Ask Slashdot: Because of Social Media, Are We Reading Fewer Books? (theatlantic.com) 136
Long-time Slashdot reader destinyland writes:
Twitter did something that I would not have thought possible: It stole reading from me," argues a former New Yorker writer (who was once nominated for the Pulitzer Prize). In a new piece in the Atlantic this week, they argue that Twitter "hacked itself so deep into my circuitry that it interrupted the very formation of my thoughts..."
"For the past few years, I've felt a strange restlessness as I read, and the desk in my bedroom is piled with wonderful books I gave up on long before the halfway mark. I had started to wonder if we were in a post-reading age, or if reading loses its pleasure as we age — but I knew that wasn't really true... I had suspected for a while that my reading problems had something to do with Twitter, and several times I'd tried leaving the phone in another room — but it was no good. Twitter didn't live in the phone. It lived in me."
Maybe it all comes back to brain plasticity — the idea that our brains adapt to whatever activities we're doing the most, in a kind of "accidental optimization." But what happens if we feed our minds a continual diet of quick bursts of information? It's what I call hit-and-run reading — skimming headlines, comments, comment headlines, tweets, pictures on Instagram... Doesn't it seem like that would have some kind of impact?
I once spoke to a trial attorney who complained about the ever-shortening attention spans of juries...
I'm still haunted by a free 37-minute documentary I saw two years ago on YouTube called Bookstores: How to Read More Books in the Golden Age of Content. It followed Max Joseph, the former host of the TV show Catfish (and the documentary's director) as he spoke to several reading experts (including a speed reader) about how he could form better habits. But at one point he calculates he was spending 20 minutes a day just on news, plus another 30 minutes a day on social media — which adds up to 304 hours a year that could've been spent reading books. (Enough time to read 30 books a year.)
And along with that goes the mental exercise of retaining an entire books' worth of material in your brain at one time. (The documentary even suggests that in our busy world, reading becomes a kind of "forced meditation.") So does your focus come back if you just keep on reading books?
I've been forcing myself to stay offline for one day a week, to at least create the time for revisiting that stack of unfinished books by my bed. But is that enough? The Atlantic's author titled their piece, "You Really Need to Quit Twitter." After describing how it had somehow stolen the joy of reading, the piece closes by asking, "What is it stealing from you?"
What's been the experience of Slashdot readers? Share your own thoughts and stories in the comments.
Are we reading fewer books because of social media?
"For the past few years, I've felt a strange restlessness as I read, and the desk in my bedroom is piled with wonderful books I gave up on long before the halfway mark. I had started to wonder if we were in a post-reading age, or if reading loses its pleasure as we age — but I knew that wasn't really true... I had suspected for a while that my reading problems had something to do with Twitter, and several times I'd tried leaving the phone in another room — but it was no good. Twitter didn't live in the phone. It lived in me."
Maybe it all comes back to brain plasticity — the idea that our brains adapt to whatever activities we're doing the most, in a kind of "accidental optimization." But what happens if we feed our minds a continual diet of quick bursts of information? It's what I call hit-and-run reading — skimming headlines, comments, comment headlines, tweets, pictures on Instagram... Doesn't it seem like that would have some kind of impact?
I once spoke to a trial attorney who complained about the ever-shortening attention spans of juries...
I'm still haunted by a free 37-minute documentary I saw two years ago on YouTube called Bookstores: How to Read More Books in the Golden Age of Content. It followed Max Joseph, the former host of the TV show Catfish (and the documentary's director) as he spoke to several reading experts (including a speed reader) about how he could form better habits. But at one point he calculates he was spending 20 minutes a day just on news, plus another 30 minutes a day on social media — which adds up to 304 hours a year that could've been spent reading books. (Enough time to read 30 books a year.)
And along with that goes the mental exercise of retaining an entire books' worth of material in your brain at one time. (The documentary even suggests that in our busy world, reading becomes a kind of "forced meditation.") So does your focus come back if you just keep on reading books?
I've been forcing myself to stay offline for one day a week, to at least create the time for revisiting that stack of unfinished books by my bed. But is that enough? The Atlantic's author titled their piece, "You Really Need to Quit Twitter." After describing how it had somehow stolen the joy of reading, the piece closes by asking, "What is it stealing from you?"
What's been the experience of Slashdot readers? Share your own thoughts and stories in the comments.
Are we reading fewer books because of social media?
How did this happen? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've visited Twitter a few times. I don't get it. What is so compelling to so many people? I just don't see the attraction.
Re:How did this happen? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is true for me as well. I got a Twitter account back when it became visible and have hardly logged in.
I also have a burner account that I use now and then to take a peek at some shiny object.
For me, it's a disturbing shit storm.
Re: (Score:2)
The trick with social media is always avoiding the "front page" which is usually a politically charged cesspool of irrelevance. Personally I find Twitter great - follow some startups like Boom Aerospace, etc., some mathematicians / physicists of interest, some VC firms, and a few other organizations. Same thing with reddit - subreddits can be great to follow so long as you avoid the "popular" trend page. With both I turn off updates so my phone isn't buzzing killing focus throughout the day.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
In the 1950s, old people were asking "what's so compelling about rock & roll?"
Re:How did this happen? (Score:5, Insightful)
In the 1950s, old people were asking "what's so compelling about rock & roll?"
Except that I "get" social media. Facebook is a great way to stay in touch with friends and family. LinkedIn is a nice way to maintain my professional network. I share photos on Instagram, videos on YouTube, answers on Quora, code on Stackoverflow.
They are all nice. They all have a purpose.
Only Twitter is total sh*t.
Re: (Score:2)
I see you successfully dodged Reddit.
Re:How did this happen? (Score:4)
You're friends aren't there telling you how "cool" and "hip" Twitter is. You have a method for accessing your friends and don't need this new technology. Normal people get a 'contact high' from social approval. Introverted people are unaffected by random atta-boy rewards.
What is there to get? (Score:5, Interesting)
I've visited Twitter a few times. I don't get it. What is so compelling to so many people?
Twitter is all about who you choose to follow, so I can't see that you could "visit a few times" and find anything of interest.
But think of it this way - there are interesting people on this Earth, with interesting things to say, Some of them have humor you enjoy. Some of them have art you enjoy. She of them might be doing deep research on a topic of interest, some of them might have extremely timely news they post often you find good to know.
You can find all of that on Twitter, so I really don't understand how you could not see someone finding at least one of those items of great interest to read.
Basically Twitter is interesting, if you find the people of interest and follow them. I find the finding part is mostly not done on Twitter, but is done outside Twitter where you read something you like from someone and decide to see what they have to offer on Twitter. Over time as you add or remove who you follow you build up a pretty useful feed of information.
The thing that ends up sucking people into Twitter too much, is the FOMO of missing some gem from this feed you have spent time crafting. You have to learn to let that possibility go, and just enjoy the gems you do find when you read, instead of constantly reading hoping for a new gem.
Re: (Score:2)
But think of it this way - there are interesting people on this Earth, with interesting things to say,
You can find all of that on Twitter
How? Tweets have a really short length limit, right? There's not rooom for "humor", "art", "deep research", or "timely news", is there?
I've seen a lot of lame quips, insane political nonsense, and links to where the real article, essay, blog post, or podcast is.
I don't doubt that a lot of people with interesting things to say are tweeting. I just doubt that's where they're saying their interesting things.
Is Twitter a substitute for RSS or something?
Re:What is there to get? (Score:5, Insightful)
How? Tweets have a really short length limit, right?
So do Haikus.
There's not rooom for "humor", "art", "deep research", or "timely news", is there?
Not everything needs to be an epic poem. Smart people can express themselves with few words.
Re: (Score:2)
Simple ideas? Sure. Quick comebacks and jokes? Absolutely. Deep insights into complex issues? Not likely. Which is why Twitter is such a terrible place: there is only space to express simple ideas and easy jokes, so it forces debate, insight, or even news to be expressed in such a form. Most ideas and problems in our society are more complicated than that, but of course tweets are hardly going to ignore such issues, so instead they reduce them to soundbytes that have no room for debate, but instead appeal t
Re: (Score:2)
Most ideas and problems in our society are more complicated than that, but of course tweets are hardly going to ignore such issues, so instead they reduce them to soundbytes that have no room for debate, but instead appeal to the reader's preconceived notions of who the "good guys" or "bad guys" are, with the result that it reinforces tribalism and encourages extremism.
After all, a tweet that says "shut up you Nazi fuck" or "lol the commies mad" flows a lot better than a subtle investigation of how an exclusion of immigrants builds an attitude of xenophobia, or that a lack of trust of the US governments makes socialization of essential services a risky prospect.
This was worth repeating.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
280 characters is about enough to describe the recipe for a good sandwich, WTF worth reading about could be described in 280 characters? I saw a blog post somewhere that they put together the 47 tweets it took to lay out a coherent plan for something and remember thinking, "That's the dumbest fucking thing I've seen on the Internet. So far."
Re: (Score:2)
I like Twitter for a few reasons.
I can get much closer to politicians and see what their thoughts on things are. News media only reports the key player's soundbites. I can also reply and see other people's replies, which often give an different perspective that the media doesn't. For example today when Priti Patel condemned racism towards England players, people replied with her own comments about it being okay to boo them when they take the knee, which is something you won't see in the news.
In the face of
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry to be the one to tell you this, but 1) most politicians have someone on staff manage their Twitter feed, they don't actually do it themselves and 2) most tweets are no longer than the almost identical sound bites carried by major media.
Re: (Score:2)
Shit politicians have someone manage their Twitter, but plenty don't. Donald Trump being a notable example.
Duh. (Score:3)
I've visited Twitter a few times. I don't get it. What is so compelling to so many people? I just don't see the attraction.
You don't have an attention span measured in seconds.
And I mean that literally.
That's why.
Re: How did this happen? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Compulsive extroversion and addictive FOMO behavior.
That's all I can figure out.
How astonishingly empty one's life must be to hang on every passing thought of some moron standing in line at Starbucks, even if they're "famous" or "witty"?
There was a twitter feed of WWI narrative, pushing headlines out day after day as if it was happening in real time, starting in 2014. That was pretty cool, highlighted how very slowly thing developed that, when foreshortened by history books, seem rapid.
Maybe, but .... (Score:4, Interesting)
In my case, I think I pretty much stopped reading books before "social media" was even a thing. When I was a kid, I read and read.... I won a contest at least 2 years in a row at the local library over the summer for reading 100 books and turning in a log of them.
I think it was high school and college that burnt me out on reading for pleasure? I mean, in high school, I had classes where I was forced to read various novels -- which were generally not too bad. But they picked a couple that I found really boring, and I started really disliking having those forced on me. By college, I just had a lot of content in textbooks to read, and didn't really enjoy ANY of that.
The other realization I had was that generally, I liked to finish an entire book in one sitting if at all possible. As a kid, that was pretty doable, since I really didn't have any other responsibilities. (If it took me a few days to get through a longer novel, I'd just stay up at night and read until I was about to fall asleep and couldn't read any more, and I'd stick a bookmark in it there to read the next evening.) But reading a book in little bits never worked well for me. I'd lose interest in finishing it if too much time went by between reading chapters, and I found disruptions that made me put a book down really annoying.
As an adult, I still like to pick up a magazine and read part of it. And sure, I read a lot of content online, especially since the search tools really help bring me things that are extremely relevant. But I just don't find myself reading fiction novels for pleasure anymore.
Re:Maybe, but .... (Score:5, Insightful)
You know what killed reading for me, the passivity of it, especially non-fiction. I mean, here I am in this forum, interactive reading, in a written world that continuously changes, one where I can write and share. Would I have spent this time passively reading before, seeking to escape the jock strap douche bag extroverts and their many annoyances, yes.
I read less because of the ENTIRE internet, not just social media (well with regards to real name social media, I don't eww yuck, I have a brain and have no desire to expose myself to every idiot on the internet). Computer gaming ate massively into reading, interactive story I write in doing, versus a passive read (I do still dearly enjoy reading, it feeds my imagination, I know others can not but I can create the written world in my mind, the colour, the tastes the sensations).
I use the same mind state to create simulation of real world actions to forecast the likely interactions and outcomes, whether people or stuff, psychology or physics. The more data the more accurate the mental models.
Re: (Score:2)
I let somebody talk me into reading a Dan Brown book a log while ago, and it came closer to getting me to stop reading fiction than social media ever did
Re: (Score:2)
fwiw Neal Stephenson is my go to for scifi and action, I really appreciate an author who can make a Unix admin a hero
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am in the same boat. When I read a book, it is pretty much going to be a 30-hour activity now. My retention is much lower now than I would like, but it was only ever a mild photographic memory.
Today there are just so many things competing for my time that it is hard to make reading fiction enjoyable for me.
Re:Maybe, but .... (Score:4, Insightful)
The other realization I had was that generally, I liked to finish an entire book in one sitting if at all possible. As a kid, that was pretty doable, since I really didn't have any other responsibilities. (
This. Reading a book in ten minute bursts over a few weeks of time simply doesn't work for me.
Re: (Score:2)
This.
Combined with everything everywhere seeking to capture your attention (TV, radio, internet, cereal box...), it leaves little downtime for focused reading.
What also happened to me is that I'm constantly in some kind of mental overdrive, pretty much unable to focus on any "passive" activity. Driving is at the limit of passive. Reading a book way over. Meaning I often don't even know what I'm reading about, because daydreaming...
Re: (Score:2)
Driving is at the limit of passive. Reading a book way over.
Have you tried audiobooks? Goes well with driving, too.
Re: (Score:2)
As I got older the book form-factor became less usable than a computer screen. For a typical novel I have to hold the book in a position where I can read it easily, which as I get older and more arthritic gets harder. There is no zoom control on paper either, although e-readers support that.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that I don't like to read. There are online authors whom I follow, forum posts akin to this (mainly Reddit, I will admit), and the story lines of RPGs.
I also have direct access to any TV show I want (more or less) whenever I just want some easy-to-digest entertainment.
When I was a kid, though, the books were the entertainment that was available. If TV wasn't showing something I wanted to watch right then and there, there wasn't much left to do, particularly in the evenings. So books were the escape
Re: (Score:2)
Damn. Are you me???
I was reading Stephen King cover to cover in the 7th grade. The droll "safe for school" novels in high school put my reading interest on life support. Then the classes on poetry my junior year finished the job. Gee, I'm going to read words someone wrote 400 years ago that I don't understand, talking about things I can't relate to. And this teacher individual is going to grade me and tell me that the impressions and interpretation I got from that are wrong and that I missed the "point
Re: (Score:2)
It's the bookstores (Score:2)
I used to browse for hours at the local Borders, have a drink, buy at least 5 magazines, and perhaps a book or two.
I purchased 1 book this year so far, and now Amazon seems to have gone away as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon is actually making physical bookstores now, weirdly enough.
Betteridge says No (Score:3)
And, based on my personal experience, I have to agree with him.
For a while, having a personal computer definitely cut into my reading time... but not so much anymore. I've probably read a couple dozen books so far this year.
The problem is the other ways (Score:5, Insightful)
At the advent of printed books, they were written by knowledgeable people and this knowledge was transferred to people who knew less about the subject.
Today you have far too many people writing books to make money or because it is fashionable in some circles to be an 'author'. A book or movie is strictly a one way exchange of information. Most online mediums are two-way, at least because of comments. I knew one guy who wrote books and sold them through Amazon with catchy titles like how to raise a teenager, without having raised one himself. Try posting that in a parenting forum. Or try lying about a highly technical subject in a place like Slashdot (or a forum specific to that subject matter). Many subjects are more accurately presented in Wikipedia than in Britannica (I personally know of some of them).
Book to online is a medium change. The real problem is not the number of books one reads. It is the signal to noise ratio online, and the lack of skill to navigate just that.
Not good or bad: different (Score:2)
We are reading fewer books, and that's a good thing.
I don't think it's a good - or a bad - thing: it's a different thing. Once you know enough of a subject to be able to accurately filter the noise from the signal then online is the place to go. However, when learning a new subject then I tend to use books initially since, like any neural network filter, my brain needs training on data that contain lots of signal before it can safely reject the noise.
Re: (Score:2)
Books and movies might be one-way, but a good book or movie is a powerful stimulus to your imagination.
I largely stopped reading books because of the price. A trade paperback novel in Australia costs upwards of AUD$25.
One good book I have recently acquired (gift voucher from children) is "Salt, fat, acid, heat" by Samin Nosrat. Various food forums have been raving about it, and I'm always up for improved knowledge WRT food.
Hardback: AUD$55. OK, I'll read it, bookmark some interesting recipes, and it'll join
Re: (Score:2)
I'd agree, and would argue it's the "flattening of the slope of the secondhand" that's the problem leading to paralysis of choice.
Used to be, you'd have a coterie of people you knew interested in one or more of the same subjects. Those people would filter the information you get.
The 2021 "conventional wisdom" is some nonsense about easy access to all the information and eliminating gatekeepers. But those gatekeepers were not just about political, economic, racist, or whatever-bias we complain about today.
Re: (Score:2)
Most online mediums are two-way, at least because of comments.
Well, they were. Most of the news sites, for example, removed comments because the plebs dared to question their accuracy, or to have opinions of their own.
Not because of social media ... (Score:3)
... but my book reading (paper or Kindle) has almost disappeared.
In my case, it's the Internet in general. On YouTube, I can watch videos of classroom lectures by great professors. I can google almost anything I am interested in, and it's where I get my news.
That resource is current while most non-fiction books are obsolete when they drop.
Re: (Score:2)
Same here.
I was an avid reader in my teens and early 20s. Then came the World Wide Web and everything changed for me. Long before social media was even a thing I was digesting information in byte sizes. I went from reading novels and textbooks to quickly reading headlines, comments, and other short posts.
I'm trying to get back into reading books. I still buy them and they sit on my bookshelves waiting to be opened but I find I'll start one and before I get even halfway through I've moved onto another bo
Re: (Score:2)
I can google almost anything I am interested in, and it's where I get my news.
And that's the root [wikipedia.org] of a lot of society's current problem.
As if you needed another reason (Score:3)
Social media can have some benefits, but for me the cost is way too high, and too much of it is total garbage.
If you feel like you're spending too much time on it, force yourself to go on a 2-week break, no exceptions. You'll get some of your life back, and a whole lot of your time back. Your emotional health will improve, you'll almost certainly feel more at peace (after the initial withdrawal symptoms of course). Give it a try!
What is this bunch of crap? No, it's because of (Score:3)
We as in not me (Score:2)
Because I read books and don't use SM that much (unless you count /.)
Audio Books (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't participate in social media so I don't have that time problem, but as far as finding the time to physically read a book goes, I've found that unabridged audio books were the solution to my lack of reading books "problem" that developed over the years.
I now "read" several books a month, often while doing housework, which requires about zero conscious thought, so instead of tedium it's now my quality time to listen to a book.
It took me "awhile" to get used to listening to a book, but once it caught on with me there was no going back, I'm consuming many more books than I used to, it's fantastic.
Re: (Score:2)
I listened to World Ward Z audio book and it was far more enjoyable than watching that mess of a movie
Re: (Score:2)
I read the book after the movie... it's a much better read.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I'm a fast reader, because I find audiobooks intolerably slow. I do like a good radio play, but someone reading a book to me is like wading through treacle (and that's not even counting the fact that they pronounce things wrong and all the other issues I have).
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone reads differently. I tend to read each word, so it takes several reading sessions to finish a book; and when I do, I usually stop at a chapter. My wife reads quickly, and she admits she doesn't pick up everything that I do; when she has to put it down (because she didn't quite have enough time to finish it in one go), she just stops where-ever she is.
Re: (Score:2)
That's interesting. My wife and I are the opposites of your wife and yourself. My wife reads every word, takes a long time to read a book and can't re-read them. I definitely skim read and like to re-read books - after a while the details will be fresh again, even if I remember the basic plot. I also just stop where-ever I am, and can have a couple of books on the go at the same time - one at home on an e-reader and one on my phone for when I might need to pass some time (work break, waiting for someone, wh
Re: (Score:2)
On my 1+ hour long commute (each way); I started listening to audio books which were a lot less repetitious than the radio or just music.
Listened about 40 over 2 years before the pandemic hit, and my commute went to 0.
Like the comment above about listening during housework, I need to be doing something with my hands (flipping pages works) while listening, but not something that really distracts me or causes me to think too much; as I do want to comprehend.
Podcasts and audio books (Score:3)
I am reading fewer books, but that time is not now spent on social media, it's spent listening to long-form podcasts. I've always gravitated more towards non-fiction than fiction, and right now, we are in a new golden age of radio.
Audio books are also taking up a lot of the slack, although not specifically for me.
Books are boring (Score:3)
90% of people who read books did it because there were few options. Nothing to watch on TV. It was a pain to rent a movie or go to the theater. Books were popular only because there were no other ways for people to feed their ADHD with quick entertainment or dopamine hits. Books are pretty boring and they don't feel very current. Your brain has to do extra work to build a picture of what the heck is going on. I mean have you read a novel like say War and Peace? FFS it pages of drivel. There is no attraction where there is no simplicity.
Re: (Score:2)
Tolstoy should have split War and Peace into Tolstoy on War, Tolstoy on Peace and the novel War and Peace. The novel is good. The discourses on War and on Peace could be burned and I certainly wouldn't care.
I read much when younger. Then TV went through an era with good shows and I watched 40 or 50 hours a week while doing schoolwork, going to college, and then early years post-graduation. I still did read a lot even then, but many hours elapsed in front of a TV. Using a VCR to skip commercials was great
Re: (Score:2)
I forced myself to finish reading War and Peace because I hate leaving a thing half done. But holy smokes doing that hurt.
Perhaps audio books are a better option for folks that can't sit still to read. They work well for people with reading difficulties. I know my Wife prefers to consume books that way.
I was personally hesitant to get a Kindle until I handled a friends, the E-Ink displays really are better/easier to read from than backlit LCD screens. I usually keep mine in the car and am always finding opp
The wise use the internet to read books (Score:3)
Lesser creatures have Twitter etc and should stay in their lane.
Worth disconnecting and slowing down (Score:2)
I have been reading MORE books lately (Score:2)
Reading books is a great way to pass the time on a long train or bus journey (or while sitting waiting for the train or bus to show up).
Re: (Score:2)
Not really.. (Score:2)
I'm not a huge social media consumer, I do a quick scroll on IG to see what friends are up to daily..and I *hate* watching videos (would much rather read an article on a topic), so a lot of the media people consume now doesn't really appeal to me.
Funnily enough, over 15yrs ago I kinda gave up on reading; income was low and my time to read was sporadic, and so I often ended up 'renting' library books so I could finish them.
Not long after I started seeing news about e-readers, was dubious, but happened on a S
Been on /. long before there was FB or Twitter (Score:2)
I think /. prepared me well for all the social media that followed.
I just wished other mediums would have adopted its moderation system.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If this site could fix the abuses that are obvious in logs or by semantic analysis then Slashdot could return to a state closer to its glory days with an actual community.
There's no fucking money in that approach, the marketeers, lawyers and generally greedy own the internet now. /. is as low as I will sink, and some days that feels too slimey. How can you tell when the internet is lying? When its lips are moving.
I got the cliks so where's my check, I don't wanna do real work?
The experiment is difficult (Score:4, Interesting)
The question is empirical, so it's best answered by taking time off the constant stimulation of the Internet to see if reading resumes.
There is of course an xkcd about this.
https://xkcd.com/597/ [xkcd.com]
Yeah nah. (Score:2)
Perfect time to use that wonderful Aussie turn of phrase.
I read fewer books, definitely. But none of that is down to social media per se, and much of it down to the fact that there's so much available that I'd rather pick up something specific to my tastes at the moment rather than committing to something that might take me a few weeks. This has shifted my reading toward shorter forms of all types, not particularly social media.
It's rather a mix (Score:2)
Among:
- audio books
- reviews w/ spoilers
- media mixed-talking about those books
- books don't fit into a 6" dispaly.
entertainment (Score:2)
Because of tablets, I read more (Score:2)
I look at it this way... those who read because they enjoy it always will. Those who read to pass the time have found something else. If they later discover they miss read
Love reading (Score:2)
Not a fan of social media, I prefer socializing with people when not covidized.
I read about 17-20 books a year, generally at breakfast during the quiet time in the morning. I read everything from computing, sci-fi, philosophy, psychology, nuclear industry, law.
Currently I'm readying the "Egyptian Book of the Dead". last two books before that were psychology, before that one on Javascript ES6 and before that "Continuous Integration".
I keep a book around to read if I am ever waiting. Love reading - love b
Re: (Score:2)
Oppps, I forgot to add, if you want to read more I find this helps. I keep an order going on Amazon for books in the cart, I'll order 10-20 books at a time. When I'm ready and my bills are cleared I go ahead and order them on the slowest cheapest shipping.
Then I stack the books I'm about to read with bookends where I can get at them easily, so it is easy to find a new book - because I;ve already thought about that. Then I just take the next one I feel like reading. Books in my queue right now are: The
Nope (Score:2)
No (Score:2)
"Social media" (broadly defined) has had little effect and what it has had has been to introduce me to new books to read.
It's still reading... (Score:2)
I follow Slashdot, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Reddit and when I am bored, Instagram. But I still read. I read a book every couple of days or so. Some are re-reads, of course, I am not made of money.
Totally possible (Score:2)
While I was reading this article, I also had a build running in another window and a social media site open on my mobile next to the computer. Totally possible.
Especially now while libraries are closed in my country due to C19 and I have to get my books off archive.org. The resistance to switch to another website is just so much lower. (Yes, I don't do the social media via dedicated installed apps, for what it's worth.)
Deep Dive reading (Score:3, Insightful)
Kids, not social media (Score:2)
Before I had kids I used to read books. Hell, before I was married I even wrote fiction.
I've been forcing myself to keep off the kids for one day a week, in the hope of getting back the joy of reading. Hasn't worked so far. The damned little ones are persistent.
Who has the time? (Score:2)
Before covid, I spent 12 hours a day on getting ready for work, driving to work, working, driving home from work, and changing out of work clothes. Add in cooking, cleaning, shopping, taking care of my dogs, and maybe getting some exercise and that is 16 hours of the day. During lunch, I take care of things I can't do before or after work. I might get a chance to read on the weekends, unless I want to do something like go to the pool, go to the beach,
Its only Monday (Score:2)
Yes. And Slashdot is a social medium. (Score:2)
You choose how to spend the time you have available. If you spend it one way, you don't spend it another. Time that I spend on Slashdot isn't spent reading books. Or programming. Or watching movies. Etc.
No (Score:2)
You might be reading fewer books. I'm reading about the same number of books per week, while also enjoying audio books when driving so I can devote the level of attention needed to drive safely and also enjoy a story.
If anything, my social media habits have encouraged me to anticipate authors publishing new works, and even trying out some of their other fan
Man Oh Man This Is True (Score:2)
The quickly presented information, short-form commentary/discussion...
I used to read three or four books per month; a combination of non-fiction and fiction. Now? It probably takes me 4 - 6 weeks to read a single book. I set aside time to read but often find myself reaching for my phone, even after I've intentionally set it aside.
I want to 'just check something' and then up browsing for thirty minutes bef
Not me (Score:2)
I'm not on social media but on my 6th kindle (unlimited) and I read 1-2 books a day but I may be a minority, both of us.
Computer games and the pub (Score:2)
I essentially stopped reading fiction in the 1980's when computer gaming took over what spare time was left after the pub. Eventually the internet allowed me to stop using hardcopy technical references, much, much later. Took many years to stop buying books destined to never be read though.
Social media played and plays no part in that, it replaces a small chunk of my in person socialising by doing some of the chatting aspect online. I still spend the majority of my pc + mobile device time playing games on t
Recycled Fear (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No (Score:2)
I've been reading more books the last few years, at the expense of tv watching (though there's actually a lot of good tv out there too)
more generally: competition for attention (Score:2)
IMHO this is likely not really about social media, except for the fact that some people (possibly even a majority of people?) spend a lot of time on particular websites which happen to be called that. But regardless of whether or not the websites you're spending time on are "social media" and regardless of what your other hobbies are, that's all time that you spend not-reading books. [old man voice]In the old days, we had fewer distractions and sometimes the best way to pass the time was to read a book.[/ol
Books? (Score:2)
Taking care of the IT for about 8 home computers/devices on at least 5 different versions of two operating systems has occupied all my time that I might have spent reading books.
Not a twit (Score:2)
And I have no intention of getting an account.
A friend posted what was supposed to be a thoughtful essay? on faceplant. I followed the link... really? A train of logic that's in sentence/post/sentence/post/... WHY WOULD YOU USE THAT PLATFORM to write something?
The protocol was intended to send short messages on pagers, and you would then call and find out.
And then, I see, someone talking about "following" someone - so, you're a follower, and you want everyone else to be a follower, too? That's like capitali
Wrong crisis? (Score:2)
Is reading fewer books really that much of a crisis?
What I would be far more concerned about is how social media is making people stupider, causing them to fall for stuff that is harmful that they otherwise would not have, and the endless telemetry/stalking by the companies that run these sites.
The author of this article really missed the giant forest fire to put out the lone burning tree in a wide open field. :-\
History.. (Score:2)
But really, as I follow various authors, I have mostly seen
Be selective - and nix Twitter (Score:2)
Nope (Score:2)
Because I use audiobooks. That allows me to "read" while doing other things. I'm rarely just sitting and staring at a book.
Time in general (Score:2)
Discord (Score:2)
Any recommendations on finding a book club?
The way I've found mine so far, are book clubs associated with discord groups for hobbies I enjoy. They've been over zoom.
Plus it's a base of people to talk about a topic with even outside of just the books.
There may also be ways to find local book clubs but I've not really tried that out yet...