I agree with Nir that "hijack" isn't the right term for the majority of cases, but also agree with Lembke's opinion about what's really going on. The use of the term "hijacked" to refer to...
I agree with Nir that "hijack" isn't the right term for the majority of cases, but also agree with Lembke's opinion about what's really going on. The use of the term "hijacked" to refer to "overcome by severe addiction" is not new, and really does help to illustrate the loss of agency that can come along with any addiction. If you can be addicted to social media, and your mind can be hijacked by an addiction, you can be hijacked by social media. "Hijacked" just feels more like the last stage of the addiction where you're compulsively scrolling social media like a meth addict trying to get their next fix of a drug they both don't want but simultaneously need (I used to know a recovering meth addict, this was his description of his addiction)
I honestly feel like Nir is kind of avoiding to answer the argument of Dr. Lembke, who seems to make more of the argument that it's possible that people get addicted to social media while Nir...
I honestly feel like Nir is kind of avoiding to answer the argument of Dr. Lembke, who seems to make more of the argument that it's possible that people get addicted to social media while Nir seems to be arguing semantics about using the word hijack.
The fact that he advertises like hell at the end really doesn't make it seem any better.
When the only real social media in the game is owned by a sociopath and his enablers plus the tendency to optimize for engagement in the first place, yes. Give me a non algorithmic user...
When the only real social media in the game is owned by a sociopath and his enablers plus the tendency to optimize for engagement in the first place, yes. Give me a non algorithmic user controllable experience and then we'll talk about whether it's 'social media' itself doing it
I agree with Nir that "hijack" isn't the right term for the majority of cases, but also agree with Lembke's opinion about what's really going on. The use of the term "hijacked" to refer to "overcome by severe addiction" is not new, and really does help to illustrate the loss of agency that can come along with any addiction. If you can be addicted to social media, and your mind can be hijacked by an addiction, you can be hijacked by social media. "Hijacked" just feels more like the last stage of the addiction where you're compulsively scrolling social media like a meth addict trying to get their next fix of a drug they both don't want but simultaneously need (I used to know a recovering meth addict, this was his description of his addiction)
I honestly feel like Nir is kind of avoiding to answer the argument of Dr. Lembke, who seems to make more of the argument that it's possible that people get addicted to social media while Nir seems to be arguing semantics about using the word hijack.
The fact that he advertises like hell at the end really doesn't make it seem any better.
When the only real social media in the game is owned by a sociopath and his enablers plus the tendency to optimize for engagement in the first place, yes. Give me a non algorithmic user controllable experience and then we'll talk about whether it's 'social media' itself doing it