Science figures it out: "social media’s addictive loop compels users to share mindlessly"

It’s a nonzero number, which still makes it part of the larger problem.


Excited Lets Go GIF
And …

I’ll see myself out.


I have basically dropped out after being -too- active. Friends/family worried. So I’ll post Wordle and then leave. Wordle is my way of saying “I’m not dead yet but this is all I want to give here.” Which, I think, is better than those eight paragraph posts about leaving facebook by people who return to it two weeks later.


How else are we suppose to fill the void in ourselves?
If the alternative is a massive amount of time dedicated to introspection and serious self reflection while working toward a healthy lifestyle…yeah this little glowing box that feeds my need seems way simpler.

1 Like

disagree GIF

Human beings are both, and it’s capitalism that emphasizes consumption over creation. We’re very much shaped by the culture we live in, like it or not, and capitalism is built on consumption, so many of us overly consume. But human beings have always been creators and will be until we no longer exist.


Damned right!

God creatives are in a bind.

Imagine a society where the impulse to create and share with other humans, the instict to build communities around that, is seen as an exploitable psychological defect and a moral failing? Now stop imagining… we’re here.

Analysis like this just basically re-affirms that all human creativity is directly under attack. It’s literally being pathologized now and yet how the hell are you supposed to make and share and sell and collaborate while avoiding social media!?

:fire:L :fire: M :fire: F :fire: A :fire: O :fire:

The problem is the architecture is only there to force feed “content” down the gullets of “consumers” so that they’ll get mentally damaged from the abuse and buy whatever random shit gets shoved in their faces… and creatives, creatives are SOL.

I don’t believe any of this was really designed with a desire to nourish human connections and promote the work of individuals.

Social media is not a reflection of the essence of humanity because what we are seeing in its chambers is a distorted humanity in a cage being slowly tortured to death for a small profit per head.


To add, modern capitalism also insists that people market themselves and work on their personal brand – it literally doesn’t value you otherwise. So yeah, people get desperate to be noticed to the point where it’s unhealthy? Surprise, that’s what’s asked of us!


mood GIF


I imagine AI-driven capitalism will super charge this. Once any creative style can be instantly reworked by a machine, it becomes even more important than it has been for creators to sell themselves and offer up details of their personal selves to their fanbase to distinguish themselves from machine-generated work and keep those patreon dollars flowing. Of course, LLMs are probably pretty good at building a fake human “personal” presence as well…


Not only that - if your human impulse to create takes influences from the world around it, then stop right there. Your creativity is infringing on the vast web of copyright that corporations have vomited over human culture. Pay up and consume, don’t remix, don’t derive, don’t do anything creative or fun.


Even if we are creative and creators, every creator must, in due course, consume whatever they’re remixing and contributing to. By volume, we still consume more than we create.

That’s not stated as any kind of criticism. It should come as no surprise that we generally listen to more than we can create. The volume’s just larger and we’ve got to have material to interact with and react to.

That million view Youtube video didn’t get there because all million of them were busy trying to create their own video. Sure, it drives interaction and creation, but culture can be entirely legitimate and valuable with consumption as well. Art interacts with an audience.

Does this really work? Thomas Kinkade shows that can be manipulated quite well.


That’s an incredibly capitalist-centric view of sustaining one’s self… Of COURSE people consume things like food, water, culture, ideas, feelings, etc. These are interlocked processes that go hand in hand. But “consume” has come to denote a passive, corporate driven process, rather than actual fruitful process taking in the world can be to the creative process.

Dismissing creation because it happens less than consumption is incredibly weird. Of course we consumer more than we create, because the act of consuming is not as complex or sometimes difficult as creating a work of art can be… but to argue that we’re “primarily consumers not creators” is pretty indicative of your views on the matter, or so it seems to me.

Hell, even this interaction here is an act of creation, not just consumption. We create a shared understanding of the world via consuming ideas and trying to create our own to share.


The audience is part of the production process.

It’s all just three sides of the same coin.


20 sided dice, or GTHO.


1 Like


Ha! Have you ever tried to have a conversation with a man? They are commonly skilled at listening to far less than they “create.” Lol.


I don’t think you’re responding to my point?

Ultimately my point is this:

Dorothy Parker didn’t have to literally chomp down capsules of gin on the way to her publisher to access the roads.

And she didn’t have to sell them to her readers to earn a living either.

It doesn’t matter what brought you to the abattoir once you are in.


Not at all capitalistic, if anything social-anarchistic. My lens on this one isn’t looking at the monetary value of art, but more based on Graeber’s “Debt: the First 5000 Years”. Society is built on mutually held debt. Culture is an ongoing collaborative discussion.

Even if you’re not performing any monetary transfer, participation with culture is, first and foremost, adapting how said art affects your life. The artist frequently is frustrated by the variety of interpretations that happen by the audience.

Remove any conditions you wish around “consumption” in this case, but the central point is that the impact on the audience is always larger than the scope from the creator. I don’t think we have sufficient respect for the active role of the audience in forming their own interpretation and how that effects other actions.

All I’m saying is: looking at social network solely from a production side doesn’t take into account the scope of the audience. Lurkers are still participants, and reducing it simply to “likes” is, in its own way, a reductive capitalistic experience.


Hell, even this interaction here is an act of creation, not just consumption. We create a shared understanding of the world via consuming ideas and trying to create our own to share.

True, there’s no way for you to see my participation as an audience unless I create something. But, say, if I were consuming Q theories, it doesn’t matter as much if I’m responding or not: it’ll affect my actions in larger society.

The concept of consumption as a central pre-occupation of human beings actually is very much a capitalist concept, such as argued by folks such as Lizabeth Cohen, among others.

I said nothing of your own personal politics. I don’t know what they are, but it’s immaterial to the point you seemed to be making, that we’re primarily passive consumers, not actively creative. I think that Graeber would very much be in agreement that human beings are defined more by their ability to create rather than their ability to consume. MY point is that concepts like consume and produce are very much shaped by the social forces, which are invariable based on the capitalist mindset… another issue that Graeber would agree with, I think.

That’s not what many of us took away from your initial comment. Be clearer in your meaning perhaps. It was very much dismissing the creative impulse to center consumption.