It seems obvious to me that when people idolise the 90s and before, they're mostly talking about the fact that there were still significant areas of life that had avoided complete atomisation. I don't think many people are really arguing the law was better, or that peoples' material conditions were super amazing, just mainly that it was actually slightly achievable to go out and TALK to people.

It at least feels, to significant numbers of people, that atomisation has significantly increased in the couple decades since 2005. And for all the horrible things you can rightly point out about the 90s, being able to actually have a fucking friendly conversation or a friend or two, basically on demand, certainly made it a lot better for people.

I remember as a kid we would regularly go to the town square, have a friendly chat with the baker, have a friendly chat with the greengrocer, friendly chat at the corner shop, get some advice from the ironmonger, talk to some weirdo while we waited for a bus, regularly asked people for directions, etc. All in a single morning. Because going out of town to shop was much rarer, we were known locally as a poor family, so half the shops gave us an unofficial discount and a smile. And all that didn't happen because I was a kid, it happened then because the bakery is now a chain where you can only order on a computer screen, because the greengrocer and ironmonger shut down, because the corner shop is now a supermarket and the staff change every week and they give 0 shits because they only pay minimum age, because there is no bus where we're going now (and talking on the bus is seen as weird now), because nobody is supposed to need to ask for directions anymore. These are all things that have changed just since the early 2000s, and whether they realise it or not, this is what made the 'vibe' that people miss.

The 90s could've been hell on Earth, but if you got to experience it with some fucking company, then people will be nostalgic for it, and I don't think that's necessarily wrong.

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 30 points 4 days ago (11 children)

It at least feels, to significant numbers of people, that atomisation has significantly increased in the couple decades since 2005.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say the internet is responsible for most of this

[–] CarbonScored@hexbear.net 23 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 15 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (3 children)

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.

[–] CarbonScored@hexbear.net 14 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 10 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] CarbonScored@hexbear.net 5 points 4 days ago

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.

[–] TheLepidopterists@hexbear.net 8 points 4 days ago

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.

[–] AssortedBiscuits@hexbear.net 3 points 4 days ago

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.

load more comments (9 replies)

load more comments (24 replies)