Doomscrolling ourselves to death
Many commenters see “doomscrolling” and algorithmic feeds as a genuine threat to attention, mental health, and literacy, especially for children and teens, comparing social media’s pull to addictive drugs or earlier moral panics about TV. Others counter that people still read—just in different formats—and argue the real issue is not books vs. screens but whether we are consuming shallow, fast-paced content that corrodes critical thinking and long-form focus. The thread also explores whether AI and digital tools can be harnessed to improve education and access to knowledge, or whether they mostly amplify shortcut-seeking, cheating, and intellectual stagnation.
Scope of the Problem: Doomscrolling, Attention, and Literacy
- Many agree that smartphones, algorithmic feeds, and “infinite scroll” have measurably damaged attention spans and made long-form reading harder, even for formerly heavy readers.
- Some see this as part of a longer decline in literacy and reading comprehension, citing PISA/OECD data and a viral magazine piece on elite students struggling with books. Others dispute the strongest claims (“students can’t read at all”) as exaggeration or misinterpretation of stats.
Is This Just Another Moral Panic?
- One camp argues every new medium (books, TV, calculators) triggered similar panics and we adapted; technology isn’t uniquely catastrophic.
- Counterpoint: current changes are faster and more pervasive (TV → internet → smartphone → social media → AI in decades vs centuries). Past fears weren’t all wrong; criticism helped shape better outcomes.
Social Media vs Earlier Media
- Many describe social media (especially TikTok‑style feeds, Reddit defaults, X, Instagram) as qualitatively worse than TV: more addictive, personalized, fragmented, and identity‑shaping.
- Algorithmic feeds are repeatedly compared to “digital drugs” or opium, with calls for regulation (age limits, opt‑in recommendation feeds). Others push back on drug analogies as overstated but still accept serious harm, especially for teens.
AI, Reading, and Learning
- Some see AI as accelerating cheating and removing the “friction” essential to learning.
- Others report huge benefits: instant explanations, vocabulary help, personalized tutoring, particularly for motivated learners.
- Skeptics note that most people will use AI to avoid effort rather than deepen understanding; effectiveness “at scale” is unclear.
Books, Classics, and Content Quality
- Several argue the crisis is less about “books vs not‑books” and more about depth, difficulty, and reflection vs shallow, optimized entertainment.
- Non‑fiction and self‑help books are criticized as padded “one‑blog‑post ideas.” Good long‑form (including technical and history texts) is still seen as irreplaceable.
- Others stress that reading itself isn’t inherently virtuous; outcomes depend on what and how you read, and on fostering critical thinking.
Coping Strategies and Self‑Awareness
- Many describe personal “brain rot,” anxiety, and compulsive checking, including on HN itself.
- Tactics mentioned: blocking sites (Pi‑hole, DNS), using dumb/“minimal” phones, removing apps, book clubs, analog tools (pen and paper), strict screen limits for kids.
- Thread repeatedly notes the irony that the doomscrolling problem is being debated on an all‑text, upvote‑driven site that can itself become a mild form of doomscrolling.