situation suck” are exceedingly small. The chances it “goes well” are quite high. A couple friendly words between strangers. A story to tell later.
Of particular note
You seem to completely discount this possibility, while simultaneously overblowing the risk.
It just seems a bit selfish to try and “connect” in a sotuation where they can’t leave. I get that it is your thing but at least on a plane it would be bettee to just chill for the duration of it. After all nothing negative about that, they might try to connect with you if they’re up for it
There may be a selfish component to it. Doesn’t make it a selfish act.
It’s my thing after I read a few of these papers (you can find the links, and read them if you like, they’re in my other comments) and started giving it a shot.
Yes, you have made it very clear that for you, you believe that this is the case.
The data show that a lot of people feel this way before they try it, but are pleasantly surprised after.
Nothing negative about what? “Being chill?” I think you’ll find that I’m pretty chill.
You seem to think I’m nagging them for the duration, but as I’ve explained, it’s really more of creating an opening.
You won’t cause anything negative by just chilling during the flight. Meanwhile, by trying to connect, you might make someone’s travel worse. So if you value the fellow passengers, best move is not to risk it, at least not on the plane. Otherwise you’re just gambling with their mood, which seems a bit shitty.
There’s a lot of big assumptions built into how you think about risk if the only possible outcomes you can conceive of are negative.
Oh yes the plane. Because of the implication, right?
I just feel bad that your outlook is so sad for all of this.
Well you won’t negatively affect them by not interacting with them. They are still free to talk to you, after all. The implication is a good one because they don’t know what sort of creep or angry person you might be and how you would react to rejection. You’re almost insisting on talking to the people on a situation you know might negatively affect them and where they are stuck in the situation and that just seems odd.
I feel like you’re just reiterating your last comment as though you didn’t read mine.
You havent really addressed it propeely imo. I just don’t understand the mindset.
Would you care to address any of the articles with research and numbers that I claim back me up?
I see you don’t understand the mindset. I don’t believe you are trying to.
I don’t get how the articles “back you up” in this point
What do the articles have to do with that?
That’s because you haven’t read them.
They have to do with the positive outcomes, which you continue to ignore, or treat as inconsequential.
A small chance of a negative outcome does not generally outweigh a good chance of a positive outcome.
You insist on mischaracterizing my position. Asking somebody a question ir two is hardly as insisant as you keep making it out to be.
To you
So you’re just gambling on their feelings, did I understand that correctly?
I suppose so.
And you have no notion about gambling theory or risk reward whatsoever? Am I inferring that correctly?
I don’t want to make anyone’s day worse. Gambling on someone else’s feelings just seems icky to me.
That’s because you ignore the possibility of a good thing happening, and/ or dramatically overstate the risks of it making somebody’s day worse.
Let’s start with a silly example. Let’s say you had $1000 in your favorite currency. It was given to you with the purpose of you giving it to somebody else. If you do not give it to them, the money disappears.
Would you give this money away? What if I told you there was a 1% chance that it would make a persons day worse?
If you’re not giving the money away, then at least you’re consistent, I’ll give you that.
If you are, what about $100? What about 10$?
I’m not ignoring possibility of good things. I just don’t think it’s worth gambling that there’s a negative outcome. If you don’t do anything it won’t cause anything negative and they’re still free ro talk to you. I just wouldn’t want to risk causing someones day to be shittier because I wanted to gamble.
So you won’t even engage with my silly hypothetical?
If you don’t think that any amount of “gambling” is worth even the smallest amount of risk, regardless of the possible reward, then I think you are arguing from an indefensible position.
Are they? They’re not bound be the same constraints as I should be? It’s a risk they should be willing to take?
You’re mischaracterizing things again. I never said I was doing this “because I wanted to gamble.” I’m doing this because I believe that the chances are quite good at having a positive outcome for both me, and the person I’m interacting with. I additionally believe that the chances of a negative outcome are exceptionally low.
You seem to think that both the odds and the severity of a bad outcome are so serious, that the positive outcomes shouldn’t even be considered. Despite a solid day of this conversation, you have only vaguely pointed in the direction of what these bad outcomes look like, or how likely you think they are.
I can infer that you believe it to be extremely likely and extremely serious. I can point back at some of the data which interestingly seems to have failed to capture such a scenario, but it’s still not clear to me that you’ve bothered to read any of the links with studies I’ve provided.
It’s like gambling on someone else’s money. You could do nothing and the situation stays the same, or you could run the risk of losing their money. You feel the odds are good so you go for it, I would feel shit about losing their money just because I wanted to gamble so I don’t do it. And they can gamble on their own too if they want to, it’s not like by not gambling on their behalf you’re preventing them from gambling.
You’re describing gambling…
You would feel like shit if you lost somebody a dollar? How about one cent? Even if there was a 1/1000 chance? Even if they stood to win life changing money on the other 999/1000? Do you think they would be upset?
Is no amount of loss worth any amount of win? If that’s your position, then how do you even get up in the morning? Why is this situation so different at the bar? Likelihood of things going badly in a bar are far far higher in my estimation.
I’m describing basically every choice you ever have to make in terms of gambling, yes.
I wouldn’t gamble on someone else’s money since it is not my money to gamble on. It should be up to them imo.
Ok then how about it’s no money, but they have to hear about how they didn’t get the money, and so they feel kinda bummed out, if they don’t win.
But that’s not how it would go in a situation where you just don’t make conversation. Or are you thinking they really want to have a conversation with you and are just thinking “oh gosh I’m so bummed that random person didn’t talk to me”? I don’t understand
Your position seems to be that there is no risk so small that it wouldn’t override a potential win.
I am trying to point out the absurdity of this position.
If you can’t see the absurdity of this position, even with the silly parameters on it, then I’ll just ask this direct question:
How do you justify ever talking to a stranger? Surely the risk of a negative outcome is just too great, because there will always be some risk.
If this is not your position; state your position in similar terms.
I generally don’t chitchat with strangers. It doesn’t cost anything in that situation not to talk, there’s no negative to it.
Except on the internet.
There is opportunity cost.
But just to be clear, your position is “don’t be the first one talking if talking to strangers, unless absolutely necessary, it’s too risky.”?
If this is not your position, please state it again, because this is how I read the comment I’m replying to.
In either case, please state what you think “the negative” that you are risking, or risking for a person on their behalf.
Leave me alone.
I once took an overnight flight from the west coast to the east coast. The flight wasn’t very crowded and I intentionally picked a seat away from other ocupied seats.
I get on the plane, as I’m warking back to my seat I notice there’s entire rows that are empty. So instead of picking a seat in an open row, and this. fucking. guy. picked the window seat closest to my aisle seat, and he talked for most of the flight. In hindsight I should have just sat somewhere else when I first noticed him.
Heh yeah that’s rough.
Baffling that you didn’t switch seats though.
It sounds dumb but I didn’t want to be rude.
Great if your culture encourages that I guess? I do that in East Asia and I’ll get weird stares from everyone. And they’ll ask you to mind your own business which, I agree. It’s basic respect here to not talk on the train.
Sometimes I leave my house to to other things that besides “being social” I can only imagine horror when trying to get my errands done but all kinds of people everywhere I go keep trying to talk to me I mean I get, maybe a bit more eye contact and general nods to acknowledge people’s existence, but when I go out to be social vs when I don’t are separate things and I think that’s okay
Well, one second I’d estimate
That was my first thought as well, but I think he means things, not time. You miss this thing and that as you stare at your phone. So in that second of mindless scrolling, you missed things around you that might have added something to your day, to your life. So ‘how much of your life do you let pass by’ is not asking how many seconds of life did you let pass by (though that is the first thought upon reading), but ‘how many things that could have affected your life- for the better or worse- do you let pass you by?’
Probably should have said “looking at your phone” instead of “have your headphones on”.
Yeah I totally get what he’s saying here and do agree with the message overall, just thought that was a funny way to put it.
Every 60 seconds, a minute passes in Africa.
Dear god.
Together we can stop this.
Well I consider talking to strangers in public a waste of time, so what now?
I watch the scenery.
Sounds like a pretty legitimate question.
Yeah that’s a bit much tbh. Personally I find the train to be way too loud usually. Other people talking, train noises, maybe a screaming baby or something. I’ll just listen to some music and stare out of the window (if it isn’t dark).
I think Germans would prefer if I stabbed them than talked to them on the train.
Paywalled article. Pretty fucking apt.
Strange, it’s not paywalled for me. Does this community allows to paste whole articles?
Posting the whole text of the article is against the whole instance’s rules.
Because the instance would get sued?
I’d say could instead of would but yeah.
Generally, don’t post the text, post an archive link. You can create such links by appending ‘archive.ph/’ to the front of the original url, then opening the link in your browser.
Thanks for the advice! Here’s the archive then: https://archive.ph/sDvch.
Nice! It’ll probably also be helpful to most readers if you edit it into the main post
Done :-)
I did not know you could archive a link like that. Thanks for the pro tip!
you can use archive.today to unpaywall it
Fucking conservatives in my opinion. Its not a bad way of spending time, its different. It has a different set of advantages and disadvantages. If you’re too stupid to understand it, just stay away from it. But don’t ruin it for the open minded people who are open to new ideas.
Society has to decide as a group how much we will allow people to harm themselves with various addictions. Noone lives alone in this world so why act like it?
I am completely against addictions, including those like algorithmic social media. I am also against people who dont understand tech blaming it instead of blaming the real problem. If we just took a second to understand it we would understand how to use it responsibly.
I’ve spent many hours on this and I still do not understand the real problem. What’s the real problem?
How do you use these devices responsibly?
You could make the same argument about heroin, cocaine, marijuana, pornography, alcohol, video games, etc.
If youll notice, we as a society agree to different levels of restrictions based on the potential harm. Many new technologies cause harm but we find out after the technology is in use, so we need to constantly review and revise things.
Thats a good reason why alcohol is increasingly restricted whole marijuana is decreasingly restricted. New information is available that suggests we adjust our risk assessment.
Which technology are you implying is safer than most people think?
You don’t read a whole lot of scientific articles do you? There is plenty of research (a lot from norweigen studies) that proves you wrong pal. Ipads and phones is a fucking disease for our youngsters, pretty much also for any boomer out there.
Thats because they treat it like a toy, not a tool.
have been using semiconductor based tools for a few decades now. phones and tablets certainly only fit the toy category.
They? We treat it as a toy. All of us. And it’s all because the system is designed that way. Don’t go blaming the young adults, the teens; and the children for something you might also be doing.
Narcissism won’t get you anywhere - our internet is capitalised by corporations and you’re blaming people that are trying to do something about it. To raise some awareness.
I would have never guessed the iPad babies would turn on their cyber nannies. Good on you, kiddos.
Neoluddites 💅
Heres everyone’s daily reminder that the luddites were not anti-technology.
They were the high-skilled tech workers of their time! They were concerned with the power and wealth concentration that came with industrialists that used automation and abused low skilled labour to make obscene profits. They even proposed plans to phase in the new tech in a humane way before turning to the (ultimately failure of a) strategy to target and destroy specific machines.
Groups like the EFF and tech labour unions have more of a connection with the luddites than people who get together the bust their own iphones.
misguided. people should be against corporations as they are the ones who make technology a problem.
I hope its all busted or out of date stuff to begin with otherwise its as stupid as the book burning.
Tech is good Uber rich tech bros is bad