
Modern Media Is a DoS Attack on Free Will - rajeshmr
http://m.nautil.us/issue/52/the-hive/modern-media-is-a-dos-attack-on-your-free-will
======
free_everybody
Stop carrying your smartphone. Leave it at home. If you must because your
family/work depends on you, then delete every app. Use your laptop as your
main driver. If you need to, get a laptop with better battery life.

Start developing a personal philosophy of internet usage. Here is mine:

Category 3 [Abstain from completely] Reddit (Yes, all of reddit), Facebook ...
Category 2 [Check once every couple days ~15 min total] Serious news sites
(NYT, WashPo, WSJ) ... Category 3 [Check daily ~30 min total] Twitter (Follow
__helpful __people only), HN, Medium

This article makes some really good points. Our media is becoming adversarial.
Developing a time management plan is essential. I can't let my time fall
victim to the system. I don't have enough to throw away.

~~~
eckza
I love this, I love this, I love this.

Right now, I am about a month along with no Facebook or Messenger. Previously
I spent hours per day on both, running a pretty large community group and
supporting its members. I disappeared; no explanation. Stress levels are down,
I have so much more time to do things, and I have so much more attention for
the things that really matter.

Anybody that needs me, has my phone number; and at least for now, SMS isn't a
gamified platform (I'm looking at you, Snapchat).

Any social media apps (I compulsively install and uninstall Instagram a few
times a week because on one hand, it's awesome; on the other hand, I end up
putting too much time into it) have notifications disabled.

Getting an Apple Watch was the real game changer. Now, if my phone goes off, I
don't even have to look at it or stop what I'm doing. I can decide whether or
not to engage with the incoming notification without risking getting sucked
into "being on my phone". With LTE, I can even leave the god damn phone in the
car, at my desk, or in my locker at the gym without having to worry about
missing an important call.

HN is my ground zero for everything and while it may be a little dangerous to
only read news and articles that are posted on the same website, you all are
pretty balanced and nuanced people from reasonably diverse backgrounds and
worldviews, so I'm not that worried about it.

~~~
greggman
interesting. I would have thought a watch would be worse because it's
basically a "hey, look at your phone alarm".

I spend too much time futsing around the internet but I have almost all
notifications turned off. no Twitter notifications, no Facebook notifications,
no Instagram notifications. I only have messenger like app notifications on.

~~~
eckza
That's what I told my wife for like 3 years (as she has been an Apple Watch
day-one user). I finally caved and got one.

Everybody else that commented on this post beat me to the punch, more or less;
but because I have to spend less mental energy digesting the notifications, it
ends up being LESS of an interruption - not more.

You don't have to sit at dinner with your family, KNOWING that your phone
buzzed, wondering whether it was an important work email, a text from your
boss, or your dipshit best friend multi-texting you 30 photos of sick bikes
that he wants to buy and / or thinks you should buy. ;)

~~~
michaelt
If I couldn't leave work for long enough to eat a dinner with my family, I
would be diagnosing a different root cause and applying a different fix :)

------
tribune
I've been coming to resent my smartphone more and more, essentially because of
this.

I recently quit using tobacco. I remembered all the warnings from my school
health classes about how hard it was to quit once you start, how there's a
physical dependence and all that. It was uncomfortable at times, and there
were plenty of cravings to get over, but I was ultimately successful.

I can compare this to the couple of times I've tried to "quit the Internet"
(i.e. social media, reddit, etc.). The problem is that there's nowhere to run
from the Internet. I can avoid tobacco stores, I can't avoid my iPhone. For
what it's worth, I'd love to smash my phone and throw it in a ditch, but there
are certain social and professional obligations that require me to hold onto
it. I have to be able to check my work email on the go. I have to use Facebook
to stay in the loop about social events because all my friends use Facebook to
schedule those social events. I have to call my parents once in a while. One
device is a tool for all of those, in addition to being an ultra-high-tech
meme-box with which I can mainline information to make myself feel good. It is
of course not all bad, but the wonderful connectivity of the Internet is
inextricably wrapped up with the "DoS Attack on Your Free Will".

To get back to the analogy, I'd like to think I was successful at quitting
tobacco because I can avoid it. If I were giving someone tips to quit
something, that's the best advice I could think to offer: avoid it. If you
want to quit smoking, wouldn't it be preposterous to buy a pack of cigarettes
and carry it everywhere? The temptation would always be there.

So it is with smartphones. When the best minds in attention capitalism are
trying to pull me in every time I send a text message, how can I quit that?
It's always in my pocket, and I can't simply throw it away because there are
now certain expectations that I carry that tool with me almost everywhere I
go. There is nowhere to run from this modern media, and that terrifies me.

~~~
senko
Here's how I (try to) keep the Internet-based distractions to a minimum:

* Uninstall twitter, facebook and other social apps from your phone; only use the computer (or other device that's not constantly in your pocket).

* Even on your computer, log out of twitter, facebook and others. Only log in when you want to look into something (eg. check the social events, send a message), and use private/incognito mode for this; use 2FA - besides being good security practice, it's an extra hurdle so you won't default to "quickly check" the sites when your mental energy is low.

* When you do use tw/fb/..., unfollow/block/opt out of all the meme/cute/funny stuff (at least n my fb feed, there's basically 10 sites that'd constantly crop up - blocking posts by all of these greatly increased Signal/Noise ratio on FB);

* Have a reading list ready. I use iBooks on my iPhone to load up interesting articles, but you can use whichever method you prefer. The goal is to have something interesting/worthwhile to read available for the moments when you do want to look at your phone and/or kill some time (eg when in a long queue or waiting for a train). This something shouldn't require special focus or mental energy/capacity.

* Develop heuristics to ignore content that you know is junk but that tends to drag you in. I suspect this is slightly different for anyone, mine is: anything cute, funny, outrageous, sad or is a list of things. I am aware this potentially cuts out some genuinely worthwhile stuff and I'm okay with it. Considering my attention & time is finite and the Internet is (for all purposes) not, I'd rather have false positives than false negatives.

* I also have a high bar for what's newsworthy for me: anything that personally affects me (meaning I have to change my intentions or react in some way), and stuff that'll still be considered newsworthy in a month. Anything else gets ignored, no matter the medium. Again I'm okay with false positives. Also, since my friends are colleagues typically don't have the same approach, if I miss anything important (or _really_ interesting), I'll probably hear it on the grapevine.

Couldn't be happier.

~~~
jacobra2
I've done something similar with my Android phone, and it's worked out
decently. One problem I encountered though - I spent a lot of time on Reddit,
and would check it subconsciously, so I deleted it. Now I find that I'm using
Google Now, the left swipe off the home screen. In effect I took the attention
from Reddit and gave it to Google. I'm not convinced that was a worthwhile
trade. Given I can't delete Google Now, maybe having Reddit on my phone was
serving a purpose I didn't realize. Maybe there's an app that will minimize
the subconscious attention blast radius. Something that I'll still check but
will minimize the time I spend there.

~~~
dhd415
FWIW, you can disable Google Now on your phone. On the more recent versions of
Android, you long-press an empty spot on your home screen, select "Settings",
and then locate and disable the "Your feed" item.

~~~
TimJRobinson
This doesn't seem to work any more :( I'm trying to keep notifications of my
calendar and flights but disable all the distractions like "Stories to read",
and apparently Google has removed the ability to disable it...
([https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/140288/how-
do-i-...](https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/140288/how-do-i-turn-
off-stories-to-read-in-google-now?newreg=1f949e170e874561a6c706ab3dfeb1c5))

~~~
dhd415
It would certainly be nice to disable just that one section. I took the GGP's
comment to be about disabling the entire Google Now/Feed app.

------
yosito
As someone who works in tech, I like the analogy of a DoS attack. The root of
the issue is attention capitalism. Our attention is essentially a resource
being exploited for profit. In that scenario, we're effectivley no longer in
control of our own free will as long as someone else can profit by controlling
it. On an individual scale, we can give it relatively benign labels like
"distraction". But when you look at it from macro scale it's effectively a
DDoS attack on our free will perpetrated by all of the companies trying to get
a slice of the pie of our attention.

~~~
wffurr
"The root of the issue is ... capitalism"

FTFY. The structural issues mentioned in the original article are inherent in
a free market economy. Democratic deployment of capital and technology would
change the dynamic substantially.

An alternate approach would be to have substantial regulation on speech by
companies (aka advertising and propaganda), but even this would require major
changes driven by the democratic process, e.g a U.S. constitutional amendment.

~~~
smsm42
So you're saying to fix the problem of you voluntarily surrendering your free
will to distractions brought to you by profit-seeking entities, we need to
take free will out of the equation by introducing a system where resources
would be centrally allocated and there would be no free will involved in what
is offered for you and what you could consume, thus no distractions - you
always read the content that the People's Democratic Central Party Committee
decided you should read, and nothing but that is produced, because what't the
point in producing it if nobody would read it anyway?

I guess this is one way to solve it - if you have no free will or free time
outside of People's Democratic Central Party Committee directives, you
certainly couldn't spend it on Facebook and Buzzfeed. North Korea probably
doesn't have any issues with distractions. I heard they solved the obesity
problem too, by similar means.

~~~
wffurr
"voluntarily surrendering your free will to distractions brought to you by
profit-seeking entities"

That's one way to describe an "industry [that] employs some of the smartest
people, thousands of Ph.D. designers, statisticians, engineers [that] go to
work every day to get us to do this one thing, to undermine our willpower."
From the article.

"People's Democratic Central Party Committee" Nice straw-man that conflates
democratic socialism with authoritarian one-party rule.

There is an entire world of alternative possibilities out there for economic
and governance systems. Don't throw the socialist baby out with the Soviet
bathwater.

~~~
smsm42
> go to work every day to get us to do this one thing, to undermine our
> willpower

That's ominously sounding bullshit. You decide what to do with your willpower,
and if you don't like the consequences, it's your fault, not some nefarious
engineers. If you don't like facebook, don't go there. If you don't like
particular site, don't go there, of if you absolutely can't control yourself,
install one of a thousand programs that let you block specific sites, and
block that site. It's completely within your control. It's your responsibility
to do it, to control your own actions and to bear the consequences.

You just don't want to bother - you want the Central Committee to take over,
so whatever happens if not your responsibility but theirs. It is an extremely
infantile approach.

> Nice straw-man that conflates democratic socialism with authoritarian one-
> party rule.

OK, let it be People's Democratic Central Multi-Party Committee is that makes
you feel better. The point is not how the committee is called, the point is
that it would decide how resources are allocated, thus eliminating the whole
pesky free will issue.

> Don't throw the socialist baby out with the Soviet bathwater.

Somehow socialist babies have been always surrounded by Soviet bathwaters,
sooner or later. If one were empirically inclined, one would be tempted to
conclude that there is some strong relation between the two. But of course one
shouldn't forget that True Socialism (TM) has never been tried.

~~~
wffurr
Not sure where to go from here. You clearly don't believe that such a thing as
structural inequality exists. Without an acknowledgement of the massive power
imbalance between mass media corporations on the one hand and the citizenry on
the other, there's no possible discussion here.

~~~
smsm42
> You clearly don't believe that such a thing as structural inequality exists

I have no idea what the thing you call "structural inequality" is, so I can't
say whether I believe it exists or not. It could be you call by this term some
well-established phenomenon, and then I'd agree it exists, or it could be that
you call some imaginary bugaboo like engineers taking your free will with
their evil algorithms, and then, absent any empirical evidence of its
existence, I do not believe in it. Hard to say without understanding the term.

> Without an acknowledgement of the massive power imbalance between mass media
> corporations on the one hand and the citizenry on the other, there's no
> possible discussion here.

I certainly see discussion going on right here, so it is possible, but if you
mean by that "without you accepting my point as an axiom without proof, I am
not ready to continue because my winning is not guaranteed and I have no means
to prove my claims" then I agree that continuing the discussion in this
situation is not the best move for you. If, however, you are ready to prove
your points, you are welcome to do it anytime you like. Free will, you see :)

As far as I can see, there's no "massive power imbalance", on the contrary -
the press is often criticized for catering for the basest instincts of the
masses and being too easily swayed by a short-term fads and frivolities of the
public. Scandal-of-the-day, however minor and vapid, often supplants more deep
and important topics. If this criticism is true - and I believe evidence
suggests to a large measure it is - then the public is the one to hold the
power. If nobody wants to click on clickbait, if nobody comes to your site to
view and click on the ads, if nobody reads whatever content you are providing
- where is your power? What is your power? You can publish anything and nobody
would even know about it, and pretty soon you couldn't publish anything
because your servers will be shut down for the lack of payment.

I would say if we can see anything, it is that media corporations are too
timid, foolish and cowardly to do anything but what the lowest common
denominator demands from them. Clicks and ad impressions are kings, and who
makes those clicks? The citizenry does. Nobody stands with the gun to your
head and demands you to click or visit certain site. You decide it on your own
power. If you don't like the result - maybe time to think what _you_ can
change?

~~~
intended
for all your effort to type those words - you forget that people had to be
forced to wear seat belts even though their very lives hang in the balance.

~~~
intended
Since this is HN I will make an effort to not just make a sharp one liner.

The best version of the OP’s arguing is for individual ability and choice, and
the ability of a person to make a difference of their own volition.

This is a fundamentally important right because without it, we are all
automatons.

The issue is that in many cases we humans make bad choices, on a truly
unimaginable scale.

This is also very much a part of being human - good choices exist only if bad
choices exists.

The issue is that sometimes we can agree that people will consistently make
poor choices, for a variety of forgiveable reasons.

While we could conceivably go after each individual, explain and educate them
in precisely the way required to convince them that they should wear seat
belts - it’s is often practically impossible to do so.

Which is why we introduce laws and regulations. All cars must have seat belts
- and you must wear them.

Because as a species we are able to make meta cognitive calls or simply-
decisions about decisions.

As a species we don’t want our people dying, for something as trivial as not
wearing a seat belt.

It causes families to lose parents, parents to lose children - often because
they were just at the wrong place and time.

Getting people to wear seat belts causes large scale good, over an individuals
choice to put themselves and others at risk.

------
unholiness
I personally haven't found the same effect in long-form media, such as:

\- Non-fiction books

\- University-centered online courses

\- Documentaries

\- Some of Netflix's original programs

\- Wikipedia's monthly news summaries

\- The "Great Courses" on Audible

These media aren't thoroughly monetized on a pay-per-attention-stolen model.
They're more optimized around having good reviews from friends and online.

It makes me wonder if there might be the possibility of a Netflix for news,
where a 3rd party curates and allows ratings of lengthier pieces on long-term
issues, interviews with important figures, and 20-minute investigative reports
(like I remember seeing on 60 minutes). Naturally, this wouldn't work for up-
to-the minute news where everyone's attention is driven based on who's got the
latest break, but it seems like it would work for these other things. It would
still give the "lunch conversation" motivation, where people could talk about
whatever was released in the last few days. Certainly it sounds like a less
attention-assaulting place than the current state of news.

~~~
addicted
Such a site would suffer from 2 major disadvantages.

In the absence of advertisement driven revenues, it would have to charge
money, raising the barrier of entry compared to the current alternatives. In
addition it cannot provide regular dopamine hits (because that’s the whole
point) so it even feels less appealing than the alternatives.

More expensive and less appealing is a hard combo to succeed with.

~~~
annotatedobj
maybe it's an opportunity to go back to the old recipe of paying with money
for things you want to acquire. I'd gladly pay for a news service like that.

------
HoppedUpMenace
"The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, but it doesn’t necessarily
protect freedom of attention."

Are you suggesting that people's free will is so easily lost that we needed to
have, in the First Amendment, a clause stating "freedom from external thought
influences"?

"Modern Media is a DoS Attack on Your Free Will"

Only if you allow it to be, just like with any other compulsive activity, if
it starts affecting your life negatively, you should probably make some
personal life changes.

This reads like a call for government regulation of advertising or how content
is served to people because people cannot defend themselves from this media
onslaught.

I believe something similar to China's regulation of the web may be what
you're looking for, but I'm old enough to vote and go to war so I'm old enough
to decide how often my "free will" is attacked.

~~~
dps7ud
I think this is addressed in the article:

> Isn’t it our own fault that we’re too easily distracted? Maybe we just need
> more self-discipline.

> That kind of rhetoric implicitly grants the idea that it’s okay for
> technology to be adversarial against us. The whole point of technology is to
> help us do what we want to do better. Why else would we have it?

...

> Does personal responsibility matter at all?

> I don’t think personal responsibility is unimportant. I think it’s untenable
> as a solution to this problem. Even people who write about these issues day
> to day, even me—and I worked at Google for 10 years—need to remember the
> sheer volume and scale of resources that are going into getting us to look
> at one thing over another, click on one thing over another. This industry
> employs some of the smartest people, thousands of Ph.D. designers,
> statisticians, engineers. They go to work every day to get us to do this one
> thing, to undermine our willpower. It’s not realistic to say you need to
> have more willpower. That’s the very thing being undermined!

~~~
HoppedUpMenace
Its funny because these points sound exactly like the ones I've heard made by
former casino developers whom worked on any number of slot machines or video
poker.

In any case, I'd have to disagree and say that even though you can't escape
ads or even 100% avoid the lure of electronic clicks and taps, its ultimately
up to you to decide what you do with your time and money and if you cannot do
this yourself, then you need to seek help.

Just because a corporation has unlimited resources committed to targeting a
person with ads or tappy and clicky stuff, it does not mean they should be
held accountable for people's addictive habits or tendencies, just as you
can't hold any existing casinos liable for a person's poor gambling choices.

~~~
jackvalentine
> ...and if you cannot do this yourself, then you need to seek help.

> Just because a corporation has unlimited resources committed to targeting a
> person with ads or tappy and clicky stuff, it does not mean they should be
> held accountable for people's addictive habits or tendencies, just as you
> can't hold any existing casinos liable for a person's poor gambling choices.

You know, in my country there is a self-exclusion register for gambling. You
put yourself on it knowing that you have a problem and as a result you're
barred from entering a gaming establishment.

In doing so, gaming establishments now have a responsibility to keep you from
gambling on their premises and there are consequences and liability transfers
if they knowingly allow you to continue.

------
JepZ
> Choice is such a messy thing to dive deep into, because then you realize
> that nobody knows what it means to choose.

Actually, I think I do know what it means, but I have the feeling that many
people do not like the idea, that their decisions are based on past
experiences and that their free will is actually just the evaluation of their
perceptions (of their truth) and therefore, it is nothing that comes from some
spritual origin within them, but instead is something that happend to them.

While it feels a little incomfortable at first, it explains a lot of human
behavior as for example the impact of advertiments. The important part is to
also understand that it does not free you from your own responsibility as the
fact that you have beeen tought ethics is also part of the evaluation.

~~~
ehecatl
>> that their decisions are based on past experiences and that their free will
is actually just the evaluation of their perceptions (of their truth)

This might be pretty close to the mark, actually. Our conditioning to past,
even collective, social, experience can become so all encompassing that we
cannot imagine something "other". Perhaps psychopaths can? And that's a pretty
scary thought.

~~~
lazerpants
I think meditation, some types of travel, and/or certain illicit drugs are
important to people because they are able to temporarily experience what you
have described as "other", to varying degrees, utilizing the aforementioned
agents/techniques.

------
snerbles
One can argue that this isn't really anything new - look back at the media
hype for war surrounding an explosion of a certain U.S. warship. In 1898.
Amusing, how the most vaunted prize in journalism is named for one of the most
famous perpetrators of yellow journalism.

Social media is merely a slimmer middle man in that frenzied feedback loop,
and the legacy media is upset that their slice of the pie is shrinking.

~~~
wslh
The difference is how we are connected now 100% with media (and mobile device
notifications) where before people lived mainly unconnected and with cognitive
"load" instead of cognitive offloading. Not saying that the past was better
but rather than we need to build new cognitive/policy tools against new media.

~~~
cracell
> The difference is how we are connected now 100%

I think 100% is misleading.

You could say that a morning newspaper connected people 100% when that was a
new thing. Phones/computers only connect us as often as we use them to
connect.

For instance something like AR goggles with a constant ticker of information
would connect us even more.

I think it's more accurate to simply say that we are more connected. In
specifics that the 24 hour cycle of evening news and morning newspapers has
changed into an on-demand system that pushes information to people that want
to receive it and that anyone can pull it when they have free time.

------
chiefalchemist
Not to sound old school - because I am - but I believe that the medium effects
the ability to comprehend the message (which happens before the wonky / faux
message is received). That is, there is a difference between reading (e.g.,
newspaper or magazine) and watching.

Reading is proactive (so to speak). It engages the brain because the brain
must be engaged in order to complete the activity. Furthermore, pausing to
digest, or "rewind" to reread is completely natural. So much so, for a given
read you probably do it more than you realize. (I know I do.)

On the other hand, watching is passive. The brain can step back / dial-down
and still complete the activity. From that position, you're less likely (on
average) to question what's presented you. Stoners don't pick up War & Peace,
they turn on the TV, right :)

Note: Yes, these are generalization. Yes, there are always exceptions.

In addition - and there is some science that supports this - there is a
difference between reading via paper and via a screen. My hunch is the brain
gets conditioned to the medium. If your screen is mostly for junkfood (as it
seems to be for so many of us) the brain is more likely to enter that
relationship (so to speak) making certain presumptions. I suppose this could
be similar to any learning. For example, they say that if you want maximum
results for taking an exam you should study in the room where you'll take the
example. Context effects learning / understanding.

~~~
gukov
Reading releases dopamine at a much slower pace than something that's visually
stimulating. Facebook news feed is mostly images and videos now. If you ever
catch someone using Facebook, watch them for a few minutes: it's just mindless
scrolling of images. It's as if there's a line of breadcrumbs laid in front of
them and they're picking it up one by one and following the trail.

Visually heavy content + infinite scroll = a human trap

~~~
chiefalchemist
Right. It's a less engaged form of engaged, more passive. Not sleeping, but
not thinking either. Human trap? Or more like a rat on a wheel?

Makes ya wonder what effect more characters will have on Twitter, and those
who use it.

------
Raphmedia
Knowledge is the food of the soul. Problem is we are all binge eating.

Edit : Good TED talk on this topic
[https://www.ted.com/talks/jp_rangaswami_information_is_food](https://www.ted.com/talks/jp_rangaswami_information_is_food)
[2012]

~~~
api
I wouldn't put it that way. The problem is that a ton of the stuff impinging
on us is not knowledge. It's propaganda, fluff, stupid memes, click bait, and
systems with interfaces designed to be addictive and to act like Skinner
boxes.

What I really see happening is a "part 2" repeat of the spam apocalypse that
hit e-mail, Usenet, and other federated systems on the early Internet. In the
late 1990s spam destroyed most of these systems. E-mail was so valuable it had
to be saved, but saving it has mostly involved delegating it to a small
oligopoly of vertically integrated e-mail providers with the resources to
fight spam. Usenet and other less well known federated systems were destroyed.

I think we are now seeing a similar kind of spam assault against the open web,
social media, and the news. The latter with the whole "fake news" phenomenon
really resembles a Sybil attack. In recent years I've seen an avalanche of
totally fake news sites that look like legitimate newspapers popped up
(apparently from templates) and used to spam social media with a whole slew of
unfounded allegations and other assorted bullshit. The role they've had in the
election has gained a lot of press but it's in no way limited to that or even
to politics. A lot of it seems to be shilling for quack medical products and
other traditional mainstays of... spam!

I've started calling this whole phenomenon "spam 2.0." I'd define spam 2.0 as
the semi-automated bulk creation of fake news outlets, fake social media
profiles, and hoaxes and their use to engage in the coordinated manipulation
of opinion.

I'm also anticipating the rise of spam 3.0. Spam 3.0 will be fully automated
and AI-powered, with AI being used to create an individual "persuasive agent"
for each human target. Think of it as massively parallel individual con
artistry and/or "spear phishing" at scale. Social media companies are already
pioneering this tech, but the spam apocalypse will really hit when it goes
public and you can do it with readily available tools.

I find it rather depressing but for a while I've been predicting that the
first use of AI that can (even borderline) pass the Turing test will be con
artistry, cult indoctrination techniques, and demagoguery at scale. It's
really pretty scary to the point that I'm wondering if the use of AI to
persuade humans should be outlawed. Of course then you get the "then only
criminals will have guns" effect. This is particularly true on the borderless
Internet where it's unlikely to be outlawed everywhere. Users of this tech
would just go offshore.

An alternative to outlawing might be to disseminate the tools as widely as
possible to eliminate any comparative advantage and render the whole thing
moot. If this destroys social media in the process then so be it. Going to
happen anyway.

Edit: the bottom line is that "cognitive self-defense" is going to become a
thing. These "warning signs for tomorrow" are becoming relevant:

[http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/images/warning4.png](http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/images/warning4.png)

We are living in a cyberpunk novel.

~~~
dcow
I'm curious why this is getting downvoted without any response. You may not
agree 100% but it's an interesting perspective nonetheless and certainly
warrants a rebuttal instead of simply being hidden.

~~~
mavrc
I am too.

In particular, the idea of AI-driven ads to improve targeting to near-as-
makes-no-difference perfect levels is rather unnerving. We're at a moment when
the influence of companies or governments in social media is still somewhat
obvious/trackable, often because it's driven by actual people. Making it
better and then making it automated would result in a system where it would be
basically impossible to tell the difference between ads and actual people.

------
Moru
Ofcourse all real hackers saw this coming already 25 years ago :)

I did not get a mobile phone because I wanted to be off when I wasn't working.
When mobile internet came I kept only the nokia I was forced to have, just so
I could not get email when I was off work. Still do not use twitter or
anything else. Recently bought a tv but nothing on so seldom used. Kids
friends visiting always says "oh, what a small tv!" (32 inch).

~~~
a_imho
Different strokes. I would really like if people who prefer dumb devices (TWI
- things without internet) would have more choices, but it seems like this is
still a niche not really worth catering to.

------
krisdol
For anyone interested in further study of media's relationship to psychology
and sociology, I cannot recommend enough Marshall Macluhan's writings and
lectures. He may have been the first to argue that media is an extension of
the human brain. Specifically, look up "The medium is the message" for videos
of his central argument, or read "Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man".

~~~
wu-ikkyu
>Once we have surrendered our senses and nervous systems to the private
manipulation of those who would try to benefit from taking a lease on our eyes
and ears and nerves, we don't really have any rights left. Leasing our eyes
and ears and nerves to commercial interests is like handing over the common
speech to a private corporation, or like giving the earth's atmosphere to a
company as a monopoly.

-Marshall McLuhan (p.73 of the 1966 Signet paperback edition)

------
Rapzid
The biggest shocker is anyone actually believes in "free will" anymore.
Although, the desire to limit a particular stimuli's influence over our
actions seems valid.

In a way, the hyperbolic title seems to be an prime example of its own
thesis..

~~~
freebooter
Freewill exists, but it now comes with a cost. Let me provide a personal
anecdote that is happening now with my job:

\- What with "rising" health care costs, my employer has decided to "force"
everyone into getting a series of physical tests, to include those for high
blood pressure, diabetes, cholesterol, and a fecal occult blood test. Failure
to comply by year's end results in a financial penalty taken from your check
twice monthly, totaling $600 annually, rising next year. My wife is also
required to submit since she is on my insurance. She and I are both declining.
That's $1200 a year in freewill money.

\- What with, heaven forbid, people having actual rights to use tobacco, be it
smoking, vaping, smokeless, whatever, my employer will be conducting cotinine
(nicotine) tests. Failure to comply results in a penalty taken from your check
twice monthly, totaling $600 annually, rising next year.

I will be taking the cotinine test, but then will enjoy nicotine as I am wont
to do after passing the test. I'm a social smoker as many are. I don't smoke
as a habit, but will not be denied the pleasure should I wish to enjoy it as
the mood takes me.

The health care/insurance thing is a racket. All they want this info for is to
black mark you, identify who the expensive souls will be and keep raising your
rates. Insurance companies will eventually sell this data to prospective
employers, who won't hire the expensive-to-ensure souls. I can only win by not
playing the game.

To stay off the radar, I visit the indigent latin clinic and pay cash. I get
prescriptions filled at the bodega around the corner.

Eventually, the cost will either be extraordinarily high money wise or I will
be terminated. My freewill diktats will ensure I will likely go from being a
gainfully-employed IT staffer to cutting grass with the illegals at some
point. At least I will have by freewill and freedom.

~~~
annotatedobj
is this in the US? I don't understand how a company is allowed to even think
of penalizing employees for not taking physical tests.

~~~
freebooter
Yes. Texas. Legal, sadly. The first thing I did after receiving the email from
HR, was to look up the legality. There is actually SCOTUS precedent, so it is
legal, and the practice is growing.

~~~
bbarn
Heaven forbid we don't protect our trillion dollar insurance racket.

------
ryandrake
Ironically, the first thing you're greeted with on this site is an attention-
grabbing ad, if you choose to browse without protection.

If modern media a DoS attack, it's not very sophisticated since it can be
easily avoided by non-participation. Install an Ad blocker. Browse the web in
private mode. Turn off notifications. Treat everything you read with
skepticism (assume it is trying to manipulate you). And never, ever interact
with social media. Share your attention deliberately, mindfully, and
voluntarily.

I don't buy into this victim mentality. Nobody is "stealing" my attention
unless I agree to it.

~~~
crankylinuxuser
Oh, just wait until the hordes come out of the woodwork to poo-poo you for
blocking ads and such.

They have their reasons, like "No Ads means no free content", or "You're
taking the money out of content creators mouths", or variations on a theme.

What's doubly silly, is I control how my computer renders what content,
downloads what content, and does whatever actions I want. Once it leaves your
computer/network, its no longer up to you, ad company.

(Is now waiting for Wildvine to be used on content, forcing such ad viewage,
now that DRM is part of the bloody HTML5 spec.)

~~~
bobbinsbob
That's the thing though. If those ads are forced on you say like in-game ads
you can't skip then I'll just do what I do with them. Something else. Volume
down, attention elsewhere until it's over. Just like those old unskippable
YouTube ads. I might not be able to skip them but they don't get any of my
attention either way.

------
quickthrower2
Modern Media is definitely another addictive thing that one needs to manage.

As an older git, I try to remember what it was like in the 80's with no phone,
no distractions. Even watching a movie is an event that needs planning in
advance.

But how do I convey this to my kids, growing up with this?

The only way I can think is we do holidays where we go offline for the week,
and maybe set an example at home by limiting the device usage.

I like the idea of a purpose-driven use of tech. You go on the computer and
think 'I need to do a, b, c' then do it and turn it off. Usually Facebook
won't be in that list. But it might be e.g. "I need to ask a question on this
FB group, reply to a message ... then sign out immediately"

It is like have a list for the supermarket, which is trying to pedal sugary
snacks to you as well as "special offers" that make you spend more money. The
list (and going after a meal) is your defense against this.

~~~
lbotos
I live a life very similar to this. My phone only has instagram on it (and I'm
considering removing) but I try to "use with intent". A recent HN comment that
summed it up brilliantly:

"It was when Going Online was still a ritual, just like starting up the
computer was - it took a while, sometimes you had to go through a menu or
start up Windows or whatever separately still, you got this jingle when
starting up, sometimes a login screen, all that stuff. Then going online,
dialing up, telling the family (if any) that you're using the internet for a
while, firing up the browser, etc. Using the internet was (for most people
anyway) a very focused task too, given the per minute charge - get online, do
what you want, get offline again."
-[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15635817](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15635817)

------
woodandsteel
Great article. I have a couple of thoughts.

One is that the reason humans can be so easily manipulated is our built-in
neurological mechanisms for directing attention were designed by evolution for
the very different environment of a hunter-gatherer existence.

The other thought has to do with what to do about the problem. A lot of people
are talking about things that individuals can do, like limiting their time on
their smart phone.

Well, that can work for them, but most people won't do that, so it doesn't
solve the much larger problem of having a society that is becoming deeply
dysfunctional in part because of media manipulation.

It seems to me that to solve this we need two things. One is web
decentralization. The other is that people need to learn good critical
thinking skills, and also skills for problem-solving discussion, as in
Marshall Rosenberg's book _Nonviolent Communication_.

------
xxyyttuq1
If you haven't seen it, watch The Century of the Self [1]. It's largely a
documentary about the emergence of PR as an application of propaganda to
control the population in times of peace, revolving around Edward Bernays. [2]

Viewing the modern situation through a lens informed by the history put forth
in the documentary, there's nothing surprising in the least going on - it's
the logical progression, and exactly what Bernays would aspire to do had the
technology been available.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s)
[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays)

------
zitterbewegung
Media has always been a way to manipulate people. What’s different ? People
love to reinforce their own beliefs on the world and what they read. They will
select what to read and what to ignore. People read newspapers and would
believe the things that appeal to them.

~~~
djaychela
What's different is that the means are now present to customise the media that
you see to your exact preferences, for one; That's a step change away from
(say) a newspaper which is going to have some content which doesn't align
perfectly with your existing views. There's a world of other things happening
(in terms of apps also being engineered to be addictive in terms of their
behaviour) as well - this isn't simply that people are being manipulated, it's
that the means are now present to customise the manipulation and make it
entirely personal for every user.

------
flanbiscuit
It's not just the distraction from media, it's also the many ways that people
can get in touch with each other. I recently wrote down all the many ways a
person can reach me and it was ridiculous.

Mobile: Voice calls, SMS

Email: Personal x 2, Work, Work shared inbox, Some shared inboxes for side
projects

Apps: Facebook Commenting, Messenger chat, Messenger Calling, WhatsApp
multiple group chats, Whats app Calling, Slack (Active in about 5 different
Slack channels), Discord (Active in 2 discord channels), Google Hangouts,
Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Google’s Duo app

Sites: Reddit, Hacker News

I could probably go on. I turn off all main notifications for all apps. The
only notifications I leave on are @ mentions in a couple apps because I know
they won't come often.

------
shmageggy
I would gladly pay for something like what is advocated for in this article,
but I'm not aware of anything like it. A news publication that:

* Has the goal of filtering rather than flooding

* No ads

* No pop-ins 3/4 of the way through the article telling me about four other articles I should read

* No endless scrolling

* Upfront about bias

* Cites sources

~~~
theonemind
This actually reminds me of Delayed Gratification [https://www.slow-
journalism.com/](https://www.slow-journalism.com/) . I don't think they make
an online version of anything, though. You get it in print. A quarter (3
month) time delay helps with the filtering. No bother about what Trump tweeted
on any given day. Kind of like a history book being written in "real time".

~~~
shmageggy
This looks great, and I like the idea of print. Three months is a longer lag
than what I had in mind, but it might still make for a good supplement. I'd
like to preview the writing before I throw down $72, but I can't seem to find
any sample articles online.

------
amb23
For anyone interested in diving deeper into this topic, I highly recommend the
book "The World Beyond Your Head: On Becoming an Individual in an Age of
Distraction" by Matthew Crawford. Of all the books I've read this year, this
one has stuck with me the most--it's a fascinating study on the attention
environment & its influence on our notions of identity.

[https://www.amazon.com/World-Beyond-Your-Head-
Distraction/dp...](https://www.amazon.com/World-Beyond-Your-Head-
Distraction/dp/0374535914/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1511230579&sr=8-1&keywords=the+world+beyond+your+head)

------
partycoder
People build a model of their world based on stimuli.

You cannot be present everywhere so you trust other people to perceive things
for you.

That trust is often abused by injecting bias. And this is done to exert
influence over people.

Same trust is abused to certain extent by historians through revisionism.

Same trust is abused by organized religion, where they control the rules of
how you get favored by supreme beings. In some cases those rules are
intrincated and arbitrary, like wasting your life building a pyramid, or
entering a structure designated as temple every week, or believing other
people belong to a better caste (where coincidentally the religious caste is
usually at the top).

------
bobbinsbob
I liked this article. It makes me happy I am not really effected by what it is
saying. I have no social media, I don't see the point, and I only use whatsapp
for family because they won't use signal. WhatsApp has a throwaway number so
it doesn't have my actual number and it's permissions are locked down.

ublock and umatrix make my browsing experience nice, and less dangerous.

Minimal apps on my phone, nearly all Google apps disabled.

I would move to a dumb phone if I could find one that allowed whatsapp and
sharing it's internet.

------
Modj
Free will is a big subject, so I'll skip that one, but regardless, we can't
escape our cognitive processes. Each new tech revolution has provided new
choices and exposed systemic exploitation (printing press, translation of the
bible, 30 years war). Often the result was the establishment of new forms of
exploitation with more complexity and division while at the same time
maintaining the previous form or forms of exploitation for as long as they
were useful. For me, the larger problem is not the time associated with
attention, nor the exploitation of that time, but exploitation itself. Our
attention, wills and... are bound by common factors within separate groups of
similar cognitive processes. These groups are formed and formative. I'll cut
short here, because I don't want to exploit anyone :-), but it is up to us and
them and the others to focus on common factors within different cognitive
processes, rather then using the divisive factors in different cognitive
processes as a form of control. It seems to me that the amount of time spent,
the attention time, is less of a problem than the exploitation of that
attention time in the sense that the problem of the shadows on the wall
remains anyway, and there are always people who will reject the new shadows
for the old ones, and people who will use dubious methods to keep one group
staring at these shadows and another group staring at those shadows and
another... And the collection plate has always existed, and it will always be
passed around. Thing is, the shadows don't care, and the flame keepers, they
seem, more often than not, to fall in love with their shadows. Time's up.

------
rdtsc
> The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, but it doesn’t necessarily
> protect freedom of attention.

Just to point out, it protects the freedom of speech in relation to what the
government can do. Most of social and news platform are someone's property,
and by default if they don't want users to talk about certain things they are
free to ask them to leave. They might pay lip service and invoke a general
desire for freedom of speech but are not legally bound to do any of that.

------
wallace_f
A meta comment on this article: I have posted this concept here, and on other
social media platforms, and seen it posted as well... usually to the tune of a
few upvotes...

It reminds me of Keyne's General Theory, where most of the ideas had already
been floated for quite a while but were always derided as "crackpot," or
basically heresy. It took a well-connected elite, combined with a failure to
explain the current situation to really change the Groupthink of collective
minds and institutions.

Here, it's similar: an idea which has been floated before, but taken in the
hands of an academic is formalized, given a $100,000 prize, and published.

Which raises an interesting idea. If the problem with the radio--as the
article showed, Hitler put one in every home--was that an authority could
control a bombardment of information-assault on people--the same problem with
tech today--should we not also be skeptical also of why authorities have now
decided to grant credence to this idea?

And here's the concern: as the article also said, _the role of media and
newspapers has been to be a "filter." I can imagine politicians and
bureaucrats latching onto this as a power grab for authorities--as a means to
further marginalize independent media and the social aspects of spreading
information._

~~~
anigbrowl
The social aspects of information propagation are anything but marginalized.
The problem, as in the days of yellow journalism, is that sensation is easier
to monetize than the truth and this creates opportunities for bad actors to
flourish.

Of course there's a possibility for over-reaction and repression, but
personally I think that the best solution is more information, in the sense of
accessible trackbacks (not unlike country-of-origin food labeling) so people
can see where stories originate and learn to be skeptical of stuff that comes
from consistently unreliable or bizarre sources. This already happens to some
extent, eg if you post content from infowars you'll be rightly mocked for
using such a terrible source. The Web Annotations Standard will make this
vastly easier as its deployed in browsers (anyone know about progress on that,
BTW?).

As for the other problem of people choosing to stay in particular media
bubbles where they're only presented with information they already agree with,
that's not really going to change, but I think that's OK as long as it's easy
to identify which cluster people are choosing to locate in.

~~~
wallace_f
>so people can see where stories originate and learn to be skeptical of stuff
that comes from consistently unreliable or bizarre sources.

This is closer to the problem, not the solution.

This caused the NASA Challenger disaster (authorities silenced engineers who
warned of foam strike).

This caused the US to lose the space race (all the authority and "intelligence
community" was behind the Vanguard rocket).

This caused the Gulf of Tonkan, Iraq, Iran-Contra...

Consider the recent JPMorgan money-laundering story was for days published in
English only on the site _Zerohedge,_ [1]

The WaPo literally accused Ron Paul in their news section of being a Russian
Propogandist

Consider CNN broadcasted that it is illegal to read Wikileaks.

Collusion in Syria between the US and terrorists was always published first
only on "disreputable" news sites.

Democratic control is better than autocratic control.

1 - [https://www.handelszeitung.ch/unternehmen/finma-jp-morgan-
sc...](https://www.handelszeitung.ch/unternehmen/finma-jp-morgan-schweiz-
verstosst-gegen-geldwascherei-normen)

~~~
anigbrowl
I fail to see what my comment has to do with your laundry list of examples.
I'm not arguing for centralized autocratic filtering but a mechanism for
labeling points of origin and exposing that information to consumers.

Your examples don't seem appropriate either. I suggested that people would
choose to reject information from 'consistently unreliable or bizarre
sources'. Your first counter-example is that of a NASA engineer whose warnings
were overlooked, but engineers are not hired for their unreliability or
bizarre opinions.

Many of your other examples either ignore the well-known fact of parallel
discovery or are themselves relying on the mechanism you claim to deplore of
pre-emptively delegitimizing the source. Yes, I know some mainstream news
outlets are inaccurate or agenda-driven. I hardly ever consume any news from
CNN because I find most of their output to be low quality.

I really don't understand the point of your comment. You seem to be projecting
someone else's ideas onto my comment rather than evaluating what I actually
wrote.

~~~
wallace_f
>I fail to see what my comment has to do with your laundry list of examples.
I'm not arguing for centralized autocratic filtering but a mechanism for
labeling points of origin and exposing that information to consumers.

Ok so let's take a look and go down the list of examples. We can start with
NASA, where the "point of origin," being mere engineers who could not match
the gravitas and authority of the well-respected leadership, saw the idea
rejected, not on merit, but on their _point of origin_ being less-respected
than their superiors.

This problem of rejecting ideas, not on their own merit, but on the authority
or gravitas of establishment figures is the thread that ties all of those
ideas together--and many other setbacks in history as well.

Discrediting ideas by their point of origin can do real damage not just to the
democratization of information dissemination, but also to the ideas themselves
even if they have merit, as well as to indepedent journalism.

~~~
anigbrowl
OK but for the last time I'm not advocating for a centralized gatekeeping
approach and I'd appreciate if you'd stop projecting your parade of horribles
onto an argument I'm not actually making.

~~~
wallace_f
I never said that you were. Also, relax. The examples I gave support my
argument. Whether you agree or not is fine, but that you won't even admit
they're relevant is strange.

------
amatecha
The irony is overwhelming: a screen-takeover modal advertisement for some
"Black Friday" sale popped up over the article content as I attempted to start
reading it.

------
natural219
My biggest question is: When are people going to stop spilling ink over this
issue and actually fix it?

Here are some things that won't work:

1) Continue writing long thinkpieces about how bad big tech companies are and
how they should feel bad

2) starting Yet Another Startup, raising $50 million in VC funding, and
repeating all the same problems 5-10 years down the road.

3) Government regulation. Watch the recent Facebook/Google/Twitter
congressional hearings if you want to hear the state of tech understanding in
our government...

Here's what does work:

1) Pursue and promote technological standardization / decentralization efforts
regarding social platforms. These problems would be _very easily fixable_ if
1,000 developers agreed to build out a single web standards that encapsulated
social data, discovery, and communication. I keep a small list at
[http://decentralize.tech](http://decentralize.tech), but the list is only
growing (Beaker/Rotonde, Mastodon/Gnusocial/Activitypub, Blockstack, IPFS,
Urbit, Brave/BAT, IndieWebCamp, Scuttlebutt -- All groups with working
software _today_ you could work on that kills this and other problems
overnight).

tldr; Stop complaining about things you got for free and build the dang
alternative already.

------
aero142
Anyone know how to get the full text of his essay? I can find links to
excerpts but I really don't want to read other people's summaries of his
essay.

------
Jean-Philipe
I'd pay Facebook to be ad free. Why don't they want my money?

~~~
rhizome
You can't afford to pay them the amount they make from the ads you see/click.

UPDATE: 2016 revenue is $27B. At 2B MAUs, that's a little more than $1/mo.
Hmm. Surely there's something I'm overlooking.

~~~
YungCabbage
It's not a matter of simple price per user. At its core, their product is the
incredibly precise and nuanced network they have constructed though their
various sources of user data. The value they get per click/view is only so
valuable because companies are willing to pay for the quality of targeted
advertising that only a company on the scale of facebook can provide. This
model allows FB to keep their platform free for users, lowering the barrier to
entry meaning that more people are likely to join the network, whose data
makes FB's advertising system all the more effective. More data means a better
user experience (and better advertising), which naturally draws in more users
to add their data to the pool. The end result is a virtuous cycle that
provides companies with this model the best data, the most users, and the best
targeted advertising in their respective fields. This model is the endgame of
companies like Facebook, Gooogle and Amazon, and is the reason FB isn't
interested in your $1.

~~~
rhizome
_It 's not a matter of simple price per user_

It pretty much is when the question is about what the price would be for an
ad-free subscription. The calculation may be more complicated, but it's all in
service of a per-user number.

------
trhway
We'll we see similar to tobacco lawsuits - they knew it was addictive, used it
for profit and even intentionally increased addictiveness, and didn't even put
warning on. Cue similar contra argument about free will of consumer choice.

Uncanny similarity of Facebook and tobacco addiction is because they use the
same dopamine biological machinery .

------
dzink
This is a natural development in the evolution of advertising. The moment a
company picks ads as a revenue model is the moment it pivots to become Media.
I am building a company that aims to eliminate the need for advertising, and
actually save time for its users, instead of making users pay with their time.
I lived in an ads-free country for 10 years and saw the tremendous impact
advertising had on society when it was finally allowed. I interned at the top
Ad firm in the country and had management offers right after college to work
in ad agencies, but decided to build things worth advertising instead.
Proceeded to work in a top Media firm where advertisers wanted to buy space
that was disruptive to users. The system is flawed, but it pays well, because
instead of a cut of sales that quantify your performance as a seller, you are
making a cut of every seller’s budget competing against other sellers - a
reflection of their margin for selling a product. To top it off, you are
greatly aided by your inability to sell your customers product to your users -
it’s the advertisers fault for not knowing how to target properly, right?

That feels like a great gig until you realize that it is corrosive to you as
well. Every site that has advertising as a business model, eventually has to
de-prioritize user’s needs in favor of those of advertisers to grow bigger.
Yahoo became useless; Google results are getting worse, because high placement
requires lots of keywords padded with more words, instead of a succinct
thorough answer; Facebook is losing the trust of its users who are clicking,
not typing to communicate with friends anymore (anecdotal, not empirical);

The human brain needs dopamine from progress when it can be productive.
Eventually when its productivity is drained it needs to escape with
distraction and stories. In between is the need for empathy from other
intelligent beings. Faking either of these leads to unhappiness. That is why
there is always a solution better than advertising-funded companies of today
and that will be the next wave. We are on it.

------
ypeterholmes
Blaming technology for our dysfunctional political system is all kinds of
backwards. The political system is broken because of corruption within our
financial/judicial/media institutions. If anything, technology is our best
hope to fix those problems. For example, look at this discussion we are having
right here.

------
jimmytucson
The same is true for TV and radio. Think of all the popular culture that's
been created and paid for, not directly, but by merely _agreeing to have
commercials on in your home_ for a few minutes. This still boggles my mind.
How can viewing advertisements be an adequate substitute for paying cash?

~~~
anigbrowl
Because the marginal cost of the advertising in a large market is so low. A
handy rule of thumb is that you spend about the same amount on marketing that
you do on product development; the actual production and distribution costs
per unit are much lower. Either your product is a flop and you shut down and
move on, or it's a hit and you have yourself a nice little income stream.

------
tatotato
Are there any similar articles that are more simply written? I'd like to pass
this kind of information on to the people in my life that aren't technically
minded. At the moment when I try, I just sound like a conspiracy nut.

------
elijahparker
"One standard I use is GPS. If a GPS distracted us in physical space in the
ways that other technologies distract us in informational space, no one would
keep using that GPS."

Wow, that's a good way to bring the issue to light! How many times have I gone
to the internet to look something up (Amazon, perhaps) and got distracted by
other things? Although they are a big player in this space, this is why I
really like google's homepage compared to (ugh) yahoo or MSN. Nothing trying
to distract my attention from why I came there in the first place (initially
anyway)

------
dnetesn
From this weekends NY Times...."Our Love Affair With Digital Is Over"
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/18/opinion/sunday/internet-d...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/18/opinion/sunday/internet-
digital-technology-return-to-
analog.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion&action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=7&pgtype=sectionfront)

------
erikb
I disagree. Like most things in this world it is a skill question.

There's more information of all kind. Good, bad, devilish, spam. And with more
comes the requirement that the consumer learns to filter and interact more
meaningful with it.

The same applies for instance to food as well. We have so much food now that
we need to learn to manage eating by willpower, discipline and habits. It also
applies to other luxuries.

What I can say is that I'm way more educated, way more skilled and way more
able to grab a certain subset of knowledge exactly at the time and location
that I need it.

------
shaunparker
Sorry if this is off topic, but Nautilus seems to really need support[0].

I received an email this morning from the editor asking "to make an end of
year tax deductible contribution to keep the stories coming. Anything you
could donate would be greatly appreciated".

If you enjoy their content, please consider subscribing.

 _I 'm not affiliated with Nautilus in any way, just a concerned subscriber._

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14227337](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14227337)

------
pcprincipal
Highly recommend Moment for iOS for tracking phone usage. I feel like I've
gamified how much time I spent on my phone and am shooting for <30 minutes /
day.

------
rado
Yes. Media has been dead since the Kuwaiti girl testimony in 1990. It's done,
it's over, today's scandals are just aftershocks of that turning point.

~~~
anigbrowl
This hyperbole isn't helpful, with the implication that this never happened
before in history. I'm guessing that's just the specific incident that led to
_you_ being more cynical.

Deception and manipulation of public sentiment by either wholly fabricated or
suddenly-scandalous news (ie digging up some old incident and setting up a
great hue and cry like it just happened) is an old, old propaganda technique:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Jenkins%27_Ear](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Jenkins%27_Ear)

I'm sure there are similar examples from the Roman Republic when it was
operating as an actual Republic rather than an appendage of empire.

~~~
rado
Yes, precisely. Thanks.

------
johnvega
How a handful of tech companies control billions of minds every day.

[https://goo.gl/K5xLSs](https://goo.gl/K5xLSs)

------
mudil
The problem is not journalism, the problem is platforms that encourage crap
for their own monetary gains.
[https://www.recode.net/2017/11/20/16677194/tina-brown-
vanity...](https://www.recode.net/2017/11/20/16677194/tina-brown-vanity-fair-
diaries-new-yorker-daily-beast-facebook-google-decode-kara-swisher-podcast)

------
ckastner
> Modern Media is a DoS Attack on Your Free Will

Being saturated by Modern Media is an _exercise_ of Free Will.

An attack is an act of force that requires active defense. The Modern Media is
not forcing me to ready anything, nor do I have to actively defend myself
against the Modern Media.

If turning of your cell phone for a period seems like an unfathomable task to
you, perhaps you didn't have that much Free Will in the first place.

~~~
dclowd9901
If free will, as we understand it, is the ability to renounce things despite
our brain injecting itself with endorphins while we're subjected to it, then
you're right: it's quite nothing at all aside from having a strong
constitution. The problem is we're talking about the manipulation of the
brain's fundamental functions that undermine even low level thought processes
(including determination).

It's scarcely different than brain washing, and I don't think you can just
blame the individual on this, when these efforts are aimed at the peak of the
bell curve. This is something that we have to resolve or risk forfeiting civil
society.

~~~
ckastner
Your argument is sound, but nevertheless, I'd still argue that if one is
susceptible to manipulations of this sort, there wasn't much Free Will to be
DoS'ed in the first place.

Manipulations of this sort have been effective long before Modern Media were a
thing. I see them as just one instrument, but I don't believe that fixing this
instrument will fix the problem.

------
xrd
Everyone on this thread, including me, proves their powerlessness over these
sentiments. But, let's still work towards a better world.

------
aryehof
I think that modern media is something that needs to be carefully regulated.

The degree of civil liberty one enjoys should be not only be considered as
freedom from rules and regulations that limit our unreasonable actions and
speech, but also freedom from being mentally assaulted and manipulated by
those seeking to influence and control our thoughts, spending, votes, and
opinions.

------
kevlar1818
Did anyone else get a pop-up ad when they opened the article? A little on the
nose, there, don't ya think, Nautilus?

------
drcode
This reminds me of how easy it was in the early days of Hacker News to get on
the front page with a project: In our new media world, the only way to get
onto the Hacker News front page, or any other site, is to either have a post
highly targeted for this site (with these sort of DoS elements) or blind
chance.

------
nemo44x
All the time you spend on social networks, news sites and other junk food
properties you should spend time reading tech docs of various techs you don't
yet really understand. Just read their docs and blogs, etc instead of reading
wasteful sites.

It's tough but it really feels good when you get a good streak going.

------
timtas
Ah for the days of 100 million Americans passively accepting Cronkite’s “the
way it is” — night after night trusting him to distill the “grand consensus”
of the ruling class into a common mythology, a great uniting groupthink. What
a comfort it was!

------
SoggyMike
I now leave my laptop at home. I still do some Facebook on my iPhone, but not
nearly as much as I did when I had my acer with me.

I heartily agree with the article's thesis.

If you agree with me, then you will also agree to copy and paste - do not just
share - this post to your status.

------
rglover
Reminder: you have a choice. You can turn off Facebook, the media, et. al. and
regain your focus.

------
vitro
I suggest consuming media via channels like Blendle -
[http://blendle.com/](http://blendle.com/) Hand picked articles, pay per view,
no distractions.

Disclaimer: no affiliation to them, just a happy user.

------
tareqak
Is there a way to see a history of notifications in both Android and iOS at
all? It would be nice to be able to actually disable notifications permissions
for apps that are more spammy than I expected them to be.

~~~
dredmorbius
Not AFAIK.

This, by the way, is something that bugs the heck out of me about Google.
Massively data-driven firm. Denies the public access to data about its own use
of tools.

------
siavosh
I would bet there's a market for a 'feature' phone that has the essentials for
most people (voice, sms, gps maps), no apps. All branded under a premium
lifestyle brand that makes you feel special.

------
reubenswartz
"What information consumes is rather obvious. It consumes the attention of its
recipients. Hence a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention."

\- Herbert Simon, Nobel Prize-winning economist, back in 1971.

~~~
forapurpose
> Herbert Simon, Nobel Prize-winning economist

Believe it or not, that understates the man. He's also one of the fathers of
AI and won the Turing Award, he wrote the book (of his era) on industrial
organization, and was a leading researcher in many fields, including cognitive
psychology and cognitive science. His PhD was actually in political science. A
true polymath.

------
tremon
Oh how ironic... Does anyone else get pop-over ads when opening that page?

------
j0nathanB
I discovered that if I use grayscale or if I use darkroom mode, I can actually
focus on content and not the bells abd whistles that are designed to hold our
attention and keep us engaged longer.

------
common_01
"he co-founded Time Well Spent, a 'movement to stop technology platforms from
hijacking our minds,'"

But I'm sure he isn't at all biased. :-/

------
lyra_comms
Exactly!

As cognitive psychologists, this is what we are trying to fight with Lyra: a
nonprofit conversation service which respects attention.

www.hellolyra.com/introduction

------
xster
Wow, this is the most clear, succinct way of expressing it I've seen so far.
The beginning of a new era!

------
jccalhoun
complains about tech distracting us... has a popover ad that greys out and
covers the text of the story...

------
lifeisstillgood
And walks in nature are the Cloudflare

------
jononor
Irony: On opening the article, a modal banner about some 'Black Friday' sale
popped up.

------
dqpb
Billboards and all other public-space advertising out in the real world are so
much worse than modern digital media. At least when it's confined to a device
the user has the ability to turn it off.

That said, I do think the end of humanity will be via a primitive AI optimized
to hold our attention at all costs. I just don't think we're there yet.

~~~
TheCoelacanth
Billboards can only be targeted to a general area. Digital ads can be targeted
to more or less a single person.

------
DanielleMolloy
The machines have already learned to exploit our vulnerabilities and control
us..

------
dreamdu5t
Take responsibility for your choices and your votes. You are not helpless.

Blaming Trump’s election (which this article insuates by equating his victory
with the failure of democracy) on social media is incredibly disingenuous.
Americans are not the helpless fools the author says we are.

------
ekianjo
> DoS Attack on Free Will

what a convoluted way to say ”distraction”.

------
xmly
I just thought you are talking about FREE WIFI...

------
m3kw9
As AI get smarter and places like Google collect more data about you, they
will eventually know all the right buttons to press to get you to look and not
look away.

------
marstall
language itself is a means of control.

------
xmly
Maybe it is because you do not have a FREE WILL at all.

------
Kenji
Bullshit. The only attack on my free will is people telling me what is an
attack on my free will and thus pushing their agenda.

I would NEVER EVER want to give up the incredible availability of information
we have today. Even if most of it is nonsense, that still means there is a
mountain of gems that's larger than the eye can see.

------
Ygg2
Wait, isn't there no such thing as free will, according to science?

