24 Comments
User's avatar
Digital-Mark's avatar

Another good article and pretty sums up what we are seeing now in the younger generation. The screen time statistics are blowing up with people watching short videos more than 8h a days turning their brains into mashed potatoes. It's unbelievable how this tech started with some utility and transformed into something truly hellish.

By the way you can fit more chips into a carbon based motherboard.

Expand full comment
David Crouch's avatar

Thats for your comments. Unfortunately the effects are not only limited to the younger generation. That was my opening metaphor: disappearing into the technology. The real issue isn’t the average time; it is the variance of time spent by age group and on what.

I’m on vacation right now and screen time would be large. But I’m writing and reading

Expand full comment
Neela 🌶️'s avatar

I am sorry to hear about your shoulder spasms, David :(

The thing that kills me is watching people who've never coded anything in their lives become instant AI experts after spending a weekend with ChatGPT. Wtf is vibe coding?

And I've thought about this a lot. If iPhones were the size of an iPad, would people carry one everywhere? Hell no. Would they check it at dinner? Nope. Would they wake up and immediately look at it? Probably not. The entire problem is that it fits in their pocket and weighs nothing.

For the record, I hate phones lol

I still have an Android that I reluctantly update every 4-5 years :)

Also, Substack has been glitchier than usual. The problem may not even be your iPad. It could just be Substack.

Happy Thursday, David.

Expand full comment
David Crouch's avatar

Thanks for the comments. Appreciate it. Shoulder spasms will reduce my writing. More podcasts and video in my future.

The size is what drives it all!

Expand full comment
Neela 🌶️'s avatar

You gotta do what you gotta do.

Will support either way :)

Expand full comment
Lisa Cunningham DeLauney's avatar

Fantastic breakdown of this insidious erosion of our abilities and values. Everyone should (re) read Fahrenheit 451 and with the addictive parlour walls. I would say it was worst for the young, who never had a chance to be without screens, but Ive seen how they capture everyone, including the elderly. I recently led a course on managing digital distraction for teachers and they admitted they needed the knowledge and tools almost as much as their students. How to find a balance? Is cold turkey the only way to combat it - and is it even possible?

Expand full comment
David Crouch's avatar

Thanks for chipping in It has affected every age group The answer for each person is what works best: cold turkey, limiting time, limiting features used, and many others

But we are our own worst enemies. Consider Substack. How many people ONLY read Following in Notes instead of Home? Such a simple change but every limited uptake. I’m about 2 months from an article going through all the various strategies.

Expand full comment
Doug McLachlan's avatar

The “digital tools of foolery” you describe raise an uncomfortable question; who’s building them, and to what end? The engagement models baked into these systems aren’t accidental; they’re engineered by design teams and monetized by corporations whose business depends on capturing and shaping attention.

It reminds me of Neil Postman’s contrast between 1984 and Brave New World: Orwell feared censorship, Huxley feared distraction. The technologies differ, soma and feelies then, algorithms and feeds now but the objective is strikingly similar: keep the population entertained, compliant, and too diverted to think.

Expand full comment
David Crouch's avatar

Indeed. Huxley was the prescient as I believe he was looking ahead whereas Orwell was describing the past

But we don’t have to choose to use them

Expand full comment
Wyrd Smythe's avatar

I wonder if future historians will refer to this era as the Great Enshittification. (Assuming humanity survives this era and produces future historians.)

Cory Doctorow, who coined the term enshittification, is proposing a utopic notion he calls a POD — Personal Online Data. It would be everything electronic you own, from personal documents and files to purchased books, videos, and music. And you would own it but be able to determine who you share what with and when. Sounds idyllic, and it would take back power from huge online platforms that hold your data hostage.

Getting from here to there seems a bit of a trick, though. Berners-Lee recently pointed to Wikipedia as a *rare* example of what he envisioned when he gifted us the web. Not many like it, though. The whole thing is mostly enshittified now.

Expand full comment
Digital-Mark's avatar

That POD should be in a cloud? As there it no cloud, it's just someone else’s computer. 😂

Expand full comment
Wyrd Smythe's avatar

His notion is problematic on several fronts. I suppose it could be one's own computer that hosts one's own data. We currently have storage facilities that allow people to rent a storage unit. Perhaps something along those lines. Highly secure server farms that people rent space on. 🤷🏼‍♂️

Expand full comment
Digital-Mark's avatar

That makes sense, but who gets granted access to someone else's data? By written consent? How do you know that consent is valid and is coming from the owner and not some bad actor?

Expand full comment
Wyrd Smythe's avatar

The idea is that you, and only you, control access, so (in theory) no one else could grant or deny it. I assume it would be similar to Dropbox.

Expand full comment
Digital-Mark's avatar

You do know that are hacking capabilities to obtain a falsified virtual signature for a consent. Zero Trust Architecture can solve that.

Expand full comment
Wyrd Smythe's avatar

Heh, yeah, we’re down in the details of someone else’s idea, and as I said before, it's not without its problems. Another is that, having shared data with someone, how can you prevent them from passing it on to someone you don't authorize?

Doctorow's main idea, I think, is taking power away from the huge social sites like Facebook and Google that work hard to engage us and make us captive. Likewise, books, music, and videos, that we supposedly "buy" but only retain a revokable license to use. Compare that to how we used to own physical irrevocable media.

Expand full comment
David Crouch's avatar

Thanks for the comments. My observations are less what I will call institutional and much more about every individual. My core belief is we get what we deserve. What we choose, everyday.

I have read more than one senior esteemed technology thinker bestow blessings on Wikipedia I honestly believe that they must not have been looking at it across a broad spectrum of topics but are simply listening to in grand macro thoughts.

Same with Google search. Hasn’t been good for nearly a decade but I still hear people talking like it was some fantastic objective and helpful source of information

Do people want their own data? Do people want to choose their own lives? An observation that exemplify our mass behaviours from a recent vacation. We were staying at a delightful hit spring resort on a huge lake between 2 mountain ranges (Ainsworth Hot Springs). They served a delightful breakfast on an open deck to this beauty. A woman literally ran from the elevator to the best corner table. After taking the obligatory selfie she never looked up from her phone once to be in the present time or location for over 30 minutes

Maybe because I’m rereading early Kurt Vonnegut but we deserve ourselves

Thanks again for chipping in on the major story of our times unless nuclear weapon devastation continues its comeback

Expand full comment
Wyrd Smythe's avatar

Wikipedia isn't perfect by any stretch, but it shows that it's possible to have a large enterprise that isn't trying to squeeze every drop of blood possible. Wiki is like PBS in doing pledge drives, but unlike PBS I actually use Wikipedia a lot and do support them with an annual donation. As a science resource, I find it excellent, but I wouldn't use it for any social topics.

Google search was always commercial, but it once was a great search engine, though I agree it's gone way downhill in the last decade. And I have to admit that Ai has stepped up the game. I would never trust current Ai to write code for me, but I do find it useful for technology questions. Better now than searching those "ask a question and have tons of strangers guess at the answer" sites. In general, the signal/noise ratio has gone to hell on the web.

I've been a Vonnegut fan since the 1970s. Huxley nailed us even earlier in "Brave New World", another testimony to our unfortunate natures. Web=Soma. "Harrison Bergeron" has long been a favorite. I used to use "Welcome to the Monkey House" as a greeting… 😁

Expand full comment
David Crouch's avatar

Thanks again for your comments. Just finishing Mother Night with great satisfaction.

I don’t want to upset your Wikipedia belief but if you follow the money they don’t need it. A PBS like con game. Lots of in-depth analytical articles about it

Expand full comment
Wyrd Smythe's avatar

Heh, no worries, I know the world is imperfect and almost any organization has its flaws. And I’ve heard they don’t need the money.

What I give them annually is about what I’d spend taking a friend out for a really nice dinner, and I see it more as a pat on the back because I use Wikipedia daily and put lots of links to it in my posts (on almost any technical word).

It’s certainly my favorite website by a country mile. Low BS in a high BS world.

Expand full comment