
Matt Mullenweg: I’m Worried That Silicon Valley Might Be Destroying the World - diego
http://pandodaily.com/2012/05/24/matt-mullenweg-im-worried-that-silicon-valley-might-be-destroying-the-world/
======
Zarathust
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.

~~~
joelrunyon
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.

~~~
tikhonj
I think the tone is just a reaction (and an appropriate one, at that) to the
hyperbole in the title. Just saying "the title is a bit of a hyperbole" would
actually make for a worse comment.

~~~
andyjohnson0
Its not appropriate here. Snarky/sarcastic comments just encourage more of the
same, which degrades the conversation. Also, its not really a comment on the
subject of the article (which has something useful to say), but on the
headline (which is poor).

Appropriate for Reddit/Slashdot, not HN.

~~~
MrMan
Sarcasm is one of the most sophisticated modes of communication. Sanctimony is
not.

------
joelrunyon
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.

~~~
unimpressive
>I'm actually still resisting a smart phone

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.

------
firefoxman1
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).

~~~
pemulis
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.

[1] <http://www.paulgraham.com/addiction.html>

~~~
mikegirouard
I like your idea for solutions a lot and think there's some great room for
ideas to brew from there.

After reading GTD for Hackers[1], I kept thinking about ways to keep the
momentum going after the initial excitement wore off… perhaps gamifying email
and/or tasks (I hate that word, but it works).

[1]: <http://gtdfh.branchable.com/>

------
DanielRibeiro
Joe Kraus did a in depth analysis of tthis phenomenon in his _We’re creating a
culture of distraction_ [1]

[1] <http://joekraus.com/were-creating-a-culture-of-distraction>

------
forgottenpaswrd
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.

------
mipapage
"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!

------
bobsy
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.

~~~
joelrunyon
>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.

~~~
schukin
Ten minutes at a busy intersection in downtown San Francisco will yield
frightening results.

~~~
prodigal_erik
I do that too, I stay out of traffic, and I don't see the problem. Of everyday
experiences I'd just as soon miss out on, staring at another DONT WALK sign is
near the top of the list. When I want to spend time being creative, I wander
around a park aimlessly and ignore my phone; navigating busy streets is just
enough hassle that it doesn't work for me.

------
mikecane
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_.

~~~
hdctambien
WordPress is open source, you know. You could write a plugin or patch the core
code to add any features you'd like.

Why wait for Matt and his team to do it for you?

~~~
mikecane
I'm using the free WordPress service, not the free self-hosted version.

------
maresca
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.

------
AznHisoka
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

------
indubitably
That headline isn't hyperbolic at all.

~~~
ClHans
I think you mean: There has never been less hyperbole in a headline, in all
the history of the world.

------
adventureful
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.

~~~
potatolicious
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.

~~~
amirmc
> _"... 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"_

I concur. I don't think this is limited to online interactions either. There
were stories a few years ago of how people in the real world were increasingly
moving to be near like-minded people (and the negative effects this had on
reinforcing their world-views). Wish I could find the story but no luck.

