If You Quit Social Media, Will You Read More Books?(newyorker.com)
newyorker.com
If You Quit Social Media, Will You Read More Books?
https://www.newyorker.com/news/fault-lines/if-you-quit-social-media-will-you-read-more-books
98 comments
I think the issue with "social media" is that it doesn't end.
If your entertainment is a movie or a book, there's definite progress to it. You can finish a movie in one or two sitting, the book has a beginning and an end (unless it's by GRRM or Rothfuss...)
Even TV shows end, no matter what kind of reality dreck they are, giving you a natural point for slapping your knees, getting up and saying "yep, that's it" and moving on to something else.
Social media algorithm feeds just give you infinite amounts of content with no beginning, middle or end.
If your entertainment is a movie or a book, there's definite progress to it. You can finish a movie in one or two sitting, the book has a beginning and an end (unless it's by GRRM or Rothfuss...)
Even TV shows end, no matter what kind of reality dreck they are, giving you a natural point for slapping your knees, getting up and saying "yep, that's it" and moving on to something else.
Social media algorithm feeds just give you infinite amounts of content with no beginning, middle or end.
Phew. It's not every day that I see a genuinely new point. I hadn't considered that, thank you. Other things that don't end: some computer games (but some computer games do), tinkering with computers (but some thing you do with computers do have a definite end), tinkering with the physical world.
Re: Games
I literally can't play stuff like Civilization and the like. There's no natural point to stop, so I just keep playing until the sun comes up. "One more turn"
Young me was this close to getting fired due to Civ3 being released, I started dozing off at work and playing all evening and night :D
In other games there's usually a save point, you hit a difficult boss, or the round ends in multiplayer games - those give a natural point to stop playing.
I literally can't play stuff like Civilization and the like. There's no natural point to stop, so I just keep playing until the sun comes up. "One more turn"
Young me was this close to getting fired due to Civ3 being released, I started dozing off at work and playing all evening and night :D
In other games there's usually a save point, you hit a difficult boss, or the round ends in multiplayer games - those give a natural point to stop playing.
I remember buying The Sims when it came out originally. I started a gaming session that evening, and after a little while I noticed the sun coming in the window. I'd played all night without noticing. Since then, I've given that kind of open-ended game a wide berth. It's a bit disconcerting for a gaming session to achieve flow state.
This is also how my partner stopped complaining about my late night gaming, the first time I woke up and they were still playing - hadn't stopped all night.
"...I get it now" and no complaints from gaming since =)
"...I get it now" and no complaints from gaming since =)
At one job where I was under-worked but had my back to a major walkway and to my manager’s glass-walled office I put Project Gutenberg txt files in a terminal and any time I might have looked at HN, I did that instead.
Three novels in three months.
Three novels in three months.
I've tried "reading at work" and failed. I was trying to read scientific papers that are only tangentially related to work, and couldn't manage to do it. I attribute that to the fact that scientific papers, like coding, requires a lot of time of "building your mental environtment" so you can't be switching all the time.
That's genius ?? Gonna try this starting right now as I'm at work scrolling through HN, lmao
I just used “less” to read them, if I were to do it again I’d find something that at least kept my place on program close. I think I only accidentally closed it like once in that three months, but over time it would have been a problem worth solving.
Personally I would've opted by opening on vim inside tmux. But then again, I never liked "less".
I believe that reddit and HN are social media. They're a different form than Facebook or TikTok, but we come here to be social just the same.
If someone used HN to find interesting articles, then spends 90% of their time reading the articles and only comes to the comments briefly to see that other people think, then it would be fair to call HN a news aggregator site for that person.
But realistically, for most people, it's the opposite - 90% of time chatting with people in the comments, with the actual articles (or even just their titles) mostly just used as conversation starters, with the conversation often veering into wildly different threads that barely relate to the original topic. That's social media.
If someone used HN to find interesting articles, then spends 90% of their time reading the articles and only comes to the comments briefly to see that other people think, then it would be fair to call HN a news aggregator site for that person.
But realistically, for most people, it's the opposite - 90% of time chatting with people in the comments, with the actual articles (or even just their titles) mostly just used as conversation starters, with the conversation often veering into wildly different threads that barely relate to the original topic. That's social media.
Regardless of whether I consider HN social media or not, the point of my response is exactly the same.
But if you want to have the (less interesting) conversation about definition, I don't call HN social media, because there's no media. It's just talking to other people.
You say
> or most people, it's the opposite - 90% of time chatting with people in the comments
Exactly! I didn't even read the article. I'm just here talking to people. So I don't call it social media for the same reason that I don't call whatsapp social media. It's just social.
But if you want to have the (less interesting) conversation about definition, I don't call HN social media, because there's no media. It's just talking to other people.
You say
> or most people, it's the opposite - 90% of time chatting with people in the comments
Exactly! I didn't even read the article. I'm just here talking to people. So I don't call it social media for the same reason that I don't call whatsapp social media. It's just social.
Media is shared information, including text. Traditional media is created by institutions like newspapers and mass broadcast. Social media changed that so that anyone can create the information. When we write comments here, we are creating short pieces of media and sending them out to be read.
I find this conversation, about what social media is, and whether some kinds of social media can be healthy, highly interesting, important even.
I also think it's important that we on HN are aware that we're engaging in social media because any time this conversation comes up, there's lots of people saying that they don't use social media, they only use HN, which leads to feeling superior to people on other forms of social media. I don't think that's valid or healthy.
If you or I use HN for 30-60 minutes everyday and we find utility in that, there's no difference to a teenager using TikTok for the same time, we don't get to feel superior or talk about social media addiction without being aware that includes us.
Tiktok has a bad rep but it has some pretty great content too, informative, well produced. Same with YouTube.
I find this conversation, about what social media is, and whether some kinds of social media can be healthy, highly interesting, important even.
I also think it's important that we on HN are aware that we're engaging in social media because any time this conversation comes up, there's lots of people saying that they don't use social media, they only use HN, which leads to feeling superior to people on other forms of social media. I don't think that's valid or healthy.
If you or I use HN for 30-60 minutes everyday and we find utility in that, there's no difference to a teenager using TikTok for the same time, we don't get to feel superior or talk about social media addiction without being aware that includes us.
Tiktok has a bad rep but it has some pretty great content too, informative, well produced. Same with YouTube.
> I also think it's important that we on HN are aware that we're engaging in social media because any time this conversation comes up, there's lots of people saying that they don't use social media, they only use HN, which leads to feeling superior to people on other forms of social media. I don't think that's valid or healthy.
> If you or I use HN for 30-60 minutes everyday and we find utility in that, there's no difference to a teenager using TikTok for the same time, we don't get to feel superior or talk about social media addiction without being aware that includes us.
No, I do feel superior: I'm being challenged, and I'm having to articulate my ideas and points of view.
When you're on tv/tiktok/instagram/youtube you're consuming something that's been prepared for you. Whether the content is informative or well produced is irrelevant to my point.
Totally different when it comes to how much critical thinking you need to exercise for those two activities.
> If you or I use HN for 30-60 minutes everyday and we find utility in that, there's no difference to a teenager using TikTok for the same time, we don't get to feel superior or talk about social media addiction without being aware that includes us.
No, I do feel superior: I'm being challenged, and I'm having to articulate my ideas and points of view.
When you're on tv/tiktok/instagram/youtube you're consuming something that's been prepared for you. Whether the content is informative or well produced is irrelevant to my point.
Totally different when it comes to how much critical thinking you need to exercise for those two activities.
I find it strange that people don't consider HN as social media. I guess the distinction is that you don't usually directly interact with other users, but it has user-generated content, link uploading, very frequent updates, and voting — it ticks many of the same boxes, imo.
The voting is the closest thing it has to algorithmic content selection, it's not tailored to each user, there's no advertising, and rage-bate headings are discouraged if not forbidden. By today's standards, it's quaint.
Oh, it's very good social media, don't get me wrong. I think that's why people avoid the term: social media has pretty negative connotations, so people don't want to use it for things they like.
Responded to your sibling https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46230711
It certainly engages the brain in a similar way. I agree that the forums of old were proto-social media.
[deleted]
My progression was something like:
Video Games > Social Media > YouTube > TV > Reading
I had to cut quite a few things out of my life before I defaulted to books, because all of the prior activities tapped into my brains inherent desire for stimulating, low effort consumption. Reading is quite often hard, boring, or difficult, but generally more rewarding in the end. I retain more useful information, explicitly because it is more difficult and my brain denotes it a higher reward value.
Video Games > Social Media > YouTube > TV > Reading
I had to cut quite a few things out of my life before I defaulted to books, because all of the prior activities tapped into my brains inherent desire for stimulating, low effort consumption. Reading is quite often hard, boring, or difficult, but generally more rewarding in the end. I retain more useful information, explicitly because it is more difficult and my brain denotes it a higher reward value.
What you read is also a big thing. There's no need to read that new pseudointellectual tome everyone is talking that could've been a blog post. It's a boring slog to read anyway.
You can just grab a book where a space-wizard stops an orbital bombardment with his willpower[0]. Or one that's Top Gun but Grimdark WH40k[1]. Whatever is fun for you specifically. Books can be fun, they don't need to have any "value" past entertainment.
And get an ebook reader. An actual one with an e-ink screen. It moves the barrier from going "I'm bored" to "I'm reading" to near zero. Just open the smart cover and the book is exactly where you left it. And if the book is 15 or 1500 pages, it weighs the same.
[0] https://www.goodreads.com/series/124536-starship-s-mage
[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/58912.Double_Eagle
You can just grab a book where a space-wizard stops an orbital bombardment with his willpower[0]. Or one that's Top Gun but Grimdark WH40k[1]. Whatever is fun for you specifically. Books can be fun, they don't need to have any "value" past entertainment.
And get an ebook reader. An actual one with an e-ink screen. It moves the barrier from going "I'm bored" to "I'm reading" to near zero. Just open the smart cover and the book is exactly where you left it. And if the book is 15 or 1500 pages, it weighs the same.
[0] https://www.goodreads.com/series/124536-starship-s-mage
[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/58912.Double_Eagle
Well, if it's just for entertainment, then books don't have more value than any other medium or way to spend time to entertain yourself.
People have a book fetish because they imagine books are necessarily better quality, but it is actually rarely the case. Reading valuable books is hard, takes time, effort, and concentration, and is out of the means of most people.
And that's just about all there is to it. Stuff that would have been books previously, now are just long articles because the commercial incentives have changed (just like music albums have disappeared). It's not a bad thing in my book!
People have a book fetish because they imagine books are necessarily better quality, but it is actually rarely the case. Reading valuable books is hard, takes time, effort, and concentration, and is out of the means of most people.
And that's just about all there is to it. Stuff that would have been books previously, now are just long articles because the commercial incentives have changed (just like music albums have disappeared). It's not a bad thing in my book!
> Whatever is fun for you specifically. Books can be fun, they don't need to have any "value" past entertainment.
That's a choice. I avoid books which are exclusively about entertainment. I always aim for value + entertainment.
Absolutely yes on the ebook reader. Also, get one that you can use without internet so they're not spying on your and deleting your books. I got a pocketbook. Small, cheap, doesn't need internet. And yes, _actual_ e-ink, otherwise you're just playing on an ipad. But one thing I love about my pocketbook is that it has a backlight which you can set it to very low, plus enable dark mode, and I can read it in complete darkness which with a physical book you can't.
That's a choice. I avoid books which are exclusively about entertainment. I always aim for value + entertainment.
Absolutely yes on the ebook reader. Also, get one that you can use without internet so they're not spying on your and deleting your books. I got a pocketbook. Small, cheap, doesn't need internet. And yes, _actual_ e-ink, otherwise you're just playing on an ipad. But one thing I love about my pocketbook is that it has a backlight which you can set it to very low, plus enable dark mode, and I can read it in complete darkness which with a physical book you can't.
Same here. And while I may be on HN for a long time, I would fall asleep within minutes of a (good) book. Which tells me something about these two modes of entertainment
It tells me that a phone is, for reason I only partially understand, more stimulating in some dimension, than a book.
same and my attention span is exercised a lot more while reading a static book vs skimming and clicking through different articles/comments.
My "problem" is more with Youtube: lots of quality (to me) content that I find educational (history, science) and entertaining.
>>lots of quality (to me) content that I find educational (history, science) and entertaining.
This seems to be a tug of war- that is- information vs distraction
I remember in the 1990s India it was quite common to view kids from homes that had TV/Cable TV as kids who were bad at academics, and distracted without focus.
OTOH, as time passed people realised those kids had better english speaking skills, vocabulary and general awareness of the world. So extreme focus didn't quite work out as well as people though it would.
In the modern context I know quite a few people with laser sharp productivity and get lots of work done. But here's what 'wasting' time on Twitter has led me down rabbit holes in the Stock market that has opened up newer earning opportunities. So its not as simple as saying social media is distracting.
Extreme focus does work when your work is individually measured and judged. And the pay off is immense. Other wise you are better off doing something to keep the wheels spinning while finding more things that can be rewarding.
This seems to be a tug of war- that is- information vs distraction
I remember in the 1990s India it was quite common to view kids from homes that had TV/Cable TV as kids who were bad at academics, and distracted without focus.
OTOH, as time passed people realised those kids had better english speaking skills, vocabulary and general awareness of the world. So extreme focus didn't quite work out as well as people though it would.
In the modern context I know quite a few people with laser sharp productivity and get lots of work done. But here's what 'wasting' time on Twitter has led me down rabbit holes in the Stock market that has opened up newer earning opportunities. So its not as simple as saying social media is distracting.
Extreme focus does work when your work is individually measured and judged. And the pay off is immense. Other wise you are better off doing something to keep the wheels spinning while finding more things that can be rewarding.
Pretty much.
People seem to think progress is linear and need razor-sharp focus on a single thing at once.
I don't think it's the case at all; in fact, most good things seem to have come from mistakes or luck.
I also consume a lot of youtube content and after the first on-ramp became wary of just how much time I was spending with it.
Here's a solution that worked magic for me for controlling it: use adblock origin or another plugin to block the video thumbnails from loading on the landing page.
Ever since I've done this I've felt so much more in control of my youtube consumption.
I land on the homepage, I click on each individual subscription that has new content and decide whether I want to watch it now or later and typically that's it.
Sometimes I'll go, I wonder if someone has done an interesting piece on the latest F1 news and specifically search for that.
Here's a solution that worked magic for me for controlling it: use adblock origin or another plugin to block the video thumbnails from loading on the landing page.
Ever since I've done this I've felt so much more in control of my youtube consumption.
I land on the homepage, I click on each individual subscription that has new content and decide whether I want to watch it now or later and typically that's it.
Sometimes I'll go, I wonder if someone has done an interesting piece on the latest F1 news and specifically search for that.
I hope those kids in Australia still have access to that kind of content.
They mostly do. They just can't log in or comment. Anything that you can see without logging in, they will still have access to.
The irony is if I quit social media, I start devouring youtube, including both high quality video essays and general video slop. If I quit youtube, I'm inclined to binge watch TV. I sometimes wonder if I need a more dramatic act of "unplugging." As writer Manu Joseph says on substack:
"Yet, I do not believe it is true that attention spans have changed significantly over the decades. People’s minds have always wandered. They have always struggled to focus. And most of them couldn’t bear to spend too much time with their own minds. The real world, outside the phone, is so glorified today. But consider this thing that happens in the real world. You’re at a party and someone comes up and says that inane but useful thing, “What’s up?” And even as you answer, he looks behind you for something more interesting, which is never there. This has happened for decades, and not just in conversations. In everything people did, they looked beyond to see if there was something more interesting, which they never found."
...
"I don’t say there is no substance to the lament about modern attention spans. The fact that human attention was always fragile does not diminish the fact that the modern world has created extraordinary tools to facilitate distraction. A distraction is a kind of boredom that looks like entertainment, which saves you momentarily from another kind of boredom. Today, a slab of metal and glass at nearly everyone’s disposal captures the wandering mind and carries it far away, to some limbo. You could be working and reach for your phone, or an icon on your laptop, and suddenly ten minutes of your life are gone just like that."
https://manujoseph.substack.com/p/the-world-is-wrong-about-y...
"Yet, I do not believe it is true that attention spans have changed significantly over the decades. People’s minds have always wandered. They have always struggled to focus. And most of them couldn’t bear to spend too much time with their own minds. The real world, outside the phone, is so glorified today. But consider this thing that happens in the real world. You’re at a party and someone comes up and says that inane but useful thing, “What’s up?” And even as you answer, he looks behind you for something more interesting, which is never there. This has happened for decades, and not just in conversations. In everything people did, they looked beyond to see if there was something more interesting, which they never found."
...
"I don’t say there is no substance to the lament about modern attention spans. The fact that human attention was always fragile does not diminish the fact that the modern world has created extraordinary tools to facilitate distraction. A distraction is a kind of boredom that looks like entertainment, which saves you momentarily from another kind of boredom. Today, a slab of metal and glass at nearly everyone’s disposal captures the wandering mind and carries it far away, to some limbo. You could be working and reach for your phone, or an icon on your laptop, and suddenly ten minutes of your life are gone just like that."
https://manujoseph.substack.com/p/the-world-is-wrong-about-y...
That rings true to me as an observation, but the trouble with the smartphones and social media is not just that we happily consume it and have always been susceptible to mindless distraction, it's that the devices and services are actively designed to pull you back in and for as long as possible as much as possible.
Books don't do that, TV does that poorly if it does try.
Books don't do that, TV does that poorly if it does try.
Yep, it's just that the world is extremely competitive, and you are constantly forced to think about your “productivity.”
If you are not hustling and generating some value, you are “wasting time.”
Of course, that's nonsense. You are living your life to do whatever you want with it, and if that's spending a lot of time on social media, you just need to be OK with that (as in, it is a conscious choice, not an addiction).
Of course, that's nonsense. You are living your life to do whatever you want with it, and if that's spending a lot of time on social media, you just need to be OK with that (as in, it is a conscious choice, not an addiction).
This might sound stupid or obvious to some, but I found a way to read books more frequently: Read multiple books at once.
For some reason, I read more often and am more motivated when I can switch between books. When I tried to focus on just one, I always got the feeling that I sort of have to read it and that turned me off.
Another issue is that I read very slowly and think a lot when reading books, but that's apparently just how my brain works.
For some reason, I read more often and am more motivated when I can switch between books. When I tried to focus on just one, I always got the feeling that I sort of have to read it and that turned me off.
Another issue is that I read very slowly and think a lot when reading books, but that's apparently just how my brain works.
I read 2 or 3 books at once. I pick the one that fits my mood or my activity -- for example, I'll listen to a low effort audio book when out for a walk or when at the gym.
People are often surprised - "You're reading three books at once?! How do you keep track?". I normally point out that they're probably watching 5 different TV shows right now and they have no problem with that. It's not really different.
People are often surprised - "You're reading three books at once?! How do you keep track?". I normally point out that they're probably watching 5 different TV shows right now and they have no problem with that. It's not really different.
That works for me with nonfiction books that I'm actively or casually studying. Not for novels though, and if I'm reading a few nonfiction books then start a (good) novel, all the nonfiction takes a backseat until I'm finished.
So I tend to cycle - a good novel, or two, followed by some time with everything fictional removed from my ereader.
This also depends on my personal and work life - fiction is usually much less effort than nonfiction, so when work or personal life gets busy, I find some good novels to enjoy, then when things calm down I'll go back to cycling between several nonfiction books.
Things don't always sync up perfectly of course - the trick is to avoid huge multi-book series, otherwise I'll end up reading them far into the time when I'd be better served by learning something new.
So I tend to cycle - a good novel, or two, followed by some time with everything fictional removed from my ereader.
This also depends on my personal and work life - fiction is usually much less effort than nonfiction, so when work or personal life gets busy, I find some good novels to enjoy, then when things calm down I'll go back to cycling between several nonfiction books.
Things don't always sync up perfectly of course - the trick is to avoid huge multi-book series, otherwise I'll end up reading them far into the time when I'd be better served by learning something new.
Same, and this is one of the great advantages of ebook readers to me. I can go to the cafe in the morning to read, and then pick which book I'm in the mood for. Sometimes I only have a short amount of time so I'm reading interview-style books (One of my favorites is https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/192420/lunch-with-the-ft/978...) that you can read in bite-sized portions.
Yeah, here's another one: some books just aren't good; it's ok to put it down & give up.
Took me a few years to make a "Dropped" category on my reading list to put books noy worth finishing. Books are not sacred, it's OK to abandon some of them.
Yeah I've found success similarly always having one non-fiction and one fiction book at the same time.
Since becoming disabled and not driving anymore, I use an app on my phone to read ebooks, rather than carry a book. I'm always reading two or three at a time; so, I can decide which to read depending on the time I am waiting (for a ride, for an appointment, etc.).
Get an actual e-ink reader like Kobo or Kindle, they're SO much better for your eyes than phone screens.
They also literally can't do anything but show you books, no notifications or anything. Just you and the book.
They also literally can't do anything but show you books, no notifications or anything. Just you and the book.
I thought it was the same thing until I tried it myself, especially in dark rooms. Having the light from my phone hurt my eyes after reading with an ereader. It’s a really huge difference
It's one of those things you can't understand from looking at pictures.
But something in your brain works differently when a display doesn't update (e-ink) or updates 24-120 times per second ("normal" display).
Combine that with e-ink lights being a subtle warm glow vs. phone/tablets having MAXIMUM BRIGHTNESS shining at your face...
But something in your brain works differently when a display doesn't update (e-ink) or updates 24-120 times per second ("normal" display).
Combine that with e-ink lights being a subtle warm glow vs. phone/tablets having MAXIMUM BRIGHTNESS shining at your face...
[deleted]
Yes. I will hit 52 books this year next week :) I am happy that I started reading again. It is helpful to slow down, relax, be entertained, or learn something.
I'm pretty happy to say I've read somewhere between 20-30 books this year*. Right now making my way through The Silmarillion finally. I also read the entire Aubrey-Maturin series, which was incredible, even if they were probably the hardest books I've ever read.
(* Less happy to say it's mostly because I've been cripplingly depressed but hey, reading is reading)
(* Less happy to say it's mostly because I've been cripplingly depressed but hey, reading is reading)
Try The Four Feathers by AEW Mason, if you haven’t. There are also two or three film adaptations, can be fun to see where and how each deviated from the book. And maybe King Solomon’s Mines by H Rider Haggard.
More British old-timey adventuring, though without so many ships.
If you want an antihero-rake and a tale told tongue firmly in cheek, see if the Flashman novels by Fraser are to your liking. Fraser takes a rich school-bully character from a more wholesome series of books and imagines his military & adventuring career in adulthood.
More British old-timey adventuring, though without so many ships.
If you want an antihero-rake and a tale told tongue firmly in cheek, see if the Flashman novels by Fraser are to your liking. Fraser takes a rich school-bully character from a more wholesome series of books and imagines his military & adventuring career in adulthood.
Strange, I remember trying the Silmarillion a few times, many years ago, and finding it very hard reading. Whereas I re-read the Aubrey-Maturins every few years and find them easy, if not always light weight.
I juts counted, 44 books so far this year, with lots of variation. Not
I can not say much about quitting the social media, as I never really started. Just HN, and some youtube (always start on my subscription page, only some late nights do I look at the main page with its algo suggestions). The occasional computer game (from doom to chess). Some hobby coding (retired couple of years ago), music, and yes, lots of reading.
I juts counted, 44 books so far this year, with lots of variation. Not
I can not say much about quitting the social media, as I never really started. Just HN, and some youtube (always start on my subscription page, only some late nights do I look at the main page with its algo suggestions). The occasional computer game (from doom to chess). Some hobby coding (retired couple of years ago), music, and yes, lots of reading.
> Strange, I remember trying the Silmarillion a few times, many years ago, and finding it very hard reading. Whereas I re-read the Aubrey-Maturins every few years and find them easy, if not always light weight.
So the difference, to me anyway, is the heavy use of archaic and naval terms in the Aubrey-Maturin series. As I went through them they got easier, and I'd certainly find them more lightweight now, but still.
The Silmarillion is hard in a different way - sort of like George Martin and ASoIaF, it's rather long-winded and name-heavy, so it can be hard to follow, even for avid Tolkien fans.
Still, Tolkien has a style of writing that I just love. No other author I've read manages to capture the feeling that you're really reading a myth or a legend, and not "just" a story.
So the difference, to me anyway, is the heavy use of archaic and naval terms in the Aubrey-Maturin series. As I went through them they got easier, and I'd certainly find them more lightweight now, but still.
The Silmarillion is hard in a different way - sort of like George Martin and ASoIaF, it's rather long-winded and name-heavy, so it can be hard to follow, even for avid Tolkien fans.
Still, Tolkien has a style of writing that I just love. No other author I've read manages to capture the feeling that you're really reading a myth or a legend, and not "just" a story.
Yes and no. I read a lot, but in "bursts." My iPad is full of books; many that I have read, many that I have yet to read.
But I use most of my free time writing software. I also tend to do that in "bursts."
Haven't looked at Facebook in many months. Never did Twitter/X. In fact, the only place I spend much time online, is ... here. Most of my karma is from comments, not submissions.
So I guess I don't get out much.
But I use most of my free time writing software. I also tend to do that in "bursts."
Haven't looked at Facebook in many months. Never did Twitter/X. In fact, the only place I spend much time online, is ... here. Most of my karma is from comments, not submissions.
So I guess I don't get out much.
> But I use most of my free time writing software. I also tend to do that in "bursts."
I feel like this is, at least for me, a time problem. If I write software, then I have to neglect reading books; if I read books, I have to neglect writing software. Doing both seems not possible for me, so I have to do this in bursts.
I feel like this is, at least for me, a time problem. If I write software, then I have to neglect reading books; if I read books, I have to neglect writing software. Doing both seems not possible for me, so I have to do this in bursts.
Same here. I used to be on classic social media (e.g. FB) but never went overboard with it. I reeled even that in to almost nothing more than 10 years ago. But other things filled that void before reading did. Other hobbies, family, kids, work, you name it.
So my reading is in bursts too now, on a plane, on a train, on a bus, on a ferry... in the hospital... You get the gist, in places where I'll be stuck for some time and need more than the usual "HN bite" for a few minutes every hour. And I adjust my reading speed and choice of book so I can actually finish withing the allotted time or else risk forgetting everything by the time I next have a slot. I read Daniel Suarez' Delta-v in ~5-6h because that's how long I had on the 2-way ferry ride.
My challenge with books vs. social media is that social media is like fast food but a book is like a gourmet meal. I can't read a book a few minutes at a time while on the toilet, or in public transport. Last time I did that I ended up in the middle of nowhere, 15min after we left the city, where the train stopped for a planned workers strike. But I can post a comment on HN just fine in 3 minutes and be done with it. So if the choice is 3h locked in somewhere with nothing but my mobile I'll choose to read. If I am at home with 1000 options, almost anything else will necessarily win.
So my reading is in bursts too now, on a plane, on a train, on a bus, on a ferry... in the hospital... You get the gist, in places where I'll be stuck for some time and need more than the usual "HN bite" for a few minutes every hour. And I adjust my reading speed and choice of book so I can actually finish withing the allotted time or else risk forgetting everything by the time I next have a slot. I read Daniel Suarez' Delta-v in ~5-6h because that's how long I had on the 2-way ferry ride.
My challenge with books vs. social media is that social media is like fast food but a book is like a gourmet meal. I can't read a book a few minutes at a time while on the toilet, or in public transport. Last time I did that I ended up in the middle of nowhere, 15min after we left the city, where the train stopped for a planned workers strike. But I can post a comment on HN just fine in 3 minutes and be done with it. So if the choice is 3h locked in somewhere with nothing but my mobile I'll choose to read. If I am at home with 1000 options, almost anything else will necessarily win.
Pretty much this.
I literally don't out much [out of my house]. I would not, even if I had no MS and had no mobility issues.
I am being here, cozy, writing software. When I am not writing software, I just watch a movie, and then I write software again, and the cycle repeats.
It is bad for your health though, especially mine. We should at the very least do some exercises at home.
I literally don't out much [out of my house]. I would not, even if I had no MS and had no mobility issues.
I am being here, cozy, writing software. When I am not writing software, I just watch a movie, and then I write software again, and the cycle repeats.
It is bad for your health though, especially mine. We should at the very least do some exercises at home.
> I just watch a movie [...] We should at the very least do some exercises at home.
I bought a treadmill and do not allow myself to watch TV shows or movies I really enjoy without being on said treadmill. It makes me look forward to the exercise, and it allows me to "double up" the time spent by doing two things at once.
I bought a treadmill and do not allow myself to watch TV shows or movies I really enjoy without being on said treadmill. It makes me look forward to the exercise, and it allows me to "double up" the time spent by doing two things at once.
Sorry to hear about the MS.
Bad stuff, but at least writing software is something that you can do.
Each morning, I get up at 5, and walk 5K. That helps (but lots of people I know, do a lot more).
Bad stuff, but at least writing software is something that you can do.
Each morning, I get up at 5, and walk 5K. That helps (but lots of people I know, do a lot more).
Having a dedicated ereader helps a lot. I have Kobo Libra 2, the UI/UX/physical design just make reading so much more appealing
Yes? At least this is what I've found. The only major social media account I have now is my Mastodon account. Not using X/BlueSky/Threads - I find I have more time to myself - my book count this last year has gone from near-zero to at least one book a month now.
No, I would read less books. I actively participate in an online book club on one of popular messengers. It's very unlikely I would find the same great book club and similar people offline.
The blind hate towards social media is absolutely ridiculous.
The blind hate towards social media is absolutely ridiculous.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I did it and yes! I've been reading more books, exploring the indies/smallweb, and spending more time with friends IRL. I highly recommend it! And I agree that the mainstream internet and social media are possibly driving a shortening if it attention span, but books are a perfect example of how to counteract this. After I quit/drastically reduced social media exposure and started reading books again, I initially found it tough. Slowly though I adjusted to the old media.
Clearly no, because both activities couldn't be more different. I dont sit down in the evening and spend 2 hour scrolling through social media. Why should I? I might scroll through my feed while waiting for my dentist appointment, because it is a nice way to pass the time. But reading a book takes time and attention. I do that after work, at home, with enough time at hand.
Who asks such twisted questions anyway?
Who asks such twisted questions anyway?
How you consume social media is not what everyone does.
For example my SO spends hours on end on Facebook. Depending on whether you consider it social media I sometimes sink a lot of time (think hours) on YouTube. And that's time we're not spending on reading.
In light of this the question doesn't seem as twisted.
For example my SO spends hours on end on Facebook. Depending on whether you consider it social media I sometimes sink a lot of time (think hours) on YouTube. And that's time we're not spending on reading.
In light of this the question doesn't seem as twisted.
[deleted]
The ideal social media would be one without doomscrolling algo. It could still have scrolling/swiping but you'd know where you start and where you are going and where you're caught up -like reading book:) Then we might actually have time to read after catching up on the things we care about.
A couple of years ago I deleted reddit and other social media and news apps from my phone. The only remaining distractions it offers are email and books. It's been wonderful, I've been reading about 2 novels per month. Highly recommended.
I definitely started reading more when I quit "algorithmic" social media a couple years ago. Still do. But I'm also mid-50s so I could just be reverting to my base. Maybe it's different for younger folks.
I bought an android ereader and I read books and read articles instead of doomscrolling. Being Android and accessing raindrop makes me spend more time with it instead of using back my phone and opening social media
Me personally, no. I found the only way to increase my book consumption is to create accountability. Our book club is going on its 3rd year and I'm reading more than ever.
This was my plan, but then I just switched to lost of chess.com
I recently got a digital chess board (Chessnut Pro), game changer. It’s like an ereader for chess.
Maybe you will. Maybe not.
But if you can "quit and stay dry", then it's extremely likely that you'll end up happier/healthier/saner, long-term.
But if you can "quit and stay dry", then it's extremely likely that you'll end up happier/healthier/saner, long-term.
Yes, because you can only be bored for so long. My brain would require some stimulation or imagination. Toughest phase would be the withdrawal.
They used to talk about the importance of being idle for creativity...
Yes!! It's incredible when I go on holiday and intentionally put myself in really boring situations for like 2+ weeks, I start having random ideas. This is absolutely true.
The cynical in me even wonders if this isn't by design in capitalism. If you're really busy all the time you won't be having ideas and be a better worker.
The cynical in me even wonders if this isn't by design in capitalism. If you're really busy all the time you won't be having ideas and be a better worker.
Brave New World asked that question in 1932.
IMO everyone should read it once, alongside with 1984.
IMO everyone should read it once, alongside with 1984.
I've read 1984, will read BNW. Thank you.
[deleted]
I found that it's less about social media, but about not being able to consume more complex content, because you are burnt out at the end of the day, or even the weekend, and therefore falling back to cheap "intellectual calories".
That doesn't go away just because you cut out one potential source of cheap calories. It gets better by first cutting out the source of drainage, which can be very personal. Too many disruptions and pointless interactions in your workday, long commutes, etc.
So I would first try to eliminate some of those, don't fry your brain completely towards the end of the day, and then read. It's much easier with a fresher brain.
It's also possible to read early in the morning, when you're not drained (assuming you still get enough sleep).
That doesn't go away just because you cut out one potential source of cheap calories. It gets better by first cutting out the source of drainage, which can be very personal. Too many disruptions and pointless interactions in your workday, long commutes, etc.
So I would first try to eliminate some of those, don't fry your brain completely towards the end of the day, and then read. It's much easier with a fresher brain.
It's also possible to read early in the morning, when you're not drained (assuming you still get enough sleep).
Yes, that is literally 2024 and 2025 for me. I switched to books instead of doom scrolling.
Yes. And the last social media I struggle to quit is YouTube.
Yeah, but only one more a week. Next question.
I embrace the extremes. I am naturally curious, and I will let myself go down rabbit holes of fascination. When I need to concentrate, I will go through a little ritual of setting do not disturb on things, closing non-work tabs and programs, putting "focus" music on, planning my little bit of work, and maybe doing a little mindfulness exercise. I find this gets me into flow for a bit, and I think finding one's own process for getting into flow is useful.
And I take holidays deliberately to "unplug" and read. I go somewhere quiet and scenic, no computer - just a book (or several). I do take a tablet, but its basically only got a book and comic/manga reading app on it.
And I take holidays deliberately to "unplug" and read. I go somewhere quiet and scenic, no computer - just a book (or several). I do take a tablet, but its basically only got a book and comic/manga reading app on it.
[deleted]
For about a year back in 2003-2004, I only had dial-up internet, no TV, and no social media (because it didn't exist yet). It was the most productive and creative time of my life. Then I got broadband, and I never reached those highs again. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I quit social media many years ago and to answer the question: No, I just watch Youtube. If I could stop watching Youtube, I'm totally sure I'd finally be able to read books again /s
The problem is the award delay. In Youtube, I get my "award" in 10 minutes max. Starting to enjoy a book requires 1-2 hours investment, and the award can be anything between 1 and 10 in a scale of 10 (while median being more like 7), and Youtube is 3-6 with a rare 9.
I read a lot of self-improvement books lately, or heard to be honest. They didn't help me start reading. Atomic Habits came close.
I have (diagnosed, yet untreated, because of side effects) ADHD though. So maybe not the typical experience. I also couldn't read much (or do any homework) as a child.
Currently trying to stop myself from starting with short videos.
The problem is the award delay. In Youtube, I get my "award" in 10 minutes max. Starting to enjoy a book requires 1-2 hours investment, and the award can be anything between 1 and 10 in a scale of 10 (while median being more like 7), and Youtube is 3-6 with a rare 9.
I read a lot of self-improvement books lately, or heard to be honest. They didn't help me start reading. Atomic Habits came close.
I have (diagnosed, yet untreated, because of side effects) ADHD though. So maybe not the typical experience. I also couldn't read much (or do any homework) as a child.
Currently trying to stop myself from starting with short videos.
Social media never really caught my interest, so quitting made zero difference to anything. I do want a fair bit of YouTube for periods of time, then almost nothing, and instead read a ton of books for a few months and then switch back.
I really want to swap out the YouTube part of more programming, but I find that I need at least an hour or so of quiet time before my brain sort of switches mode and can start enjoying it, so it's harder to get started on and disturbances quickly snowballs into not getting anything done.
I really want to swap out the YouTube part of more programming, but I find that I need at least an hour or so of quiet time before my brain sort of switches mode and can start enjoying it, so it's harder to get started on and disturbances quickly snowballs into not getting anything done.
Maybe you didn't quit really. "Social media" is a rather misleading term now. With TikTok success, almost all of them bet on short video format. So really Youtube is in the same group as Instagram, FB, TikTok, and Xwitter.
The only thing I need to stick to a good sci-fi book is:
- have it on my kindle
- actually have read a bit. a page is enough.
- phone out of the bedroom (the hardest)
My rule for short videos is to only view the ones on my subscribed channels (from notifications where enabled) and never ever go to next/prev video.
> I quit social media many years ago and to answer the question: No, I just watch Youtube. If I could stop watching Youtube, I'm totally sure I'd finally be able to read books again /s
You /s, but when I quit the internet completely, I did become a voracious reader of books. I also spent hours practicing piano. And I went to bed on time.
Like you I also have diagnosed and untreated ADHD. But at this point it feels like it's a misdiagnosis and I'm simply incompatible with the internet.
You /s, but when I quit the internet completely, I did become a voracious reader of books. I also spent hours practicing piano. And I went to bed on time.
Like you I also have diagnosed and untreated ADHD. But at this point it feels like it's a misdiagnosis and I'm simply incompatible with the internet.
You'll probably think that I'm sort of maniac or that I'm messing with you but honestly, I feel like I'm part of the internet. I mean it. I'd probably feel like a screw that fell of a large ship. The ship is unaffected, while I'd be collecting rust at the bottom of the ocean.
My jokes sound like reddit. I give HN reactions to new startup ideas. I review code like I'm in front of a large crowd from GitHub. I make meme references. I don't play games, I watch other people play -> less stress.
On the other hand, I want to read books! I want to practice the piano! (See, I bought this nice YAMAHA keyboard that's collecting dust).
My jokes sound like reddit. I give HN reactions to new startup ideas. I review code like I'm in front of a large crowd from GitHub. I make meme references. I don't play games, I watch other people play -> less stress.
On the other hand, I want to read books! I want to practice the piano! (See, I bought this nice YAMAHA keyboard that's collecting dust).
Well, I've never been on "social media", but e.g. at night before bed some times I scroll on HN for a long time before falling asleep (30min-1hr). If I commit myself not to, I read instead.
The thing we should be talking about is forms of entertainment, and social media is just one type of entertainment. We should be discussing pros and cons of different forms of entertainment. Instead the discussion is "social media bad", which is a great starting point, but has the problem that allows us to avoid having to talk about the underlying mechanisms.
For example, one of the people responding here says "if I don't go on social media I go on youtube instead." If you try and think past "social media bad", what is actually going on?