I think people are misunderstanding my point. It’s not the existance of the internet, or YouTube, phones, cameras, etc. It’s the fact that we’re connected 24/7 and people tend to treat you like a weirdo if you disconnect. My question is if we’re truly better of with technology where one device does it all (creating the expectation of constant connectivity), or if we’d be better with having a phone that’s just a phone, a camera that’s just a camera, etc.
To be clear, I can see arguments both for and against it. If phones didn’t come with cameras, then cameras wouldn’t be as widespread. It’s because of how widespread cameras are that people have become more aware of police brutality. Additionally, because phone cameras are so common, it makes it easy for people to get into photography or filmmaking as a hobby. So in that sense, having a camera in every pocket is a good thing.
On the other hand, people have this weird expectation that, because you have a smart phone, you should always be reachable. The result is that people get worried or weirded out when they can’t reach you. They want to know why they went straight to voicemail, or why it took you a while to respond to their texts.
It’s also a lot easier to get addicted to things like social media when stuff like that can follow you wherever you go. On the one hand, it’s nice to have my friends in my pocket. On the other hand, my pocket rectangle regularly causes me anxiety due to the constant stream of news. I could disconnect, but then I’d be “living under a rock”.
Another pro, on the other hand, is that my handheld minipc is able to stream music, movies, TV shows, etc wherever I have a cellphone internet connection. That’s pretty awesome. I don’t need an iPod to listen to music, a portable DVD player to watch a movie, or a laptop to watch YouTube.
So I mean, I’m not really opposed to having an all-in-one device that fits in my pocket; I’m just questioning if they’re really that healthy. Like, is the trade-off worth it?
I think people are misunderstanding my point. It’s not the existance of the internet, or YouTube, phones, cameras, etc. It’s the fact that we’re connected 24/7 and people tend to treat you like a weirdo if you disconnect. My question is if we’re truly better of with technology where one device does it all (creating the expectation of constant connectivity), or if we’d be better with having a phone that’s just a phone, a camera that’s just a camera, etc.
To be clear, I can see arguments both for and against it. If phones didn’t come with cameras, then cameras wouldn’t be as widespread. It’s because of how widespread cameras are that people have become more aware of police brutality. Additionally, because phone cameras are so common, it makes it easy for people to get into photography or filmmaking as a hobby. So in that sense, having a camera in every pocket is a good thing.
On the other hand, people have this weird expectation that, because you have a smart phone, you should always be reachable. The result is that people get worried or weirded out when they can’t reach you. They want to know why they went straight to voicemail, or why it took you a while to respond to their texts.
It’s also a lot easier to get addicted to things like social media when stuff like that can follow you wherever you go. On the one hand, it’s nice to have my friends in my pocket. On the other hand, my pocket rectangle regularly causes me anxiety due to the constant stream of news. I could disconnect, but then I’d be “living under a rock”.
Another pro, on the other hand, is that my handheld minipc is able to stream music, movies, TV shows, etc wherever I have a cellphone internet connection. That’s pretty awesome. I don’t need an iPod to listen to music, a portable DVD player to watch a movie, or a laptop to watch YouTube.
So I mean, I’m not really opposed to having an all-in-one device that fits in my pocket; I’m just questioning if they’re really that healthy. Like, is the trade-off worth it?