Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

This point always gets made in any similar discussions. I think on it's face it makes sense; why wouldn't a freer flow of information be good? But I've come to believe that maybe this is too simplistic a view of the actual effects. History teaches us that people are strongly tribalistic. While it's true that disparate groups can sometimes come together and augment their success, it's also true that proximity often causes conflict. There's probably a strongly evolutionary mechanism behind this. So while it might feel like the free availability of information and the free availability of empathy are one and the same, they really aren't. And might it turn out that such a misconception could do real harm?



I agree. It's true that it is easier than ever to have instant access to just about anyone in the world, but because it's so easy, we become less interested in actually investing in people and forming lasting bonds. Why bother when we can get what we need without? What used to be genuine connections formed by necessity and shared experiences have now become quick and easy transactions. Social media and the gig economy have made interpersonal relations into fast food, and the world feels smaller and less fullfilling because of it.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: