sandy_coyote
Joined 18 years ago
Joined 18 years ago
Plus, smoking doesn't kill people; its pathological outcomes do. Similarly, looking at a phone screen might hurt a user's eyes, but it won't kill them; however, the decisions that user makes over time due to the effects of the subject matter they interact with might definitely put them at risk. And if aspects of that subject matter are deliberately amplified for their addictive properties, should platforms be regulated to control this?
Are LGBTQ people at a higher risk for suicide? Could hotline staff reduce suicide attempts with special training? Seems like you could measure this.
Thinking about other groups with a higher risk--veterans, abuse survivors, gambling addicts--are there suicide prevention programs for these groups and are they effective?
I do find that I read faster on an e-reader.
I think my only contradictory point would be: what is the aesthetic value of indexing information or reading more immersively? Surely there is one, but there may be a qualitatively different value in reading quickly but exposing oneself to more text. For example, I read the entirety of William Gibson's works last year. They went by in a blur, but I did find the speed of encountering his ideas through his novels ironically fitting for his subject matter.
I no longer buy printed books, but I do keep a few favorites around on a shelf because they look cool and remind me of my favorite reading experiences. I still have my Asimov's SF and comics, though. I'll never give those up.