Robert Scoble came to Betaworks the other day to share his idea what the future looks like. One of his claims was that addiction is going to be a much larger problem with technology than privacy (or most of our current concerns).

First, is this a problem? If so, who's responsibility is it to keep an eye on this? Facebook? Parents (in the case of teenagers and kids)? The victims, themselves (if you can call them that)? Society at large?

Will we have Internet Anonymous meetings in the future? imgur.com

Eep, sorry, this is a better link than the article above: plus.google.com

More specifically, his point #5 on that google plus post.

It is crazy how much I check my phone on-the-go. I stare at a computer screen for most of the day and then, for some reason, when I am in transit between any two places I am relentlessly checking email and Twitter. It's a terrible habit and something I am working to address. I like playing this game where everyone puts their phone in the middle of the table and the first one to pick theirs up also picks up the check. Small steps like that will ultimately go a long way.

The individual losses out, mostly – not society - but I wasn't there for his talk. What was his argument about why society is the victim?

He mentioned that things like texting-and-driving are going to show up more and more, where people are getting so fixated with technology that it's hampering their ability to focus.

I'm still unconvinced of Scoble's point (TV is incredibly addictive but it's been around for long enough without serious issue), but you're right about one thing: we sacrifice moments, one at a time, to our screens without knowing what we lost.

Whenever this topic comes up I always point back to the study that found early internet users got a little dopamine rush every time they heard "You've Got Mail" on AOL. Likes, RTs, mentions, +Ks, all of these things are digital positive reinforcement. Facebook is like those animal "intelligence" tests where if they figure out which button to press a little treat drops into their cage. If you're clever enough, you're friends will "like" it.

TV is incredibly addictive but it was never mobile...until now. Just yesterday I saw a guy walking down the street holding his iPhone out in front of him watching a show. Eyes were darting back and forth between the screen and the street. And what does that say? MANHATTAN isn't interesting enough to walk around in? We need to be putting shit into our brains at all times?

Ok, and I really hate to be the harbinger of disaster but the thing I always go back to here is Aldous Huxley. The Orwellian retrofuture get referenced much more, but Huxley's Brave New World is sort of uncanny. One of his main points: man's almost infinite appetite for distractions and that non-stop distractions of *the most fascinating nature* are deliberately used as instruments of policy, for the purpose of preventing people from paying too much attention to the realities of the social and political situation.

Scoble brought this up? That guy would be like first in line for the Singularity-cyborg-implant chip, and *he* thinks *we're* addicted to the Internet?

Maybe the Internet is one gigantic Skinner box, but what's wrong with that?

I'm skeptical that this is really a 'problem'.

I don't buy the argument at all that technology (or specifically social media) addiction is a serious problem facing humanity. This argument comes up every time technology changes enough to get a new name (printing press, telegraph, radio, television, internet, social media, etc.) and every time society adjusts just fine.

The people against such change seem to use the same tactics every time: saying that the new thing will destroy our values or make everyone stupid zombies, and that has always failed to occur. That kind of argument is just plain offensive: Who are they to tell me what I should spend my time doing?

Of course there will always be a small subset of people who become "addicted" to something and end up hurting themselves or others, but the question should really be whether or not that small number of people post a significant threat to humanity or if it's just the usual group who would become addicted to gambling just as much as they would TV or the internet.

@Josh: Scoble's argument seemed to be that texting was enough of a problem to be killing people because they were doing it while driving (or presumably other dangerous activities). I don't believe there are any studies showing this to be an actual issue and I'd be surprised if the number of deaths attributed to texting was significant compared to something like deaths from drinking and driving.

When I questioned his fear of tech addiction at the discussion he responded by saying that once we can build a Holodeck (ala Star Trek) nobody will ever do anything but sit inside one all day. I can't refute this as I don't have a Holodeck, but I would wager that when we do have them they will be met with the same sort of skepticism as the radio/television/internet until it is proven that people don't actually spend all of their time shagging holograms.

Geoff, I don't think it is a serious problem facing humanity either, but I do think it's important to note that a) nothing has ever been so portable and global. A person keeps their iphone in your pocket, flies from NY to Shanghai and the first thing they do upon landing is look at Twitter. (not that there is anything wrong with that, but I don't think people obsessively felt the need to 'check' TV, radio, or libraries incessantly based on FOMO) I think it's a human happiness problem, not a crisis for mankind problem. People are not present enough and it's proven that when you're in the moment, you're happier: guardian.co.uk

b) I think that the concept/value of 'unplugging' is something that children will now forever need to be taught. Which is actually a whole other issue. Parents used to park kids in front of a TV. Now they hand them an ipad/iphone and tell them to "play quietly"

Point (b) brings up an interesting point. Kids are particularly susceptible to technology, especially as software gets better and better at being hyper-addictive (farmville?).

This is an actual problem - overstimulation from TV already causes ADD left and right. Now with every kid having a smartphone (if not now, in the near future), how are parents going to monitor that usage? Or will systems automatically emerge that allow parental control if it becomes a problem?

"overstimulation from TV already causes ADD left and right."

<citation needed>

pediatrics.aappublications.org

"Left and right* might be an overstatement, though.

"People are not present enough and it's proven that when you're in the moment, you're happier: guardian.co.uk"

This article seems to say that people who are daydreaming or not thinking about what they are currently doing are less happy, but that doesn't imply that checking your email or twitter falls into that category.

I think a parent plopping their kid in front of the TV or handing them an iPhone to play a game to keep busy is just bad parenting (assuming they do it all the time, I'm sure some parents just want a break sometimes). But that is very different from actively checking email or using twitter/facebook to communicate with friends and family.

Why is there such a high value placed on "unplugging"? And in this case lets assume that you are unplugging from social media, not a game or TV show.

I don't know anything about parenting but I agree with Geoff, it is on the parents to regulate their behavior. A kid shouldn't play with an iPad for six hours for the same reason they shouldn't watch TV for that long.

I also agree that any use of the words "humanity" and "death" in this context is overly-dramatic. It is unfortunate that I have this urge to bury my head in my phone while walking in the West Village on a beautiful day. And it is rude that I excessively communicate with people digitally while I am hanging out with others in real life. But those are personal habits that I am working to change.

I really doubt that humanity is suffering and people are dying because I watch Twitter more than TV these days.

I didn't think it had to be stated plainly that this is by no means a crisis of serious consequence. I do think that people are paying less attention to important moments/parts of their lives because of social media. (As Scoble says he's having issues in his marriage) As bloggers do, he took something and almost hyperbolized it.

And yes, Geoff, the study covered in the Guardian article focused on daydreaming/the mind being elsewhere --which SM tends to trigger.

"It is unfortunate that I have this urge to bury my head in my phone while walking in the West Village on a beautiful day."

"I do think that people are paying less attention to important moments/parts of their lives because of social media."

The theme of these two comments are the most interesting to me in this discussion. Whenever this topic comes up, people always seem to make the assumption that anything you could be doing on a device is inferior to your immediate surroundings. I don't get this at all. Obviously you find the information more interesting, so why fight that urge? What makes choosing it over things around you so bad? Is it because you are staring at a phone? What if we changed how you consumed it? What if there was a direct line into your brain/eyeball (ala google glasses)? Would it still be bad then?

Perhaps it's the kind of activity you are doing that makes it bad? Is watching a shitty TV show bad but reading Plato is ok? What if it's a really good TV show?

"Obviously you find the information more interesting, so why fight that urge?"

I sometimes force myself to not look at my email or listen to music during my commute to work just so I can enjoy the sights and sounds of New York summer, and I'm always happy when I do. This is not to say I'd be happier without my iPhone, but balance requires fighting the urge to check my mail.

This post[1] should be relevant to your interests.

[1] stevecorona.com

"My goal for giving up social media was to create more value in my life, quit hoarding information, and appreciate the time that I spent with friends."

I general I think this post is uninteresting. His conclusion is that we should be thoughtful about how we spend our time, and I would agree with that, but this idea isn't anything new - again, it's finding a balance.

So I think we are back to the core question: What types of social media are 'acceptable' for us to spend time on and which ones should be avoided? If you are learning or actively participating does that quality as Good Social Media? Does that make more passive things like Reddit/Twitter bad?

The argument that social media has negative effects on the individual and that it should be controlled or that it is degrading quality of life is absurd. Anything in excess will have negative effects on the individual and it is up to the person to find the balance that Geoff and Hursh are talking about.

Social media is moving us forward as a society in ways that swamp any negative effects on individuals who obsess over a 2x3 screen. We should thank Mark, Jack and Ev for bringing us closer to people who are different than us and helping us see that these differences are no big deal. I wrote about it here (sneakerheadvc.com) and think the creators of the platforms connect the world in this new way should be honored with the peace prize.

Wow, as hard as that is to follow, I really like playing devil's advocate. You have pointed out all of the good things that are certainly true and are exactly why I love social media and continue to use it everyday.

I do think that this sort glosses over huge portions of society. Everyone on this thread is well educated, well employed, living in NYC. Do you often look at the trending hashtags on twitter? Watch those conversations. There is no world saving happening there. It's easy for us to see the benefits but we aren't most people.

And your blog post is spot on. You should find a sociology student that needs a thesis topic.