View Single Post
Old 20th November 2021, 06:05 PM   #53
Roger Ramjets
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,718
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Wasting time

10 hours a day spent playing on a screen isn't achieving much.


That's quite a long post. How long did it take you to write it?

The report, which was released Monday, included how much time we spend daily using our tablets, smartphones, personal computers, multimedia devices, video games, radios, DVDs, DVRs and TVs...

About 81% of adults in the United States have smartphones, according to the report, which are used about one hour and 39 minutes daily on average to consume media. However, the report shows that despite the growing options of devices available to users, radio and television are still used the most. About 94% of adults have a HD television, and the average adult in the United States spends about 4 hours a day watching shows and movies.
Notice what's missing from those figures? The Internet.

There's a vast amount of useful information on the Internet, and it's an excellent platform for productive communications. If people 'waste' it on entertainment or spreading disinformation then that's their fault.


The internet has allowed exponential growth in conspiracies and pseudoscience. I don't know that the link between the ease of spreading false propaganda and the rise of antivaxers has been proven, but the numbers indicate an awfully strong link:
The rise of antivaxers wasn't caused by the Internet, it was caused by Covid and politicians too scared of losing votes to deal with it.

You don't need the Internet to spread fear and misinformation. Radio and TV, telephones and good old word-of-mouth are just as effective - if not more so because they don't give you the same ability to fact check. Where is all the disinformation coming from? Not trustworthy sources that know what they are talking about - but from anonymous posts on Facebook and Twitter, personal videos uploaded to YouTube or websites produced by obvious conspiracy nuts. If people want to chose that trash over all the good information out there then that's their fault.


While companies like Amazon & Google have risen on the back of the internet, and it enables efficiencies in accounting and other areas, I'm not convinced that overall, companies are more profitable as a result of the internet. The cost of security measures alone is more than most companies generate in additional profit from having internet-based commerce.
I highly doubt that. I was an employee in a business whose website got hacked. They could have prevented it with about 30 minutes work at minimal cost if they had just kept the website software up to date. The same business also suffered a good old 'smash-n-grab' that cost far more, despite having pretty strong physical security measures in place. That small business got half its revenue off the 'net (probably would be even higher in today's Covid world).

a good example is my boy's primary school of 700 kids. They have two full-time IT workers, and I have yet to see any benefit from the school's connectivity. It doesn't seem to speed up or improve homework, and I don't see any way it saves teachers time, but it does mean they have two fewer teachers because the salaries go to a couple of backroom geeks.
So you say. Schools used networked computers long before the Internet became popular for education, and needed 'backroom geeks' to maintain them even back then. It's the not the fault of the Internet if your school's administration is incompetent.

we're looking at internet crime being worth around $750B a year, being roughly 1% of world GDP:

That's all money that wouldn't be leaving the system if the internet didn't exist.
Yeah right. Criminals always find a way, and many of those ways do a lot more harm than scamming a few suckers over the 'net. But even if true, 1% of GDP is a drop in the bucket. The real criminals are the ones profiting from the release of >36 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. According to the Swiss Re Institute, the US stands to lose 13% GDP to global warming by 2050 if current trends continue. But we won't be the worst affected. Australia can expect to lose 33% (serves them right for pushing coal!).
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.

Last edited by Roger Ramjets; 20th November 2021 at 06:09 PM.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top