The Great Offline(reallifemag.com)
reallifemag.com
The Great Offline
https://reallifemag.com/the-great-offline/
45 comments
So here is a particularly unhelpful argument pattern.
> Today’s experience of childhood, they wrote, was an “inner, solitary” affair, plagued by the proliferation of “obesity, anti-social behavior, friendlessness and fear.”
where "they" means a bunch of authors who wrote an open letter about modern childhood.
Then there follows a large amount of stuff about what these metaphors mean, how they relate to previous bits of the history ideas, etc. The Noble Savage makes a predictable appearance.
But there is absolutely zero engagement with the authors' actual argument! Like, are kids getting fatter or not? Are kids suffering more from antisocial behaviour or not? Friendlessness? Fear? These are real factual questions, not tropes in some novel.
In other words, this piece engages with vocabulary and metaphors, as a substitute for engaging with the argument. Not, in general, a good trade.
I see this style of argument a lot in work derived from the humanities. I think it very rarely adds light to any debate. Perhaps it needs a name, so it can be pointed out, and when appropriate, mocked.
> Today’s experience of childhood, they wrote, was an “inner, solitary” affair, plagued by the proliferation of “obesity, anti-social behavior, friendlessness and fear.”
where "they" means a bunch of authors who wrote an open letter about modern childhood.
Then there follows a large amount of stuff about what these metaphors mean, how they relate to previous bits of the history ideas, etc. The Noble Savage makes a predictable appearance.
But there is absolutely zero engagement with the authors' actual argument! Like, are kids getting fatter or not? Are kids suffering more from antisocial behaviour or not? Friendlessness? Fear? These are real factual questions, not tropes in some novel.
In other words, this piece engages with vocabulary and metaphors, as a substitute for engaging with the argument. Not, in general, a good trade.
I see this style of argument a lot in work derived from the humanities. I think it very rarely adds light to any debate. Perhaps it needs a name, so it can be pointed out, and when appropriate, mocked.
This article is a great example of what I'd call "mindless problematization"
From what I've seen, this is you're trained to do in modern humanities departments. Take any seemingly obvious claim and "problematize" it.
It's telling that they do not say "nuance" it, rather it has to be made a _problem_. e.g. if you think "wilderness" is a thing you subscribe to a racist idea for "white male elites", if you think social media is affecting childhood development you're just caught up in the religious fervor of "scientized version of the biblical story of the Fall".
A whole lot of BS gets written this way, because these arguments have the superficial air of being subversive and contrarian.
It's telling that they do not say "nuance" it, rather it has to be made a _problem_. e.g. if you think "wilderness" is a thing you subscribe to a racist idea for "white male elites", if you think social media is affecting childhood development you're just caught up in the religious fervor of "scientized version of the biblical story of the Fall".
A whole lot of BS gets written this way, because these arguments have the superficial air of being subversive and contrarian.
In some cases it reminds me of my fundamentalist religious upbringing where everything was “of the world” and even trivial things like Pokémon, Christmas Trees, and Teletubbies were viewed as problematic and sinister
'the superficial air of being subversive and contrarian.'
I like this idea, its a great filter for BS.
I like this idea, its a great filter for BS.
In Mary Roach's book "Packing for Mars" [0], in the section where they talk about the psychological impact of going into space, there is an interesting anecdote about the history of trains. As trains began to become more commonplace, there were concerns in England that the speed at which trains traveled would cause passengers to panic given that humans had never experienced both the speed and the motion parallax.
This of course, all turned out be for nought and was best summarized by a Russian cosmonaut in the book "This is problem only concern for psychologists".
0 - https://amzn.to/3yMBtVb
This of course, all turned out be for nought and was best summarized by a Russian cosmonaut in the book "This is problem only concern for psychologists".
0 - https://amzn.to/3yMBtVb
Spot on. “Meretricious” is the ten-dollar word for this.
Never saw this word employed as anything else than euphemistic "whoreish". One never ceases to learn!
The author is not arguing that online life is better for kids/people than offline life. She's arguing that it's unhelpful to frame the problems of modern life as a result of a departure from an Edenic "offline" or "wilderness" -- that just as white explorers in North America were not really entering an uninhabited wilderness, people who grew up with live TV and landlone phones were not really disconnected -- that the solution is not to temporarily "return" to an unspoiled wilderness that never really existed, but to bring ordinary life into alignment with the natural world -- not to go on an occasional digital detox that many of us can't afford, but to build an online life that doesn't hurt our self-esteem, attention spans, etc. She's tracing the history of the concepts of "wilderness" and "offline" so that she can deconstruct them as categories.
In general, very few important disagreements are actually about facts. More often, they're about the framing of the issue itself. Is spending on social services "Big Government," or is it a "social safety net"? Are trans women as unfortunate women trapped in male bodies or weird men who enjoy pretending to be women? Is restricting immigration more like redlining a neighborhood or asking an unwanted guest to leave your home? These questions are about attitudes and interpretations, not facts. If you try to change someone's mind on such questions by presenting then with data, you're likely to fail. People who work with words and narratives intuitively understand this; people who work with data and numbers do not.
In general, very few important disagreements are actually about facts. More often, they're about the framing of the issue itself. Is spending on social services "Big Government," or is it a "social safety net"? Are trans women as unfortunate women trapped in male bodies or weird men who enjoy pretending to be women? Is restricting immigration more like redlining a neighborhood or asking an unwanted guest to leave your home? These questions are about attitudes and interpretations, not facts. If you try to change someone's mind on such questions by presenting then with data, you're likely to fail. People who work with words and narratives intuitively understand this; people who work with data and numbers do not.
> In general, very few important disagreements are actually about facts.
I disagree. In fact, behind each of your examples are real empirical questions. This form of thinking just hides them. There are real questions about what makes people want to change sex; about the effects of immigration; and about the effects of social spending.
It's perfectly true that people's minds are hard to change, and that they can be swayed by the manipulative techniques of advertising and PR. The jump from that to accepting it as a valid, or the only possible, form of argument harms public debate and democracy, and we end up in the cynical, post-truth world of Peter Pomerantsev - or Trump - where all there is is competing narratives.
I disagree. In fact, behind each of your examples are real empirical questions. This form of thinking just hides them. There are real questions about what makes people want to change sex; about the effects of immigration; and about the effects of social spending.
It's perfectly true that people's minds are hard to change, and that they can be swayed by the manipulative techniques of advertising and PR. The jump from that to accepting it as a valid, or the only possible, form of argument harms public debate and democracy, and we end up in the cynical, post-truth world of Peter Pomerantsev - or Trump - where all there is is competing narratives.
> There are real questions about what makes people want to change sex
But they aren't what drive either side of the trans rights debate...
> about the effects of immigration
...or the immigration debate...
> and about the effects of social spending.
...or most social spending debate.
In all of those cases, the differences are primarily over values, and the factual views often are overlapping between the sides and quite diverse within each side.
And where there are important fact disputes, often one (or both) sides rejects (often explicitly) empricism in favor of some other source of understanding on the issue, making fact debate fruitless. (It doesn't help you reach consensus that your opponent's position is grounded in a falsifiable fact claim if they view the fact belief as justified by divine revelation and not subject to empirical inquiry.)
Empirical inquiry into facts is good for resolving policy disputes between people who agree on the relevant value criteria and agree on empiricism as the correct epistemic framework for the fact inquiry, but, as it turns out, most important policy disputes are not between sides where that is the case. (Policy disputes within certain factions sometimes have this quality, but those between political—usually ideological—factions tend not to.)
But they aren't what drive either side of the trans rights debate...
> about the effects of immigration
...or the immigration debate...
> and about the effects of social spending.
...or most social spending debate.
In all of those cases, the differences are primarily over values, and the factual views often are overlapping between the sides and quite diverse within each side.
And where there are important fact disputes, often one (or both) sides rejects (often explicitly) empricism in favor of some other source of understanding on the issue, making fact debate fruitless. (It doesn't help you reach consensus that your opponent's position is grounded in a falsifiable fact claim if they view the fact belief as justified by divine revelation and not subject to empirical inquiry.)
Empirical inquiry into facts is good for resolving policy disputes between people who agree on the relevant value criteria and agree on empiricism as the correct epistemic framework for the fact inquiry, but, as it turns out, most important policy disputes are not between sides where that is the case. (Policy disputes within certain factions sometimes have this quality, but those between political—usually ideological—factions tend not to.)
> There are real questions about what makes people want to change sex
There is no widely-accepted empirical answer to this question, and even if there was, it wouldn't tell us how we should treat such people. Arguments on trans issues hinge almost entirely on one's level of sympathy for trans people and willingness to accept what they tell us about how the feel. It's not a coïncidence that those who personally know a trans person are much more supportive of trans rights.
> about the effects of immigration; and about the effects of social spending
Let's suppose that the data came in and we learned that immigration is slightly good for the economy as a whole, really good for immigrants, but bad for native blue-collar workers. Based on that hypothetical information, people would reach different conclusions about immigration policy based on their relative sympathy to immigrants and native workers. The framing device is also extremely important: "should America put our own people first?" vs "should the state condemn people to poverty because of where they were born?"
> we end up in the cynical, post-truth world of Peter Pomerantsev - or Trump - where all there is is competing narratives.
Trump managed to beat Clinton without uttering a single fact during his entire campaign. If you want to beat the Trumps of the world, you need to know how to deconstruct a narrative.
Also, do you have any data suggesting that narrative-centric arguments employed by writers and humanities PhDs resulted in the rise of Trump -- or did you conclude that based on your value system?
There is no widely-accepted empirical answer to this question, and even if there was, it wouldn't tell us how we should treat such people. Arguments on trans issues hinge almost entirely on one's level of sympathy for trans people and willingness to accept what they tell us about how the feel. It's not a coïncidence that those who personally know a trans person are much more supportive of trans rights.
> about the effects of immigration; and about the effects of social spending
Let's suppose that the data came in and we learned that immigration is slightly good for the economy as a whole, really good for immigrants, but bad for native blue-collar workers. Based on that hypothetical information, people would reach different conclusions about immigration policy based on their relative sympathy to immigrants and native workers. The framing device is also extremely important: "should America put our own people first?" vs "should the state condemn people to poverty because of where they were born?"
> we end up in the cynical, post-truth world of Peter Pomerantsev - or Trump - where all there is is competing narratives.
Trump managed to beat Clinton without uttering a single fact during his entire campaign. If you want to beat the Trumps of the world, you need to know how to deconstruct a narrative.
Also, do you have any data suggesting that narrative-centric arguments employed by writers and humanities PhDs resulted in the rise of Trump -- or did you conclude that based on your value system?
There is a clear argument here, and it is repeated multiple times. I have no idea why its so difficult for anyone to see.. here’s one:
> rather than encouraging us to think about the systems that determine the nature of our engagement with online platforms in the first place. In shifting the emphasis from what one is doing with the screen to how often one looks at it, we also shift the emphasis away from the worlds we are building…
That distinction right there is obvious, important and yet constantly and repeatedly overlooked. For a lot of us, our parents told us that being on the computer was a waste of time and why don’t you go outside? The current approach to deal with “too much technology” as implemented by Screen Time on Apple devices counts all screen time as the same. I see my friends doing some form of digital detox often as well because they don’t understand this distinction.
I don’t know why this turns off so many engineers, but it seems to be predicated on pattern matching off vocabulary. The sentence you quoted is refuted by the argument. No amount of statistics can fundamentally untangle the causation between A. hours spent online and B. obesity, antisocial behavior etc. That is why it’s important to build clear conceptual models before asking the “factual questions” you want. As a thought experiment maybe just consider how exactly you would go about getting factual answers to these questions in a reasonable time and budget without any theory to guide you, only data. I don’t believe its even possible. The replication crisis in psychology should also demonstrate how purely empirical methods can fail.
> rather than encouraging us to think about the systems that determine the nature of our engagement with online platforms in the first place. In shifting the emphasis from what one is doing with the screen to how often one looks at it, we also shift the emphasis away from the worlds we are building…
That distinction right there is obvious, important and yet constantly and repeatedly overlooked. For a lot of us, our parents told us that being on the computer was a waste of time and why don’t you go outside? The current approach to deal with “too much technology” as implemented by Screen Time on Apple devices counts all screen time as the same. I see my friends doing some form of digital detox often as well because they don’t understand this distinction.
I don’t know why this turns off so many engineers, but it seems to be predicated on pattern matching off vocabulary. The sentence you quoted is refuted by the argument. No amount of statistics can fundamentally untangle the causation between A. hours spent online and B. obesity, antisocial behavior etc. That is why it’s important to build clear conceptual models before asking the “factual questions” you want. As a thought experiment maybe just consider how exactly you would go about getting factual answers to these questions in a reasonable time and budget without any theory to guide you, only data. I don’t believe its even possible. The replication crisis in psychology should also demonstrate how purely empirical methods can fail.
I think you're presuming an argument that's actually not in the piece. The author obviously is bemused with the movement to unplug, but I don't think the author actually says it's bad - just that it's better to search for a healthy relationship with civilization and by extension the Internet. The piece is not about why you shouldn't unplug, it's an exploration of how we people can get the same benefits of unplugging without actually unplugging.
If you come at it looking for an argument that has a beginning, middle, and an end, you're going to be frustrated but the piece is not making an argument, it is talking about a variety of ways that people can have a more healthy relationship with the Internet.
I know for me the piece crystallized a lot of thoughts about how I do and don't choose to unplug. There isn't one single answer, it's a thousand little things about when I choose to leave the phone on my desk and go for a walk, or sitting on the train I leave the phone in my pocket and daydream.
If you come at it looking for an argument that has a beginning, middle, and an end, you're going to be frustrated but the piece is not making an argument, it is talking about a variety of ways that people can have a more healthy relationship with the Internet.
I know for me the piece crystallized a lot of thoughts about how I do and don't choose to unplug. There isn't one single answer, it's a thousand little things about when I choose to leave the phone on my desk and go for a walk, or sitting on the train I leave the phone in my pocket and daydream.
I get what you mean. Half way through the piece I couldn't take it anymore. So much eloquent words saying essentially nothing. A name for this? I'm in! Why? Because this kind of article is extra harmful due to it's covert nature. One needs to read it before one realizes there's hardly an argument.
That is, if you want to read a piece with a clear argument. On the other hand, pieces that just take an (opposite) stand and make me think (like this article did) definitely are valuable to me.
That is, if you want to read a piece with a clear argument. On the other hand, pieces that just take an (opposite) stand and make me think (like this article did) definitely are valuable to me.
I'm really frustrated by this article. I spent the first half arguing with my screen and getting more and more irritated at the condescending critiques of people trying to manage unhealthy screen use. And I really liked the second half, which made me even more irritated with the first.
Her main argument is that focusing on individuals undermines our ability to change the systemic problems out current technology creates. Leaving social media may help your mental health, but we still live in a world where social media negatively impacts many of the people around us. We're still impacted by that system even if we're disconnected from our screen.
The second half argues that we have to look for communal and systemic change to make the systems better, which I agree with. I just disagree that that can't coincide with individuals also choosing to change what they can about their immediate environment
Her main argument is that focusing on individuals undermines our ability to change the systemic problems out current technology creates. Leaving social media may help your mental health, but we still live in a world where social media negatively impacts many of the people around us. We're still impacted by that system even if we're disconnected from our screen.
The second half argues that we have to look for communal and systemic change to make the systems better, which I agree with. I just disagree that that can't coincide with individuals also choosing to change what they can about their immediate environment
Great observation. I personally find such indirection extremely frustrating.
I propose “aboutism” as a name — since such articles end up talking “about” things, rather than addressing them directly.
I propose “aboutism” as a name — since such articles end up talking “about” things, rather than addressing them directly.
I like it. It seems though that you’re defining a strawman argument. Perhaps though this is slightly different in that the opponents argument is completely avoided?
Cloudman argument:
An intentionally avoided proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than the opponents real argument.
Cloudman argument:
An intentionally avoided proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than the opponents real argument.
Exploratory thought provoking, or thought-jamming mental static? I'd call it the second masquerading as the first; perhaps through honest confusion on the author's part; never having been exposed to the actual examples of mind opening writing.
My cynicism says that bullshit of this quality had to be paid for and carefully constructed.
Ya want wilderness? come see my swamp. What the snakes don't do the coyotes will finish. I love the place and wouldn't be anywhere else.
My cynicism says that bullshit of this quality had to be paid for and carefully constructed.
Ya want wilderness? come see my swamp. What the snakes don't do the coyotes will finish. I love the place and wouldn't be anywhere else.
I've always used the term "sophist" for this, although the dictionary definition of the term seems to have drifted slightly from the meaning it held in classical antiquity. Per Wikipedia,
"In the second half of the 5th century BC, particularly in Athens, "sophist" came to denote a class of mostly itinerant intellectuals who taught courses in various subjects, speculated about the nature of language and culture, and employed rhetoric to achieve their purposes, generally to persuade or convince others. "Sophists did, however, have one important thing in common: whatever else they did or did not claim to know, they characteristically had a great understanding of what words would entertain or impress or persuade an audience." Sophists went to Athens to teach because the city was flourishing at the time. It was good employment for those good at debate, which was a speciality of the first sophists, and they received the fame and fortune they were seeking."
from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist
"In the second half of the 5th century BC, particularly in Athens, "sophist" came to denote a class of mostly itinerant intellectuals who taught courses in various subjects, speculated about the nature of language and culture, and employed rhetoric to achieve their purposes, generally to persuade or convince others. "Sophists did, however, have one important thing in common: whatever else they did or did not claim to know, they characteristically had a great understanding of what words would entertain or impress or persuade an audience." Sophists went to Athens to teach because the city was flourishing at the time. It was good employment for those good at debate, which was a speciality of the first sophists, and they received the fame and fortune they were seeking."
from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist
I'm not sure I understand the point or argument of this article at all. It reminds me of the sort of essays I would write in English class, pouring words on a page hoping that it would sound profound enough to impress my teacher.
Besides, it's not like I have a responsibility to act in a way that's best for society at large. Sure, by 'logging off' and trying to spend some time offline perhaps I am distracting myself from a broad social goal of trying to find a way to make the 'online' world one that makes us happier as opposed to periods of binge and detox.
But I know that spending time offline makes me much happier, and it's a way I can learn how to manage my personal online experiences in a way that will make me happier still. That's not wrong, the same way living in a city but spending some time hiking in the 'wilderness' is not wrong.
Besides, it's not like I have a responsibility to act in a way that's best for society at large. Sure, by 'logging off' and trying to spend some time offline perhaps I am distracting myself from a broad social goal of trying to find a way to make the 'online' world one that makes us happier as opposed to periods of binge and detox.
But I know that spending time offline makes me much happier, and it's a way I can learn how to manage my personal online experiences in a way that will make me happier still. That's not wrong, the same way living in a city but spending some time hiking in the 'wilderness' is not wrong.
That was very difficult to read for some reason. The author quotes a lot of other peoples definitions of wilderness, online, offline, digit escapism, etc, but I’m struggling to understand the authors intentions. Does she recommend that I not view excessive time spent online as negative or escaping to spaces that remove it as positive? Should I view my own preferences for the outdoors as an extension of my white-male-ness instead of a pursuit of individual happiness?
The article is saying that offline/online is like wilderness/civilization — a classification that stratifies experiences and the their availability along moral lines as opposed to pragmatic choices. She also makes the point that it divides along individualistic vs communal lines of thinking, where being alone is equated with being ‘pure’.
For instance, the comment about not wanting to have to choose between being connected to social media and feeling bad vs not being connected but feeling better is a clear reference to the influence of apps like Facebook and Instagram, where research has shown that people tend to feel worse after using them (I’m probably over-simplifying here). If you think in terms of online as “spoiled” and offline as “unspoiled”, it makes you less likely to imagine that online experiences can be improved.
I’ll also give a personal example. I love to go backpacking and I have been able to take my children with me on my last few trips. My oldest wanted to bring a Kindle, which I was fine with. Some people gave me grief about it because I was letting them bring a “screen” on a backpacking trip. This seems weird to me - within a backpacking context a Kindle is lighter and more useful than a book in almost every way (can’t be used as tinder in an emergency but that’s about the only disadvantage). If you’re not willing to bring technology into backpacking because it somehow “spoils” things, then I would like to draw your attention to all those high priced synthetic fiber clothing, dehydrated foods, and the plastic, aluminum and carbon fiber structural components that people happily use to improve their trip. My Garmin InReach does not spoil the trip for me because I can communicate with my wife, it makes it safer and more pleasant for my kids.
For instance, the comment about not wanting to have to choose between being connected to social media and feeling bad vs not being connected but feeling better is a clear reference to the influence of apps like Facebook and Instagram, where research has shown that people tend to feel worse after using them (I’m probably over-simplifying here). If you think in terms of online as “spoiled” and offline as “unspoiled”, it makes you less likely to imagine that online experiences can be improved.
I’ll also give a personal example. I love to go backpacking and I have been able to take my children with me on my last few trips. My oldest wanted to bring a Kindle, which I was fine with. Some people gave me grief about it because I was letting them bring a “screen” on a backpacking trip. This seems weird to me - within a backpacking context a Kindle is lighter and more useful than a book in almost every way (can’t be used as tinder in an emergency but that’s about the only disadvantage). If you’re not willing to bring technology into backpacking because it somehow “spoils” things, then I would like to draw your attention to all those high priced synthetic fiber clothing, dehydrated foods, and the plastic, aluminum and carbon fiber structural components that people happily use to improve their trip. My Garmin InReach does not spoil the trip for me because I can communicate with my wife, it makes it safer and more pleasant for my kids.
I preemptively mourn that at some point people will be able to text, stream shows, and have video calls from even the deepest wilderness areas.
It is great that there are official wilderness areas that are off limits to technology such are drones and even bicycles. I kind of wish there was a way to digitally fence those areas off to some degree as well though as a fellow inReach user I know how useful some tech can be.
It is great that there are official wilderness areas that are off limits to technology such are drones and even bicycles. I kind of wish there was a way to digitally fence those areas off to some degree as well though as a fellow inReach user I know how useful some tech can be.
Preventing wireless communication, even in wilderness areas seems like a bad idea. I remember a Reddit post many years ago (back when the concept of a internet post from the middle of nowhere was novel) from a bush pilot in Alaska. His plane had some sort of failure (not a crash) that left him stuck in the wilderness. But he had satellite internet that not only let him call for rescue, it let him pass the time by posting about the experience on Facebook and Reddit.
I think this lament gets to the heart of the article's argument. The problem isn't that we'll eventually be able to connect everywhere. It's that being online is harmful or intrusive enough to need an escape.
The call to action is too work towards a future of technology where we don't need to escape to improve our mental health and experience of nature.
The call to action is too work towards a future of technology where we don't need to escape to improve our mental health and experience of nature.
When I leave my house to go to the grocery store I have to make an active concerted effort to not compulsively check my phone.
When I head out to the wilderness it does not take the same level of active effort to not compulsively use my phone.
When I head out to the wilderness it does not take the same level of active effort to not compulsively use my phone.
Same, and that gets to the heart of it. Out phones have been engineered to encourage constant novelty and engagement. That's a systemic issue. Leaving a phone behind is a individual solution. This article argues (eventually) for a systemic solution.
The article fails by being condescending towards individual solutions instead of acknowledging them as a helpful stopgap
The article fails by being condescending towards individual solutions instead of acknowledging them as a helpful stopgap
> can’t be used as tinder in an emergency but that’s about the only disadvantage
If the battery's charged, it's better than tinder! Although you'd only get one try.
If the battery's charged, it's better than tinder! Although you'd only get one try.
This is the high art of “phd word salad.” Painted with precious oils, yet each topic is given a casual canvas slap. The result is not a diagram.
I wish this article acknowledged the problems with connection earlier on. Clearly the author can focus and reflect online, but many (often) cannot. I like the idea of improving how we spend our online time, but the reality is disconnection is also really beneficial. Time in nature is beneficial. Real-world contact is beneficial, and that is becoming more difficult for many to achieve.
Look at the scrolling on that site. What a beauty. No intercom chat robot popping up, no distracting ads, no pop up asking you to fill in your mail for yet another newsletter you won't engage with. Wonderful to see.
In early 2015, Twitter discovered that the Oxford Junior Dictionary had culled dozens of words associated with the natural environment. The new edition of the dictionary — which cut terms like “acorn,”“buttercup,” and “kingfisher” in favor of adding “21st-century” terms like “broadband,” “voicemail,” “blog,” and “cut and paste”
Why the fuck would a dictionary remove those?? This makes no sense.
Why the fuck would a dictionary remove those?? This makes no sense.
Because, as with all dictionaries except the absolutely massive complete editions, you can only put in so many words (this particular volume has 6,000 entries and is aimed at 7-8 year olds). In a related Guardian article somebody from the OUP says the selection criteria are: "acknowledging the current frequency of words in daily language of children of that age; corpus analysis; acknowledging commonly misspelled or misused words; and taking curriculum requirements into account". That is, times change and the things children are writing and reading about also change; dictionaries tend to follow, not lead.
> “Screen-Free Week,” for example — which invites participants to put down “entertainment screens” for seven days in May — was formerly called “TV Turnoff Week,” and was initially championed by an organization called TV-Free America.
I had to miss the second to last ever episode of Seinfeld because my school participated in this and I'm still furious about it
I had to miss the second to last ever episode of Seinfeld because my school participated in this and I'm still furious about it
Somewhat interestingly, this publication is sponsored by Snap, Inc. (The company behind Snapchat).
Just to clarify, from their about page (https://reallifemag.com/about-real-life/) they have the following
> Three years ago, Snapchat offered to support the work I do as a sociologist, primarily applying social theory to social media. In these past three years, the company has also paid for the venue for a conference I co-founded and chair called Theorizing the Web, without asking for any editorial input or control. Snapchat is now funding Real Life, and we have editorial independence as well. The support means we can focus on writers and writing rather than clicks and shares. At the same time, there are inherent complexities attached to being funded by a company in the field of what we’re publishing about, sometimes critically. But the content will have to speak for itself. We believe in this project, and we’re doing this because we think and care about the things you’ll see discussed on the site: identity, power, privacy, surveillance, relationships, beauty, to name a few.
> Three years ago, Snapchat offered to support the work I do as a sociologist, primarily applying social theory to social media. In these past three years, the company has also paid for the venue for a conference I co-founded and chair called Theorizing the Web, without asking for any editorial input or control. Snapchat is now funding Real Life, and we have editorial independence as well. The support means we can focus on writers and writing rather than clicks and shares. At the same time, there are inherent complexities attached to being funded by a company in the field of what we’re publishing about, sometimes critically. But the content will have to speak for itself. We believe in this project, and we’re doing this because we think and care about the things you’ll see discussed on the site: identity, power, privacy, surveillance, relationships, beauty, to name a few.
> Now, it is a remedy to the abstract category of technology — screen light and digital noise
Well, I have a blue light filter screen protector, wear blue light filtering glasses, and have the blue light filter turned on in iOS & Android.
As for 'digital noise', I train my feeds to be high signal, and rarely do mindless scrolling, but prefer mindful scrolling instead.
Well, I have a blue light filter screen protector, wear blue light filtering glasses, and have the blue light filter turned on in iOS & Android.
As for 'digital noise', I train my feeds to be high signal, and rarely do mindless scrolling, but prefer mindful scrolling instead.
For the noJS and text-mode crowd:
https://archive.md/bH0bn
https://archive.md/bH0bn
It's no-JS but gives me a Google Captcha?
Thanks for the heads-up, I didn't know that was a thing at archive.md :(
Offline is different than online, or maybe they’re the same. I like having different experiences anyway so I don’t care.
I cannot change the world I can only choose.
Nice words but why?
Nice words but why?
comes with a bit of irony that you need 2 more cloud providers to actually get more than a white page. Has a neat offline appeal though.
But offline and wilderness strongly resonate with me. Even more so, when it comes to children.
It's a bliss to not have to deal with complexity.
But offline and wilderness strongly resonate with me. Even more so, when it comes to children.
It's a bliss to not have to deal with complexity.
What a great design!! We need more! That would make the web a better place.
Mostly just a blank page for me before using archive.is, doesn't seem so great.
I appreciate what the author is trying to do here and I agree that the idea of getting "all the way" offline is kind of silly, as though if I stopped reading books that would put an end to literature.
However I think there is still something quite useful about the concepts of both wilderness and offline that the author downplays, namely that wild-ness and online-ness are spectrums. Wilderness isn't just a place with fewer people, it's a place that instead contains more of the things you can't get in, say, Manhattan, like bears and woodpeckers and natural springs and exceptionally fresh air. Just so, there is something about offline that isn't just the absence of electronics, but the feeling of quiet and human solitude that online necessarily destroys.
Personally, I see no reason why the argument "most people are online and the world economy is inextricably digital" means that I can't personally log off. To the contrary, I think I appreciate being offline more now that I've spent years living online. Just so, I think I appreciate the beauty of nature and the ecosystems that ultimately sustain us more after having lived most of my live in giant cities.