this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2025
107 points (97.3% liked)
Slop.
553 readers
333 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: Do not post public figures, these should be posted to c/gossip
founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say the internet is responsible for most of this
I was extremely online in the 90s, but there was a real feeling the internet was "somewhere else". Because you had to find a desktop and shut down the house phone to get on it, it took effort and planning, almost as much as walking down to the local shops. And because it was "Somewhere else" you had to weigh up being there over doing other things, in other places.
I'd say the smartphone, and really, proper 3g and substantial data allowances killed real life.
Additionally, at the same time there was the slow monetisation of the commons. Libraries shut down, squares and pavements lost public seating and became places for outdoor cafes that weren't the type that let a kid sip a coffee for 5 hours with friends because they knew they'd be back as cashed up adults. Quiet local dive pubs became either overly loud clubs or sports bars, or shockingly expensive gastros. So not only did the internet go from "somewhere else" to "Right here, all the time" but all the other "somewhere else"'s disappeared.
This is at least partially because the old places became uneconomical with the internet taking people away.
Social activity is a zero sum game.
For a very long time, the Internet was seen as a place for cranks that fortunately didn't spill into real life. It's still the place for cranks but now real life is online as well.
I partly blame those TouchTune jukeboxes (which themselves are a consequence of the Internet) for the decline of the bar atmosphere.
Before them, each bar had their own eclectic collection of songs, which either slapped, sucked or were somewhere in between, but they were all unique and reflected the atmosphere of the place they were in. Now every place has the same flashy RGB Internet connected screen kiosk that theoretically has hundreds of thousands of songs to pick from, but almost everybody in every bar picks the same pop, country or dad-rock slop.
Even the quiet bars that adopted those jukeboxes became loud clubs not long after.
I'd have to agree. The internet combined with the capitalist model, anyway. Bourgeois control and mindless pursuit of profit, regardless of the not-directly-monetary benefits of previous methods, was an essential element.
How do we fix it? I seriously think this will remain a problem in a socialist world. What do we do to mitigate atomisation created by people sitting at home on the internet during all the free time they have in-between going to work?
I don't think it's just capitalism at fault here. The internet existing at all will still play this role of removing people's need to go anywhere for social activity. The internet has essentially replaced all social activity people were seeking outside or with meeting up with friends previously.
You're not wrong - The internet is, in some aspects, an inherently atomising and isolating thing, that is also addicting. I do think the pre-corporate internet was a significantly healthier (though also significantly flawed) ecosystem. And I do think the world sans capitalism would return to significantly more local and 'friendly' services, stalls, and public areas that would largely improve the problem.
That being said, further help, initiatives and incentives probably would still need to exist to coax people out of addictive self-isolation. I personally have no idea what that would look like - I can only wish I had meaningful experience and knowledge of how to coalesce people into fun joint activities - but it's an important question that should be answered.
Maybe if we get rid of online services that are paid for solely by advertising or data selling?
This would kill almost all social media services (the big ones anyway) and it would return to a decentralised system of hobbiest-run online communities over time.
I still think this began before social media though.
That'd certainly help massively, I suppose I just bundle that measure up in my idea of moving away from capitalism. I agree there's more to be addressed than just social media (though that's a large part), but it's hard to predict precisely what the internet would become after that measure alone.
I would guess it could take a long time of trial, error, and research into how to best incorporate the internet into our lives without compromising actual quality of life.
I feel like (emphasis on feel, I'm just spit balling) reducing how much of the internet exists on mobile devices could help.
We had "social media" back in the day in the form of old school (non-news aggregator) webforums, live journal, Myspace, chat rooms, etc, but you had to sit at a specific desk in your house to utilize it. You probably weren't also playing videogames, you weren't streaming Netflix, you weren't doing it between every step in a multi step chore.
I think raising the barrier to entry a little (and getting rid of styles of content designed to addict people specifically, including most social media designed in the last decade or so, maybe a little further back even) makes it something people will do for a bit, before moving on to other activities that are possibly more social.
If Instagram is only checkable on a desktop, you're not going to ignore your friends to scroll it when you go out to a restaurant with them.
I thought about this, and my conclusion is that personal computing itself has to be completely overhauled. Personal computing started out as a petty bourgeois hobby. Your average prole wasn't fucking around with mainframes or PCs during the 70s and 80s. The closest thing to a computer that an actual member of the working class interacted with were arcades in third places.
My sketch of what needs to happen:
Computing goes back to the mainframe-client model. The mainframe would be various servers set up to service a particular physical community (town, suburb, city) and the client is a smartphone.
The community-issued smartphones are all connected to a community intranet that's handled by those servers and only connected to the community intranet, with exception being its basic functionality as a phone.
Average people are restricted or banned from almost all other computing devices and peripherals (consoles, PCs, printers, smart devices). Exceptions would be something like a software dev being loaned a laptop to hone on their coding skills or disabled people getting smart devices to help with their disability.
"Classic" computing devices will all be stored and maintained within a community center, perhaps in the same place as the community servers. So, people can still play videogames or do film editing, but instead of doing it at home, they would do it all in a third space. Convenience is sacrificed for the sake of deatomization.
The "classic" computing devices will be maintained by hobbyists and professionals. So, instead of building an individual gaming PC for their own individual use, the PC gamer would be in charge of building multiple gaming PCs. This has an added advantage of training people.
The computers within the community center has access to the internet instead of just the community intranet. This is where "classic" social media could still exist.
This sketch isn't perfect (it doesn't have a good answer for privacy concerns), but the current status quo has got to go.