
Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen - mengledowl
http://calnewport.com/blog/2018/02/09/facebooks-desperate-smoke-screen/
======
vinceguidry
Sorry, I'm simply not convinced that monetizing and marketing people's
attention is all that much of a social ill. There is nothing about Facebook
that's in any way worse than the old ways companies used to do this.

Does nobody remember the 80s? TV was turning people into fricken' zombies.
People would sit on the boob tube for days at a time, stopping only to go to
work to mindlessly knock out chores for a shift, then get back to their vapid
entertainment.

People would make a game out of who could play the longest in the arcade on
one quarter. With $5, a savvy gamer could spend _all day_ staring at lights
and hearing beeps.

The world survived, thrived, and devised ever more devious and insidious ways
to hook your mind. We weathered Everquest and the MMORPGs. Psychedelic drugs.
Outrage didn't stop those from spreading long and wide.

My uncle lost years to Everquest. When he came up for air he found the world
just as he left it. Now he manages his gaming habits just like everyone else.

Out of all the pseudo-addictive things people want to complain about, we're
picking on Facebook? The thing that actually holds old friendships together
and provides endless opportunities to interact _with other people_ that you
would have never done otherwise? Or is the argument that every time someone
gets the urge to play Scrabble, they need to coordinate a face-to-face game
instead of just loading up Words with Friends?

C'mon. I guess bombastic apocalyptic bullshit will never go out of style.

~~~
frgtpsswrdlame
>Sorry, I'm simply not convinced that monetizing and marketing people's
attention is all that much of a social ill.

What about monetizing and marketing people's affection? The dowry would be the
classic example, I'd be curious why you (presumably) are against dowries.

To me it's basically the same, certain things are corrupted by their
commodification, affection, attention, others.

Besides when you say:

>The world survived, thrived

You're not exactly speaking to the people hooked on video games or TV or
Facebook. Your uncle lost years to a game but because what, he doesn't do it
anymore it's magically fine?

Are you also okay with advertising cigarettes to children? Cigarette breaks
provide great opportunities for social gathering and let you interact _with
other people_ you never would have otherwise. A smoker may lose a lot of time
to smoking but when they come up for air the world will be exactly as they
left it. They'll manage their enjoyment of tobacco just like everyone else.

Is it disgusting when a casino calls up a gambler who's trying to quit and
offers them a credit to come back and play? I happen to believe that's a huge
social ill and in many cases basically equivalent to what Facebook is doing,
just that it costs time instead of money.

~~~
aylmao
This will sound like I'm vehemently defending Facebook, but I found some
considerable gaps in your counter argument that I thought I'd make you aware
of, for the sake of constructive debate.

> What about monetizing and marketing people's affection? The dowry would be
> the classic example, I'd be curious why you (presumably) are against
> dowries.

No, the dowry wouldn't be the classic example because that's more akin to
prostitution or slave trade than monetizing and marketing affection. This
especially considering a lot of marriages were done out of convenience and
need rather than out of love.

Better examples: Valentines day, Christmas day, or the mere idea that you have
to celebrate someone's birthday. I have seen movies about the tragedy of a kid
not getting a christmas present like it's traumatizing. This is marketing. As
a result you have hordes of parents playing into an objectively ridiculous
legend that has transformed St. Nicholas, Bishop of Myra, 2nd century into a
Coca-cola developed mascot of consumption.

Anyone who's gotten married can see how ridiculous the "love" and "affection"
marketing gets. Facebook isn't as much in this business; it actually is on the
business of attention, and there's stuff to be said about that.

> Are you also okay with advertising cigarettes to children?

I get that Facebook keeps being compared to cigarette companies under the
whole addiction narrative, but lets not forget the big reason cigarettes
aren't marketed to children; they kill _a lot_ of people, and perhaps most
distressing, they kill people who don't smoke them. They are also physically
addictive; this is a big issue.

I think your comparison with gambling was more appropriate, or one to video
games / TV like the in the comment you replied to.

~~~
frgtpsswrdlame
>No, the dowry wouldn't be the classic example because that's more akin to
prostitution or slave trade than monetizing and marketing affection.

Tossing aside slavery, it's akin to prostitution because it's very similar.
But prostitution is also a classic example of the commoditization of
affection/sex.

>This especially considering a lot of marriages were done out of convenience
and need rather than out of love.

Well yes, that's what commoditization does. It turns something into a
marketable commodity. That people bargained over dowries/marriage like they do
over other goods is exactly the point.

I think what you and many of us feel is that there is some intrinsic quality
to our affection that is degraded when it's turned into a commodity and I'm
using that to suggest that there is something similarly degrading about
turning our attention into a commodity, to be bought and sold and exploited
for profit whenever possible.

I do like the example of Christmas, you could draw a parallel between the
message of a Charlie Brown Christmas and the message of a Target Christmas
commercial that would prove a similar point.

>I think your comparison with gambling was more appropriate, or one to video
games / TV like the in the comment you replied to.

You're right, cigarettes are an overblown comparison. I was just hunting for
something which is pushed on children, fortunately gambling isn't usually.
(maybe csgo lotteries are something are an exception here which would be a
good example)

~~~
ethbro
> > No, the dowry wouldn't be the classic example because that's more akin to
> prostitution or slave trade than monetizing and marketing affection.

> Tossing aside slavery, it's akin to prostitution because it's very similar.
> But prostitution is also a classic example of the commoditization of
> affection/sex.

Or, you know... porn?

------
rossdavidh
I am no great fan of Facebook, but the indignant accusations about them
wanting to keep us glued to their screen seem mostly to come from people who
were (and are) perfectly fine with television networks that did the same thing
for decades. Even today, the typical citizen spends more time watching TV than
on social media, I bet. I use Facebook once a week, and TV never, and I find
that people are mostly not even willing to consider the idea that TV may be a
problem, for their children or themselves, whereas their attitudes towards
Facebook, while problematic, seem to be a lot more self-aware.

~~~
billfruit
And not to mention Wikipedia, despite it not having any attention engineering,
it is to go wandering in it for hours together and yet they don't get any bad
press?

~~~
marnett
and the library too for that matter!

------
jeremynixon
The question is actually about the counterfactual impact of Facebook's
addiction machine.

In the absence of social media, do people simply replace their wasted time
there with leisure like video games, television, texting, and the like? If
yes, the net impact of Facebook is small.

Or, have the addictivity wizards actually managed to increase the amount of
time spent in leisure, taking away from familial connection and deep
friendships?

With Facebook in particular, there's a generated sense of belonging that comes
along with the quantified social proof which makes the hits of dopamine much
more personal and meaningful. I see this as trading off against getting that
sense of connection in reality.

But much of the other 'damage' from Facebook is fungible, and people would
turn to other sources of leisure and addiction soon after losing it. Perhaps
one day these addictive engines will be powerful enough to make this untrue,
but we're not there quite yet.

~~~
bluntfang
>In the absence of social media, do people simply replace their wasted time
there with leisure like video games, television, texting, and the like? If
yes, the net impact of Facebook is small.

You're being naive if you think it's about where people spend their time if
facebook didn't exist.

~~~
soared
What else would you compare that time to then?

------
losvedir
It's odd the post doesn't mention the recent changes to Facebook's algorithm
to promote more friends and family content[0]. I don't use facebook so I'm not
sure how meaningful the changes are from a UX perspective, but on Bloomberg
radio which I listen to it's been a pretty major point. Engagement metrics are
_down_ , as expected, but analysts seem to think that's fine. This contradicts
the post's point that it "would have a disastrous impact on the quarterly
earnings".

[0] [https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/11/16881102/facebook-news-
fe...](https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/11/16881102/facebook-news-feed-changes-
meaningful-interactions)

~~~
harlanji
Too little too late on the Fam thing. My exit plan was well underway when they
announced it. FB stopped being for emo in 2013ish last I cared, yet I'm still
going through the emotionally taxing process of extracting my friendships from
FB lately. Meanwhile new contacts see no mutual friends since I don't add new
ones for the most part, so I am eager to be able to hit logical delete (aka
deactivate, no full delete anymore).

~~~
Slansitartop
> aka deactivate, no full delete anymore

IIRC, you can still full-delete, but you have to find a the link through a
help page, not your profile.

I'm content to leave my profile up with a big reminder that I'm no longer
using Facebook, so I'm never going to use either option. I actually get some
satisfaction that my profile is basically an ad _against_ Facebook, which
worse for them than if it just vanished.

~~~
ramzyo
I feel you, but you may be helping Facebook by leaving your profile alive. I’d
guess that vertices in their social graph hold value, regardless of the
content present. The more vertices, the more ads served, the more revenue
Facebook brings in.

~~~
Slansitartop
Perhaps, but IIRC, they're tracking "monthly active users" (which dropped for
the first time in North America, recently). So my inactive profile still
counts against them in at least some of their metrics.

Despite what they say, I really doubt the ever truly delete the vertices after
a profile-deletion, since they create vertices for people who have _never even
signed up_ (shadow profiles) from address book info they've slurped up.

Plus, I'm pretty pragmatic about this, and need to balance anti-social-network
activist with personal inconvenience. My inactive profile's banners remind
people that they need to contact me specially if they want to invite me to
something, and the banner also increases the _perception_ that people are
leaving Facebook. Ultimately it's that perception that will start a snowball
effect that will finally do it in.

------
hawktheslayer
I have always compared Facebook's attention engineering to fast food companies
making their food increasingly more addicting. Just as I stopped eating most
junk food after college, I similarly came to a point where I would rather
consume more quality information for my brain's diet than what Facebook serves
up.

------
saul_pako
Interesting article. The whole smoke screen idea is in a way interesting but
at the same time; isn't it exactly what is to be expected from commercial
providers of social media? I'm not sure if you catch my drift, but since when
do we expect for-profit companies to act in societies best interest? To
protect your brand does sometimes include admitting wrong doings or sketchy
behavior - if we wish to browse through social media without secrets and/or
intent to get the user to return as often as possible, shouldn't we accept the
state of Facebook and Friends and look in other places?

~~~
Slansitartop
> since when do we expect for-profit companies to act in societies best
> interest?

We don't have for-profit companies because of some fundamental ideological
commitment to capitalism uber alles. We have them because we judge their
operation to be in society's best interest. When a particular one fails to do
that, it raises a legitimate question about whether it should be allowed to
continue with those actions or even be allowed to exist in its current form.

If a company is not acting on society's best interest, it should be made to or
abolished.

~~~
jnordwick
Companies are just a realization that absent some outside force, multiple
people will band together to work and sell the fruits of their labor.

Get rid of all laws and you will see companies naturally form except they
would be held together by a myriad of individuals agreements.

Stopping companies or getting rid of them world requires stipping people from
making agreements between themselves and be against human nature.

~~~
mrob
The crucial difference between companies, as the term is commonly used, and
groups of private individuals, is limited liability. Companies are able to
take risks that individuals would not because the individuals that make up the
company are not held personally responsible for the potential consequences.
Similar to granting people monopolies over culture and ideas with copyright
and patents, this is a special privilege we give on the assumption that it
will benefit society in the long run. If this assumption turns out to be false
then the sensible thing to do is revoke that privilege, or replace it with a
better one. Limited liability doesn't happen without state intervention.

~~~
jnordwick
That's a very good point, but I think in the absence of a legal entity of a
corporation or similar, you would see contracts written (with suppliers for
example) to limit liability anyways. Contracts between people would become
vastly more complex, but still often provide the same benefit.

Because corporations are ultimately people, any restraints on them are
essentially restraints on people. There is a very fine and difficult to draw
line between a person talking about this awesome idea he has and a CEO talking
about this awesome product he has, but the law does try to draw that line and
I think is often fairly good at it.

------
IntronExon
_Outrage-provoking political content might have been good business for
Facebook, but in its absence, this company’s attention engineers can tap into
any number of other distraction wells to keep users compulsively tapping the
little blue icon on their phone.

In other words, fixing Facebook’s negative impacts on democracy won’t
necessarily hurt their bottom line, while admitting that their business relies
on a foundation of addiction and exploitation definitely would._

Bingo. Unfortunately they can probably keep up the shell game for a long time,
until enough people recognize what FB actually “offers” the enduser. While
plenty of people here understand the downsides of FB, I don’t know that most
people do, yet.

A “service” offering dubious rewards for the ability to try and monopolize
your time and attention, track you, and actively manipulate you, is simply not
fixable.

------
js8
I do agree that social media are harmful due to unrestricted power of
censorship and manipulation they can exert over their users.

However, I am not a big fan of Soros, I think he is misguided (to be
generous). I don't think he really wants democracy, in the sense of governance
by people. And the narrative that social networks are harmful is part of that
belief, that "elites" should somehow shape what "common people" think.

And the absurdity of this narrative actually became apparent couple days ago,
when Daily Telegraph published an article attacking George Soros, with
antisemitic undertones. The reality is, most traditional media are not better.

------
monkmartinez
I have read most of Cal's books and they are good. His fight against social
media is... I don't know, extreme. The problem to me isn't social media per
se. The real problem is self-discipline/control.

Cal crusades against social media, but I don't see him crusade against video
games, or watching TV for example. I think a good/better metric is total
screen time.

My children are given an allowance in the form of screen time. I kind of do
the same for myself and I have decent self-control. That is the key, I
think... limits and control by taking responsibility for yourself and those
you are charged to raise.

~~~
toastking
I think the difference is it's a little easier to control other forms of
"screen time". That other stuff is pure entertainment and they don't have the
addictive aspect of a feed.

~~~
stctgion
I think maybe it's because you can't win at Facebook. All the other forms of
entertainment give you a sense of satisfaction on completion. Facebook is the
complete opposite. It doesn't end and you can't really win at it. That's great
from a commercial perspective but utterly unfulfilling for the user.

------
workthrowaway27
Is there any evidence that people would be more productive without Facebook? I
bet they'd just watch more Netflix.

Edit: Plus, it's really not that hard to not use social media once you finish
school if you don't feel it's beneficial.

------
oconnore
This article is weird, because the "bubble effect" (or as Soros describes it:
"an undue ability to influence people’s behavior by leveraging their massive
data stores to precisely target messages that nudge users in specific
directions") is definitely the main issue with Facebook!

Without such power, Trump would not be our president, the alt-right would not
capture so many followers, and our democracy would be much much healthier. It
would also be easier for people to exercise self control with their time spent
on Facebook (because without algorithmic warm-bath-water content, you would be
jarred out of your safe zone). And if people were pushed away from Facebook,
normal media, including news media, would have an easier time profiting from
providing useful journalism and deeper storytelling.

It seems like people (both Cal Newport, and the majority of commenters in this
thread) are extremely uncomfortable admitting that Facebook wields this power
over many people. It is a bit scary, and it calls into question individual
rational self control (which many of you hold dear to your hearts), but there
is massive evidence that this power exists, and that it is negatively
affecting our society. We need to deal with it.

------
cletus
I honestly find myself scratching my head every time George Soros speaks. He
almost comes across as someone desperate to be taken seriously, to be viewed
as a visionary, a thought leader, a prognosticator.

But what has he down to justify this? Nothing as far as I can tell. He made a
bunch of money as a currency speculator, most famously breaking the British
pound. Sure. Good for him. But if we're going to talk about adding value to
society...

~~~
adamnemecek
I think that he thinks that his philanthropy gives him legitimacy.

~~~
badpun
I don't see how giving away money is related to being "a visionary, a thought
leader" etc.

~~~
IntronExon
Success seems to be the metric by which the credulous judge “visionaries” to
begin with. If you’re going to buy into the “thought leader” concept, Soros
seems to qualify as much as Jobs.

------
KhanMahGretsch
> _Making_ Facebook good for democracy is not entirely altruistic. (emphasis
> mine)

This is the crux of the issue: what authority does anyone have to insist that
a company should act in a manner consistent with their subjective view of what
is 'good for democracy'?

What fair standards could exist that would limit Facebook's appeal without
also upending the gambling industry, the entertainment industry, the food
industry etc.?

Given that Facebook is not physically harming, stealing from, or unfairly
discriminating against it's users, who use the service voluntarily, what
infractions are they making that requires government intervention?

Since when is it not the right and responsibility of parents to judge which
activities are healthy and productive for their child? Since when does the
same right and responsibility for an adult not exclusively apply to
themselves, outside of criminal activity?

My solution is the same as Lisa Simpson's in that Treehouse of Horror where
giant corporate logos come to life and wreak havoc across Springfield: Just
Don't Look!

------
tomcam
I love the idea of George Soros using the term “excessive profits”
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2773265/Billionaire-
who-b...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2773265/Billionaire-who-broke-
the-Bank-of-England.html)

~~~
wmeredith
Yeah, that's when I reached my "oh fuck off" point and stopped reading.

------
jnbiche
I'm less concerned with Facebook's addictive tendencies and more concerned
with the existential threat they and other social media pose to our democratic
institutions. Perhaps Facebook feels the same as I do, and they're addressing
the more critical issue first?

That said, I've seen little sign that they're taking truly significant steps
to protect Americans from insidious foreign propaganda, even now. I still
don't think they've even been fully truthful about the extend of what happened
in the days leading up to the election. I know for a fact that Twitter is
still lying about that time, and I suspect Facebook may be doing so as well,
or at the very least failing to disclose all relevant data.

------
lakechfoma
Can someone explain why FB can't become a paid service that engineers itself
for the good of users?

I don't know anything about corporate financing but naive napkin math says if
their 2 billion user base pays $1/month they would be pulling $24 billion a
year. Wikipedia says their revenue is $24b/year. Now if they removed their
entire advertising aspect (the human labor, infrastructure) their operating
costs would go down and that $24b/year would mean more than it does now.

Is that bad math? I would readily pay $1/month to use a service designed for
our well being rather than advertisers. I think anyone would. Why isn't this a
thing?

~~~
wmeredith
The gulf between free and $1 is _vast_. Do not underestimate it. I'd be
surprised if the could convert 10% of their current user base to paying
customers at any price.

~~~
pawelk
Also $1 does not hold the same purchasing power everywhere in the world. There
are places where it is a considerably larger expense than in the US.

------
cmpb
> This is nothing less, Soros claims, than a theft of citizens’ autonomy.
> “People without the freedom of mind can be easily manipulated.”

What autonomy? I’m usually one to shrug off the “no free will” problem and
just buy into reality, but the quoted statement brings the problem front-and-
center.

We are all being manipulated, all the time, by everything that we interact
with. So FB isn’t really stealing anything from us. And yes it manipulates the
mind, but isn’t that just part of the human experience?

~~~
sixothree
Pretending this just being part of human experience discounts the fact that
this entity is new and has properties much different than anything that has
existed in human history.

I think that quote understates it. Even people with freedom of mind can be
manipulated. I would love to think I am a free-thinker. But there is no way I
could honestly insulate myself from persuasion.

------
Pigo
This is something I have a hard time understanding because I don't get how
social media appeals to people to the point that they become addicted to it. I
enjoy getting on once, maybe twice, a day to look at a few things. It just
doesn't do that much for me, especially in the state it has evolved into. But
if something unproductive is really sapping time and attention from masses of
people, that seems like a problem.

------
greendestiny_re
I find it interesting that Facebook still hasn't found a way to deal with what
I call "spotlight aversion", the unwillingness to expose ourselves to the
public on a regular basis, and yet its entire financial model revolves around
it with sponsored content attached to what our friends are doing and likes as
an engagement metric.

------
johnmarcus
And violent cartoons will make your kids murderers. Yawn.

------
otterpro
I agree that social media may be doing more harm than good, but vilifying
Facebook is not going to help. The greater issue is the nature of addiction
and what should be done to deal with this in our society. Is regulation
necessary? (I hope not) If so, how far are we going to go in order to address
problem with social media and addiction in general? Where do we draw the line
between what is considered harmful and what is not? Which is worse - Facebook
or Netflix or CNN or PUBG or HackerNews or internet in general? (I'm HN
addict, I think). We need to address these problems...

I've heard some suggested solutions from others, some of which are just
impractical or are just crazy:

* Ban sale of all mobile device to anyone under 18 years of age, like we did with cigarettes.

* Illegalize usage of Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Weebo etc to all minors. Force manufacturer to limit kids to only basic phone calling and text messaging. Children using these apps can be cited for violation by the police, similar to curfew laws for minors in some states/countries.

* Force Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Video, Youtube, etc to prevent binge watching by allowing maximum of 2 hours of streamed videos per person per day. Limit consumption, similar to New York City's Soda Ban, banning large sugary drinks from stores.

* Force all ISP to disconnect their residential internet access between 10pm -6am.

* Add special tax on addictive products, including phone, video game consoles and game software, and social media apps (in similar manner to tobacco and alcohol)

* Run a government-funded national campaign and create grass-root movements similar to anti-smoking, anti-drinking/driving, and anti-drug campaigns. "Just say no to Snapchat".

* Create a law to force all companies with free products to charge fee to its users. No more free Facebook or League of Legends. Facebook will now cost $5/month, and LOL costs $20/month.

* Limit distribution hardware (iPhone, XBox, PC etc) and software (PUBG, Candy Crush, Facebook apps, etc) through increased special-tax. That $300 XBox one will now cost $900. Pixel XL will cost $1500 and iPhone will cost $2000 after tax.

NOTE: These sound like crazy idea, but laws like these had been implemented in
real-life. For example, France is making phones illegal at school for
students. Greece banned all video game consoles, citing addiction problems. In
Korea, it is illegal to play online games between 12am-6am for anyone under
16.

Also there is this article from 2015 about the addiction and the idea of
regulating the internet: [https://aeon.co/essays/if-the-internet-is-addictive-
why-don-...](https://aeon.co/essays/if-the-internet-is-addictive-why-don-t-we-
regulate-it)

------
jordigh
I'm rather bothered that I know nothing about Soros except a bunch of vague,
negative feelings about him that have pop-culturally osmosed to me through
constant usage of his name in 4channish/the_donaldish media. He's some kind of
evil mastermind destroying civilisation with his vast wealth.

I know this is almost certainly not true, but I'm so bothered that this is my
immediate thought. I feel like the alt-right has succeeded in partially
hijacking some of my brain.

Mayb some of you will think I'm some kind of easily-manipulated idiot and that
you would never fall prey to similar thought processes. That we're all too
smart to really believe Facebook and that "critical thinking" is all we need.
That the things Soros is talking about in this article could never happen to
us. I in turn think that this kind of intellectual arrogance is a bit
dangerous and precisely leads to the kind of manipulation that social media
can have on us.

~~~
toastking
It's also been experimentally proven that people have issues discerning fake
news online. Our news literacy is falling rapidly.

[https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
way/2016/11/23/503129818...](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
way/2016/11/23/503129818/study-finds-students-have-dismaying-inability-to-
tell-fake-news-from-real)

~~~
bornonline1
I was under the assumption that our news literacy was never high enough to
begin with. So to say "fall rapidly" seems misleading.

~~~
B1FF_PSUVM
If anything, the last couple of years have been very enlightening.

------
reaperducer
You know what was a bigger Facebook engagement factor/time suck than fake
political news?

Pieces of flair.

------
adamnemecek
> authoritarian regimes in Eastern Europe

He somehow never forgets to bring this up.

~~~
icebraining
I often have my country of origin in mind as well when I think about politics,
is that surprising?

------
jnordwick
Can we stop calling this addiction? The DSM V doesnt recognize process
addictions, with the exception of Gambling Disorder, and many of the symptoms
don't apply to social media use. Even Internet addiction wasn't included for
lack of proof.

Substance Use Disorder (the new category for chemical addictions) has
specifics such as withdrawal and physical dependency that you don't get from
turning off your Facebook account.

Facebook is a habit that many people user too much. It isn't like a drug that
has drastic and rapid physical changes in your brain. Your brain isn't
literally hijacked anymore than TV or anything you like doing hijacks your
brain. It reacts fairly normally actually.

Optimizing for somebody to use a site a lot isn't addicting people. The abuse
of terminology has gone too far and is really clouding the discussion.

Besides what would it look like to not "optimize for addiction"? Give people
news stories they don't want to read? The conversation has just gone off the
rails when it starts to be compared to cocaine and heroin.

~~~
Sir_Cmpwn
DSM was last updated in 2013. When companies are employing psychologists to
analyze user behavior and employ techniques that exploit the same mental
vunlerabilities that addictive drugs utilize with the goal of attaining a
similar outcome, I think we can call that "optimizing for addiction".

~~~
jnordwick
These new techs do not "exploit the same mental vunlerabilities that addictive
drugs utilize" in any meaningful sense. Everything positive from learning to
driving to reading a book has a similar effect and it is going beyond rational
discussion to try to argue FB and drugs are the same or even similar.

------
happyguy43
Facebook isn’t the problem. Phones are. I don’t use Facebook or any social
media, yet I’m addicted to hacker news and checking my email.

But even phones are not the problem. People are responsible for their own
“addiction.” It’s like blaming food companies for fat people.

Widespread informed Democracy is not something we’ve ever had, and likely will
never have. Democracy has always been led by the intelligentsia and the rich.

