Secret’s founder returns with anti-loneliness app Ikaria(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Secret’s founder returns with anti-loneliness app Ikaria
https://techcrunch.com/2020/02/18/just-imagine-ikaria-secret/
144 comments
It's time for us to recognize that we (the tech community) don't have all of the right answers, and it's time for us to reach out and try to learn, and try to participate in fixing the problems we helped create.
Is this like when people in the past said the postal system couldn't ever replace visiting someone, and that the telephone would never replace letters, and that chat apps couldn't beat a phone call..
People in tech (all tech since the beginning of the human race) have believed their inventions will nudge people to do things they might not otherwise do. Better swords and armour encouraged more battles, better farm tools encouraged more farming, better housing encouraged bigger families, better eduction encouraged more inventiveness, and so on. That's what tech is. Today that means Google's adverts push us to click on links and buy things, Facebook's status updates push us to share more, Instagram encourages us to take more selfies and pictures of our dinners, Twitter's retweets make us show people we discovered things they might want to see. The idea that people in tech wouldn't come up with apps that try to fix the lonely people by making them sociable is ridiculous. Apps and tech are all about behaviour manipulation.
And, mostly looking at all the evidence around us, it works really well.
Is this like when people in the past said the postal system couldn't ever replace visiting someone, and that the telephone would never replace letters, and that chat apps couldn't beat a phone call..
People in tech (all tech since the beginning of the human race) have believed their inventions will nudge people to do things they might not otherwise do. Better swords and armour encouraged more battles, better farm tools encouraged more farming, better housing encouraged bigger families, better eduction encouraged more inventiveness, and so on. That's what tech is. Today that means Google's adverts push us to click on links and buy things, Facebook's status updates push us to share more, Instagram encourages us to take more selfies and pictures of our dinners, Twitter's retweets make us show people we discovered things they might want to see. The idea that people in tech wouldn't come up with apps that try to fix the lonely people by making them sociable is ridiculous. Apps and tech are all about behaviour manipulation.
And, mostly looking at all the evidence around us, it works really well.
have you been outside recently? I mean outside without a phone for a couple of months. Give yourself a no-data diet, and just observe what is going on in others. Wait alone at a bus-stop or alone at a pub or cafe. You can see them addicted to their screens everywhere. It's the norm now to immediately reach for the phone because god forbid they might otherwise feel 2 seconds of boredom. They are no longer human as far as I'm concerned. The problem is never that AI and technology will replace us. We are becoming (actually we have already become) so much like AI/robots that it's impossible to stomach. Everyone isolated into their own little algorithmic prisons without any need to listen to others. It's much much worse than any hard drug you could be addicted to because with hard drugs you still have others who you can do them with. Just do yourselves a favor and never unplug because what you see might be so upsetting that you might wonder if it's still worth living.
I won't even get started on the problem of "fixing loneliness" with an app. You don't "fix" loneliness with an external tool. The only solution to fix this is inside you (and it hurts if you do it right). Pain is part of it and anyone who claims they can take away the pain, or make it easy should be metaphorically incinerated.
These things aren't increasing empathy. They're the opposite: They are empathy sinks!
y'all do yourselves a favor and read Jacques Ellul "La Technique" (The Technological Society) and stop peddling and defending more Tech just for the Benjamins.
I won't even get started on the problem of "fixing loneliness" with an app. You don't "fix" loneliness with an external tool. The only solution to fix this is inside you (and it hurts if you do it right). Pain is part of it and anyone who claims they can take away the pain, or make it easy should be metaphorically incinerated.
These things aren't increasing empathy. They're the opposite: They are empathy sinks!
y'all do yourselves a favor and read Jacques Ellul "La Technique" (The Technological Society) and stop peddling and defending more Tech just for the Benjamins.
> They are no longer human as far as I'm concerned.
Holy dehumanization Batman! You arrived at this point frighteningly fast.
They are staving off boredom with X - they aren't human anymore. Despite staving off boredom being literally one of most human things to do.
Yeah, you probably can't fix some problem with another app, but the same can be said of most things. Loneliness is a complex thing to solve. Not to mention the problem might lie on a much deeper societal level.
Holy dehumanization Batman! You arrived at this point frighteningly fast.
They are staving off boredom with X - they aren't human anymore. Despite staving off boredom being literally one of most human things to do.
Yeah, you probably can't fix some problem with another app, but the same can be said of most things. Loneliness is a complex thing to solve. Not to mention the problem might lie on a much deeper societal level.
[deleted]
>god forbid they might otherwise feel 2 seconds of boredom.
All the other things aside, this is, in my opinion, the worst part, and will have the longest, most negative implications for society. Boredom is when you are allowed to explore your own mind, daydream, think about things. We have eliminated it.
Anecdotal - we live 45 minutes away from the nearest "city" with grocery stores. We do not let our children use technology during these drives; they're only 45 minutes. Our friends all treat us like we're awful people.
Boredom is good for children. It encourages thought and introspection. Eliminating opportunities for boredom, as a species, I am sure will have negative repercussions we cannot imagine.
All the other things aside, this is, in my opinion, the worst part, and will have the longest, most negative implications for society. Boredom is when you are allowed to explore your own mind, daydream, think about things. We have eliminated it.
Anecdotal - we live 45 minutes away from the nearest "city" with grocery stores. We do not let our children use technology during these drives; they're only 45 minutes. Our friends all treat us like we're awful people.
Boredom is good for children. It encourages thought and introspection. Eliminating opportunities for boredom, as a species, I am sure will have negative repercussions we cannot imagine.
Agreed, and to add another thing: Ignorance (or wonder, mystery, surprise)
there's a paradoxical duality about progress. It was defined as a way to remove the cost of previous eras. You couldn't go far (solved by transportation), you didn't have time (tools), you were curious (wikipedia).
By optimizing everything away I think we damaged a big part of the very unoptimized nature of life.
there's a paradoxical duality about progress. It was defined as a way to remove the cost of previous eras. You couldn't go far (solved by transportation), you didn't have time (tools), you were curious (wikipedia).
By optimizing everything away I think we damaged a big part of the very unoptimized nature of life.
I normally don't post here but i just wanted to say that i've noticed the same thing around me and have also felt the crushing depression that comes with the realisation that everyone is addicted to something that's destroying the very fabric of our society.
And your point about fixing loneliness through a painful but personal journey is spot on. If it doesn't hurt, you're not really doing it properly.
Go out and meet new people, talk about new ideas and remember that all storms will pass.
And your point about fixing loneliness through a painful but personal journey is spot on. If it doesn't hurt, you're not really doing it properly.
Go out and meet new people, talk about new ideas and remember that all storms will pass.
> destroying the very fabric of our society.
I'm like 99% certain that phrase has been said in one form or another throughout every single generation.
Wasn't there an article about how magazines were deemed bad when they first made an appearance and people would bury their heads in them?
Honestly, I just think for the most part people are afraid of change and would rather things continue the way they have. I try to remind myself of this every once in a while, and it helps me stay optimistic.
I'm like 99% certain that phrase has been said in one form or another throughout every single generation.
Wasn't there an article about how magazines were deemed bad when they first made an appearance and people would bury their heads in them?
Honestly, I just think for the most part people are afraid of change and would rather things continue the way they have. I try to remind myself of this every once in a while, and it helps me stay optimistic.
As with most things, humans are generally predictable. People in every generation will feel like their own society threatened in one form or another.
I'm not afraid of change - i grew up around technology during the 90s where we played outside every day and consider myself "up to date" wrt the current zeitgeist. I firmly believe technology (especially space tech) is the way forward but i still have reservations about the current sate of social media due to the effects on the psyche i see in people in my life. But that's just my experience.
I'm not afraid of change - i grew up around technology during the 90s where we played outside every day and consider myself "up to date" wrt the current zeitgeist. I firmly believe technology (especially space tech) is the way forward but i still have reservations about the current sate of social media due to the effects on the psyche i see in people in my life. But that's just my experience.
You don't "fix" loneliness with an external tool. The only solution to fix this is inside you (and it hurts if you do it right).
Thinking this way is utterly toxic. It puts 100% of the onus to resolve an issue on the individual with no room for people to help each other. You might as well be telling depressed people to "think happy thoughts more" or telling anxious people to "snap out of it and be more resourceful".
No amount of claiming "tech is bad" will change the fact that tech is a great way of connecting people. If an app is useful to bring people who need help together with people who want to help them then that is a very good thing.
Thinking this way is utterly toxic. It puts 100% of the onus to resolve an issue on the individual with no room for people to help each other. You might as well be telling depressed people to "think happy thoughts more" or telling anxious people to "snap out of it and be more resourceful".
No amount of claiming "tech is bad" will change the fact that tech is a great way of connecting people. If an app is useful to bring people who need help together with people who want to help them then that is a very good thing.
You are very right but it's also true that there's a low hanging fruit factor with 'application' to solve anything which often just shapeshift the problem.
Let's not forget the good old 'use the right tool'
late ps: half kidding, I often wonder what would happen if internet got cut for a long time (week~).
Let's not forget the good old 'use the right tool'
late ps: half kidding, I often wonder what would happen if internet got cut for a long time (week~).
Clinical depression aside thinking happy thoughts / thinking positively is proven to help with having a happier life: https://time.com/collection/guide-to-happiness/49947/happy-t...
Anxiety is helped immensely by snapping out of spiraling negative thinking, CBT is pretty much the de facto starting point for addressing anxiety and depression.
I have no data on social apps solving either anxiety or depression. I suspect long-term it is an overall net-negative solution by itself.
Anxiety is helped immensely by snapping out of spiraling negative thinking, CBT is pretty much the de facto starting point for addressing anxiety and depression.
I have no data on social apps solving either anxiety or depression. I suspect long-term it is an overall net-negative solution by itself.
DyslexicAtheist 49 minutes ago | parent | on: Secret’s founder returns with anti-loneliness app ...
have you been outside recently? I mean outside without a phone for a couple of months. Give yourself a no-data diet, and just observe what is going on in others. Wait alone at a bus-stop or alone at a pub or cafe. You can see them addicted to their screens everywhere. It's the norm now to immediately reach for the phone because god forbid they might otherwise feel 2 seconds of boredom.
I think you're vastly overestimating how social people were before smartphones were widespread. This is a really awful source, but it proves the point pretty well [0].
> It's much much worse than any hard drug you could be addicted to because with hard drugs you still have others who you can do them with.
I hope you don't really believe this. I don't disagree that some modern tech/algorithm solutions are making the world a worse place, but to say that you'd be better addicted to heroin than Facebook is nonsense. Humanity is always calling the "next" thing worse than the current thing when the current thing is normalised (music, rock music, television, video games, smart phones) - here's [1] an article from 30 years ago speaking about TV addiction.
> Just do yourselves a favor and never unplug because what you see might be so upsetting that you might wonder if it's still worth living.
I sincerely hope you don't feel this way, and if you really do, you should speak to someone about your feelings.
[0] https://www.sadanduseless.com/evil-iphones/ [1] https://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/16/science/how-viewers-grow-...
have you been outside recently? I mean outside without a phone for a couple of months. Give yourself a no-data diet, and just observe what is going on in others. Wait alone at a bus-stop or alone at a pub or cafe. You can see them addicted to their screens everywhere. It's the norm now to immediately reach for the phone because god forbid they might otherwise feel 2 seconds of boredom.
I think you're vastly overestimating how social people were before smartphones were widespread. This is a really awful source, but it proves the point pretty well [0].
> It's much much worse than any hard drug you could be addicted to because with hard drugs you still have others who you can do them with.
I hope you don't really believe this. I don't disagree that some modern tech/algorithm solutions are making the world a worse place, but to say that you'd be better addicted to heroin than Facebook is nonsense. Humanity is always calling the "next" thing worse than the current thing when the current thing is normalised (music, rock music, television, video games, smart phones) - here's [1] an article from 30 years ago speaking about TV addiction.
> Just do yourselves a favor and never unplug because what you see might be so upsetting that you might wonder if it's still worth living.
I sincerely hope you don't feel this way, and if you really do, you should speak to someone about your feelings.
[0] https://www.sadanduseless.com/evil-iphones/ [1] https://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/16/science/how-viewers-grow-...
That first source - at least everyone appears to be reading roughly the same thing. I think it’s still a further step of isolation for every person to be doing something different on their phone. Similar to a TV in a living room vs everyone watching something different on their device.
> They are no longer human as far as I'm concerned.
Well, yeah. We’re cyborgs now and have been for a while. Smartphones have basically become an integrated extension of ourselves.
> It's the norm now to immediately reach for the phone because god forbid they might otherwise feel 2 seconds of boredom.
Probably because I have a wealth of information in my pocket. I can utilize my idle time and study flash cards or chess theory or get back to someone. Sometimes I just meditate or think about things instead.
I do agree that apps can’t possibly fix social issues like people no longer having communities to fall back on. However this comment is an unnecessarily pessimistic take in my opinion. I’m pretty sure people have tried to douse their loneliness with external sources for millennia.
Edit: to be clear, internet / smartphone addiction is a real issue that isn’t seriously discussed as far as I’m aware. However this is different from simply using your phone. In any case being antagonistic and referring to people as not human is probably not a great method of spreading one’s ideas.
Well, yeah. We’re cyborgs now and have been for a while. Smartphones have basically become an integrated extension of ourselves.
> It's the norm now to immediately reach for the phone because god forbid they might otherwise feel 2 seconds of boredom.
Probably because I have a wealth of information in my pocket. I can utilize my idle time and study flash cards or chess theory or get back to someone. Sometimes I just meditate or think about things instead.
I do agree that apps can’t possibly fix social issues like people no longer having communities to fall back on. However this comment is an unnecessarily pessimistic take in my opinion. I’m pretty sure people have tried to douse their loneliness with external sources for millennia.
Edit: to be clear, internet / smartphone addiction is a real issue that isn’t seriously discussed as far as I’m aware. However this is different from simply using your phone. In any case being antagonistic and referring to people as not human is probably not a great method of spreading one’s ideas.
But how do we stop? My wife and I got rid of our smartphones for a few months and just felt profoundly lonely because there’s no one to talk to. It feels like the only way to actually stop would be to have a community all willing to do so at the same time.
Wait, really? Do you have family? Do you have friends? You don't have anyone to talk to at all???
Join a club. Pick up a new hobby. Join a church. Attend local events. There is probably a hundred things you could do to meet and talk with all kinds of people.
Join a club. Pick up a new hobby. Join a church. Attend local events. There is probably a hundred things you could do to meet and talk with all kinds of people.
Well, it seems like it's not popular to actually say what you can witness with your eyes and near you. I've noticed the same exact thing myself, and I have been observing it for years already.
I wonder if people have noticed similar behavioral things in the past. Something like an exaggeration of Emperor's clothes, where we collectively disregard what is absolutely evident, and then we reason about what the reality should be like, and we believe that just by reasoning/talking/thinking about it, reality will somehow magically change to our liking.
That's my best attempt to not offend anyone while discussing this. Being blunt, I would simply say it's delusional behavior if you haven't noticed the same exact thing. And it's not just in rich countries, either; people in third world countries do the same thing (with phones, digital life, obsession with social media, etc.)
In my opinion, boredom and being alone is not that big of a problem, really. Everyone is alone in this world. There are very few true friendships. Most people just hang out together in the same vicinity, but they are not really friends. There's a lot of envy, hatred, jealousy, you name it. Even Blaise Pascal noticed the same thing: If everybody knew what everyone else says about them, there would be hardly any friends left.
I think only time can create friendship bonds. My friends are people that I know like 1-2 decades. But sharing the same moral values is a prerequisite. Otherwise, it's all fake and a mask and usually it's because one of the "friends" needs something from the other.
It might be a moral decadence/degeneration problem, rather than tech-specific problem. I find it absolutely puzzling how more people aren't aware of this, since it's so simple to witness and there's ample evidence, just go out once in a while..
I wonder if people have noticed similar behavioral things in the past. Something like an exaggeration of Emperor's clothes, where we collectively disregard what is absolutely evident, and then we reason about what the reality should be like, and we believe that just by reasoning/talking/thinking about it, reality will somehow magically change to our liking.
That's my best attempt to not offend anyone while discussing this. Being blunt, I would simply say it's delusional behavior if you haven't noticed the same exact thing. And it's not just in rich countries, either; people in third world countries do the same thing (with phones, digital life, obsession with social media, etc.)
In my opinion, boredom and being alone is not that big of a problem, really. Everyone is alone in this world. There are very few true friendships. Most people just hang out together in the same vicinity, but they are not really friends. There's a lot of envy, hatred, jealousy, you name it. Even Blaise Pascal noticed the same thing: If everybody knew what everyone else says about them, there would be hardly any friends left.
I think only time can create friendship bonds. My friends are people that I know like 1-2 decades. But sharing the same moral values is a prerequisite. Otherwise, it's all fake and a mask and usually it's because one of the "friends" needs something from the other.
It might be a moral decadence/degeneration problem, rather than tech-specific problem. I find it absolutely puzzling how more people aren't aware of this, since it's so simple to witness and there's ample evidence, just go out once in a while..
>Is this like when people in the past said the postal system couldn't ever replace visiting someone ...
...Did it? Frequently the main time I ever message someone is to coordinate an irl occasion.
...Did it? Frequently the main time I ever message someone is to coordinate an irl occasion.
> That's what tech is.
You cannot hide behind what tech is; you should always consider the context in which tech is used, because both go hand in hand.
You cannot hide behind what tech is; you should always consider the context in which tech is used, because both go hand in hand.
> Is this like when people in the past said the postal system couldn't ever replace visiting someone, and that the telephone would never replace letters, and that chat apps couldn't beat a phone call..
This is a very dumb argument and a false analogy.
> The idea that people in tech _wouldn't_ come up with apps that try to fix the lonely people ... is ridiculous.
You're absolutely correct here. But that doesn't mean those apps will actually work or achieve their publicly stated goals.
Also "fix" lonely people? What the fuck? And you want to pretend to criticize behavior modification?
This is a very dumb argument and a false analogy.
> The idea that people in tech _wouldn't_ come up with apps that try to fix the lonely people ... is ridiculous.
You're absolutely correct here. But that doesn't mean those apps will actually work or achieve their publicly stated goals.
Also "fix" lonely people? What the fuck? And you want to pretend to criticize behavior modification?
In his UseNIX keynote in 2018[0], James Mickens described the terrible idea he termed 'Technological Manifest Destiny':
1. Technology is value-neutral and therefore will automatically lead to good outcomes for everyone.
2. New kinds of technology should be deployed as quickly as possible, even if we lack a general idea of how the technology works or what the societal impact will be.
3. History is generally uninteresting because the past has nothing to teach us right now.
He was, at the time, applying that theory to things like dumping AI and Machine Learning into the American justice system, but it could easily be applied here as well. It's the same misapprehension that throwing more technology at a problem will always solve that problem.
And as he later observed, everyone who's played Oregon Trail knows that Manifest Destiny often ends in dysentery.
[0] "Q: Why Do Keynote Speakers Keep Suggesting That Improving Security Is Possible? A: Because Keynote Speakers Make Bad Life Decisions and Are Poor Role Models", UseNIX 2018 (https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity18/presentat... Transcript: https://www.zachpfeffer.com/single-post/2018/11/27/Transcrip...
1. Technology is value-neutral and therefore will automatically lead to good outcomes for everyone.
2. New kinds of technology should be deployed as quickly as possible, even if we lack a general idea of how the technology works or what the societal impact will be.
3. History is generally uninteresting because the past has nothing to teach us right now.
He was, at the time, applying that theory to things like dumping AI and Machine Learning into the American justice system, but it could easily be applied here as well. It's the same misapprehension that throwing more technology at a problem will always solve that problem.
And as he later observed, everyone who's played Oregon Trail knows that Manifest Destiny often ends in dysentery.
[0] "Q: Why Do Keynote Speakers Keep Suggesting That Improving Security Is Possible? A: Because Keynote Speakers Make Bad Life Decisions and Are Poor Role Models", UseNIX 2018 (https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity18/presentat... Transcript: https://www.zachpfeffer.com/single-post/2018/11/27/Transcrip...
You're absolutely wrong. Technology enables an avenue for easier communication, discovery. It may not be a panacea and not the only solution. But saying 'it won't fix' is defeatist.
> But saying 'it won't fix' is defeatist.
Insisting technology _must_ be capable of fixing these problems is naive idiocy. Technology isn't our only means for addressing social issues, and it's certainly not a panacea.
Why should we resort to the newest and least well proven approach to issues that humanity has faced for thousands of years? Do you have my actual justification beyond "it gives me a job?"
Insisting technology _must_ be capable of fixing these problems is naive idiocy. Technology isn't our only means for addressing social issues, and it's certainly not a panacea.
Why should we resort to the newest and least well proven approach to issues that humanity has faced for thousands of years? Do you have my actual justification beyond "it gives me a job?"
I don't think someone launching an app stops people using all the other means of addressing their social issues. It's another option, not a replacement option.
But is it an option that will actually help? Or is it a red herring that will drive in app purchases and ad revenue while letting the problems it purports to help with fester?
Attention is a finite resource.
Attention is a finite resource.
> Attention is a finite resource.
and equally, so is empathy. And those people who invest in this garbage and profit of it ofc know it!
and equally, so is empathy. And those people who invest in this garbage and profit of it ofc know it!
[deleted]
I don't think 'technology must' is the narrative here. Well, it's trying to solve a problem. What's wrong in having different approaches for solving a problem? I don't think they are preaching on being the only solution and "disrupt" traditional approaches.
Solitude and solitary activities are important for our psyche. If the social issues caused by too much information and communications is due to its ill effects on us mentally, then that approach is not only ignorant, but dangerous.
It only affects you because you are trying to find truth and meaning in it. You cannot find meaning intellectually. Or in an app. You have to experience it. To discipline your mind takes years of effort.
I think "traditional" social media (Usenet, IRC...) was a nice complement to everything. However the new social media like Facebook etc. is not a complement but a replacement for texts, phone calls, keeping in touch by more offline means. As a matter of fact the new services were pushed and advocated mostly from outside the tech community. So I don't see any obligation.
The founders already sum it up pretty nicely: “It’s like eating McDonald’s to get healthy. It’s not the right source of nutrition for our social well-being...” Recent development in that area rather stemmed from opportunistic goal-seeking...
The founders already sum it up pretty nicely: “It’s like eating McDonald’s to get healthy. It’s not the right source of nutrition for our social well-being...” Recent development in that area rather stemmed from opportunistic goal-seeking...
Let's have a game, what or when in history had so much negative side effects as today (mass networked) computing ?
I miss the peace of mind of buying a box with a CD and use it in my bedroom carelessly.
But beside me, landline phone, kitchen appliances, they were mostly zero worries (beside their own isolated quality).
Maybe car safety was a social struggle at one point. Maybe gas powered lightning was too ?
I miss the peace of mind of buying a box with a CD and use it in my bedroom carelessly.
But beside me, landline phone, kitchen appliances, they were mostly zero worries (beside their own isolated quality).
Maybe car safety was a social struggle at one point. Maybe gas powered lightning was too ?
I invested in Ikaria and feel like someone should speak up here.
I was early investor with Chrys Bader previously on his startup Secret. He was a YC batchmate of mine from 2008. I watched him build an initial prototype that had the chance to be a real social network that had very high long term retention, but in the end the company didn't invest deeply enough into moderation and the long term retention cohorts went down steeply past 6 months of use.
Chrys is a great designer and product manager who caught lightning in a bottle previously, and lost it. Founders often catch lightning in a bottle and then fail to keep it because scaling operations like moderation, or sometimes even just keeping the servers online, through hyper scale, is hard.
Many founders never find lightning in a bottle even once. Even in my experience I felt like we caught lightning in a bottle with Posterous and failed to properly bring it to the scale I wish we could have.
I realize I am going out on a limb to defend him here, but founders going back into the arena deserve at least a little bit of defense because it's hard enough to take the chance to make anything ever.
You'll hear more about how Ikaria really works, and I realize the post is light on details, but don't write this startup off before you actually try the software itself.
I was early investor with Chrys Bader previously on his startup Secret. He was a YC batchmate of mine from 2008. I watched him build an initial prototype that had the chance to be a real social network that had very high long term retention, but in the end the company didn't invest deeply enough into moderation and the long term retention cohorts went down steeply past 6 months of use.
Chrys is a great designer and product manager who caught lightning in a bottle previously, and lost it. Founders often catch lightning in a bottle and then fail to keep it because scaling operations like moderation, or sometimes even just keeping the servers online, through hyper scale, is hard.
Many founders never find lightning in a bottle even once. Even in my experience I felt like we caught lightning in a bottle with Posterous and failed to properly bring it to the scale I wish we could have.
I realize I am going out on a limb to defend him here, but founders going back into the arena deserve at least a little bit of defense because it's hard enough to take the chance to make anything ever.
You'll hear more about how Ikaria really works, and I realize the post is light on details, but don't write this startup off before you actually try the software itself.
Serious question:
Given that Badger and his cofounder Byttow famously pocketed almost 20% of the total investment in Secret ($3M each on $35M) shortly before shutting it down[0], what assurances do you have that he’s just not going to pocket the investment again instead of using it to improve the company?
[0] https://techcrunch.com/2015/04/29/psst/
Given that Badger and his cofounder Byttow famously pocketed almost 20% of the total investment in Secret ($3M each on $35M) shortly before shutting it down[0], what assurances do you have that he’s just not going to pocket the investment again instead of using it to improve the company?
[0] https://techcrunch.com/2015/04/29/psst/
Beneath all the feel-good marketing, this app seems like it's going to be a marketplace for self-help professionals.
I'm not making any kind of value judgement here, this could certainly be a good thing and I will take your advice and wait to see the app for myself.
If I'm not wrong about this, can you comment on what you know about the process for vetting the quality and/or credentials of the professionals who will be featured/promoted on the platform?
There are already tons of self-help scammers out there who are just looking to take money from desperate people.. How does this platform avoid becoming an enabler for quick-fix scams, while supporting credible programs?
I'm not making any kind of value judgement here, this could certainly be a good thing and I will take your advice and wait to see the app for myself.
If I'm not wrong about this, can you comment on what you know about the process for vetting the quality and/or credentials of the professionals who will be featured/promoted on the platform?
There are already tons of self-help scammers out there who are just looking to take money from desperate people.. How does this platform avoid becoming an enabler for quick-fix scams, while supporting credible programs?
Friendships are everything — keep them close and cultivate them. If it’s through investments, building tech, do it.
The market is a beautiful thing; it will quickly and swiftly tell you if you’re right or not. No need to fret over any apologetic comment.
The market is a beautiful thing; it will quickly and swiftly tell you if you’re right or not. No need to fret over any apologetic comment.
> The market is a beautiful thing; it will quickly and swiftly tell you if you’re right or not. No need to fret over any apologetic comment.
I thought religion was unpopular here.
I thought religion was unpopular here.
> The market is a beautiful thing; it will quickly and swiftly tell you if you’re right
Is this why everyone seems to think the iPhone is so good?
Is this why everyone seems to think the iPhone is so good?
I'm curious about whether the most successful products to solve loneliness will be ones that help people connect virtually, versus connect in person. Maybe a healthy balance of both?
"Solve" loneliness. With a "product".
Try to get out of your bubble. To anyone who isn't entirely immersed in that bubble this is absolutely insane talk. It sounds sociopathic and out-of-touch.
Maybe, just maybe, this isn't a problem you can "solve" by engineering. And maybe, just maybe, the solution (if it exists) isn't a "product".
Try to get out of your bubble. To anyone who isn't entirely immersed in that bubble this is absolutely insane talk. It sounds sociopathic and out-of-touch.
Maybe, just maybe, this isn't a problem you can "solve" by engineering. And maybe, just maybe, the solution (if it exists) isn't a "product".
> Maybe, just maybe, this isn't a problem you can "solve" by engineering. And maybe, just maybe, the solution (if it exists) isn't a "product".
Or maybe it is. In all your comments in the various threads here you fail to give a reasoning for your position which is not "it is my opinion". Instead you have now started attacking others. "sociopathic talk"? Really?
Or maybe it is. In all your comments in the various threads here you fail to give a reasoning for your position which is not "it is my opinion". Instead you have now started attacking others. "sociopathic talk"? Really?
For some percentage of people with that problem maybe this app will indeed solve it. Loneliness across a population not being something that can be solved with a silver bullet, but lots of lead bullets instead.
Friendships are everything — keep them close and cultivate them.
And don't sabotage other people's.
And don't sabotage other people's.
[deleted]
Do you think that catching lightning in a bottle still matters as much as it did in 2004 - 2013ish, or do you think there's an argument to be made that we're now in a post-lightning-in-a-bottle era?
Asking the question implies you have an answer ... I’d love to know what you see
Not the poster, but I keep getting snail mail advertisements by banks and VCs that want to invest in my next company, despite me not having done a single exit yet.
My impression is that nowadays, there are more VCs than founders, so they will invest in pretty much anything.
My impression is that nowadays, there are more VCs than founders, so they will invest in pretty much anything.
I mean, odds are you’re never going to catch lightning in a bottle. This has always been the case and always will be.
1propionyl(2)
Incredibly vague statements parroting known talking points with 0 substance to show for it.
I hate to be cynical but all this `tech to fix the social problems created by tech` really brings out the cynic in me.
Realistically I know that we do need new solutions but the solution to a drinking problem isn't to deliver better, more mindful alcohol.
Edit: To the comments below, I am not asserting that tech has actually created an entire new set of problems out of nothing, just that that is the narrative on display here and in other places. This is part of why it makes me so incredibly cynical.
I hate to be cynical but all this `tech to fix the social problems created by tech` really brings out the cynic in me.
Realistically I know that we do need new solutions but the solution to a drinking problem isn't to deliver better, more mindful alcohol.
Edit: To the comments below, I am not asserting that tech has actually created an entire new set of problems out of nothing, just that that is the narrative on display here and in other places. This is part of why it makes me so incredibly cynical.
Your comment (along with statements in the article) presumes that tech is the root cause of these problems but in my opinion this assumption is faulty.
Concurrent to the rise in loneliness, depression, anxiety etc. we have experienced a rise in geographical mobility, single parent households, and the divorce rate.
Which means that for many, the traditional social networks people relied on for support during hard times--family and lifelong friends--are more distant, geographically and emotionally, than ever before.
People may turn to social media as a poor substitute just as alcoholics confronted by trauma turn to drinking, but this doesn't mean that booze or tech are the root cause. I think it's absolutely fair to compare social media to say booze or weed as something that's fine in moderation, but can easily turn into an escape/coping mechanism which has its own problems.
Maybe tech can help, maybe not. But what troubles me is that we may be scapegoating tech because the real root causes of our growing mental illness epidemic are too difficult to face.
As far as I know there has been no society in history prior to ours where families and lifelong, geographically proximate friends were not the central part of people's lives. Thus we have no proof in the historical record that such a society can even last more than a few generations.
Concurrent to the rise in loneliness, depression, anxiety etc. we have experienced a rise in geographical mobility, single parent households, and the divorce rate.
Which means that for many, the traditional social networks people relied on for support during hard times--family and lifelong friends--are more distant, geographically and emotionally, than ever before.
People may turn to social media as a poor substitute just as alcoholics confronted by trauma turn to drinking, but this doesn't mean that booze or tech are the root cause. I think it's absolutely fair to compare social media to say booze or weed as something that's fine in moderation, but can easily turn into an escape/coping mechanism which has its own problems.
Maybe tech can help, maybe not. But what troubles me is that we may be scapegoating tech because the real root causes of our growing mental illness epidemic are too difficult to face.
As far as I know there has been no society in history prior to ours where families and lifelong, geographically proximate friends were not the central part of people's lives. Thus we have no proof in the historical record that such a society can even last more than a few generations.
>the real root causes of our growing mental illness epidemic are too difficult to face
When this form of issue arises, it seems to be a recurring human pattern to attempt all of the possible alternatives before facing the root causes directly.
It sounds like you're proposing that the actual root causes include a move away from families and geographically proximate friends. I'm curious to hear more -- if you have a deeper sense of other root causes, possible solutions, or how we might implement more family and geographically proximate connections, given technology's increasing power to increase geographic, emotional, and economic mobility.
When this form of issue arises, it seems to be a recurring human pattern to attempt all of the possible alternatives before facing the root causes directly.
It sounds like you're proposing that the actual root causes include a move away from families and geographically proximate friends. I'm curious to hear more -- if you have a deeper sense of other root causes, possible solutions, or how we might implement more family and geographically proximate connections, given technology's increasing power to increase geographic, emotional, and economic mobility.
Labor mobility is actually declining https://equitablegrowth.org/declining-u-s-labor-mobility-is-...
Divorce rates are going down and went down for years.
Total numbers of divorces have trended down modestly in recent years, but as a percentage of marriages they are still at historic highs. Prior to the 1970s only a low single digit percentage of marriages ended in divorce. It then rose steadily and is something like 50% now.
The marriage rate has also declined since the 1970s. Fewer marriages and more divorces have compounded to result in far fewer families per population (at least as families have conventionally been defined) than just two generations ago.
The marriage rate has also declined since the 1970s. Fewer marriages and more divorces have compounded to result in far fewer families per population (at least as families have conventionally been defined) than just two generations ago.
No, divorce rates are going down since 1980 or so. Rates, not just absolute numbers.
It peeked sometime after divorces became easier and more socially acceptable. And when women could be trully independent after divorce (her having job makes her less likely to stay when things go wrong.) Another peek was after WWII when quick marriages made before war were failing.
Also, single digit divorce stat of 1960 hides a lot of bad relationships with partners that hate each other, abuse each other, domestic violence and where one partner is alcoholic. The divorce there is an improvement.
At the time, you effectively had to marry else be discriminated against. Single men were seen as neurotic and thus less promoted in work etc.
It peeked sometime after divorces became easier and more socially acceptable. And when women could be trully independent after divorce (her having job makes her less likely to stay when things go wrong.) Another peek was after WWII when quick marriages made before war were failing.
Also, single digit divorce stat of 1960 hides a lot of bad relationships with partners that hate each other, abuse each other, domestic violence and where one partner is alcoholic. The divorce there is an improvement.
At the time, you effectively had to marry else be discriminated against. Single men were seen as neurotic and thus less promoted in work etc.
> No, divorce rates are going down since 1980 or so. Rates, not just absolute numbers.
Okay, apatter's claim without citation was bad enough, but if you're going to directly contradict something someone says, link your damn source!
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying nobody wants your opinion on what the stats are, when we can have the stats themselves!
Okay, apatter's claim without citation was bad enough, but if you're going to directly contradict something someone says, link your damn source!
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying nobody wants your opinion on what the stats are, when we can have the stats themselves!
Given that he opposed me first, if direct contradiction is what requires source, he should do it anyway.
I literally dis this to very whether I am right: https://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&client=ms-android-sam...
I literally dis this to very whether I am right: https://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&client=ms-android-sam...
Maybe I’m missing something, but number of divorces per 1,000 people (the “divorce rate”) does not control for marriage. It includes people who don’t get married, which makes the measure meaningless.
I did some quick searching but did not find any statistics on divorce as a percentage of married per capita over time.
I did some quick searching but did not find any statistics on divorce as a percentage of married per capita over time.
Divorce rate is per marriages - "how many divorces per 1000 married women". Here is graph and article from sociologist https://timeline.com/divorce-rates-going-down-d85477f83055
Mostly, attitude toward marriage changed. People care more about selection of partner. They marry later and when they are able to form stable couple - finish college and find jobs. Poor people marry less, but form couples that live together and don't marry.
People are less likely to marry due to social pressure etc.
Mostly, attitude toward marriage changed. People care more about selection of partner. They marry later and when they are able to form stable couple - finish college and find jobs. Poor people marry less, but form couples that live together and don't marry.
People are less likely to marry due to social pressure etc.
Luckily Germans like paperwork and statistics:
https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/76211/umfrage...
Can't speak for US / world. But I assume it's very similar.
https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/76211/umfrage...
Can't speak for US / world. But I assume it's very similar.
The statistics for all this are extensive and easily obtained on the Internet, as you say they are similar, at least across developed, Western nations.
For the purposes of mental (and actually physical as well) health: getting married and maintaining a healthy marriage tends to have a strong positive impact on everyone involved (partners plus their kids). Whereas getting divorced tends to have a strong negative impact.
This means that on a population level, all other things being equal, you tend to want to have a lot of healthy, supportive marriages, and kids growing up in those marriages.
So, here are the marriage and divorce rates per 1,000 people in the USA since about 1865: https://robslink.com/SAS/democd80/us_divorce_and_marriage.ht...
Two facts to highlight:
1) From graph #2, the marriage rate is the lowest it's ever been in recorded history. Children are increasingly born into single parent households which tend to be less stable and lower income; the effect of having only one supportive parent will persist throughout their lives. Adults are less likely than ever to be partnered up with someone who will be there for them in hard times and "until death do they part."
2) From graph #3, the divorce-to-marriage ratio has been at or near record highs since the late 1960s. The number of divorces per 1,000 population has been highly elevated - over 3.0 - since 1969. What this adds up to is that for the past two generations divorce has been a much more common occurrence, and it is typically a traumatic event. Divorces further reduce the number of close family connections for everyone involved.
A valid point made in one of the responses to my comment is that not all marriages are healthy. It's certainly possible to have a marriage which is a net negative for one or both parties, maybe many of them. But I have rarely seen a rigorous attempt by people who make this point to quantify the net negatives generated by these marriages historically and compare them to the well understood negatives which accompany the current zeitgeist, which would be the intellectually honest thing to do.
To me the statistics couldn't be more clear, fewer people have close families, we are not creating as many new ones, and existing families are ending in divorce. All these things have been going on for two generations and have a greater deleterious impact on mental health than Facebook ever will. They increase isolation, loneliness, depression etc. Social tech is a shitty cope which is very popular in part because these social issues exist, but it doesn't cause them.
For the purposes of mental (and actually physical as well) health: getting married and maintaining a healthy marriage tends to have a strong positive impact on everyone involved (partners plus their kids). Whereas getting divorced tends to have a strong negative impact.
This means that on a population level, all other things being equal, you tend to want to have a lot of healthy, supportive marriages, and kids growing up in those marriages.
So, here are the marriage and divorce rates per 1,000 people in the USA since about 1865: https://robslink.com/SAS/democd80/us_divorce_and_marriage.ht...
Two facts to highlight:
1) From graph #2, the marriage rate is the lowest it's ever been in recorded history. Children are increasingly born into single parent households which tend to be less stable and lower income; the effect of having only one supportive parent will persist throughout their lives. Adults are less likely than ever to be partnered up with someone who will be there for them in hard times and "until death do they part."
2) From graph #3, the divorce-to-marriage ratio has been at or near record highs since the late 1960s. The number of divorces per 1,000 population has been highly elevated - over 3.0 - since 1969. What this adds up to is that for the past two generations divorce has been a much more common occurrence, and it is typically a traumatic event. Divorces further reduce the number of close family connections for everyone involved.
A valid point made in one of the responses to my comment is that not all marriages are healthy. It's certainly possible to have a marriage which is a net negative for one or both parties, maybe many of them. But I have rarely seen a rigorous attempt by people who make this point to quantify the net negatives generated by these marriages historically and compare them to the well understood negatives which accompany the current zeitgeist, which would be the intellectually honest thing to do.
To me the statistics couldn't be more clear, fewer people have close families, we are not creating as many new ones, and existing families are ending in divorce. All these things have been going on for two generations and have a greater deleterious impact on mental health than Facebook ever will. They increase isolation, loneliness, depression etc. Social tech is a shitty cope which is very popular in part because these social issues exist, but it doesn't cause them.
> Given that he opposed me first, if direct contradiction is what requires source, he should do it anyway.
Uh, no, if you're claiming facts, they require sources, always. I only pointed it out when it became absurd that you thought people would accept your word on faith, since it was clear someone already didn't accept your word.
> I literally dis this to very whether I am right: https://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&client=ms-android-sam....
Ah yes, well, you didn't actually verify that very well, because most of the links I found with that search cite the same meaningless "per 1000 people" stat, and the remaining links contradict each other. Also, given the top link is a divorce lawyer trying to sell their services, I'm really not sure which one of those you thought was a credible source.
Some of us search on other search engines with other search phrases, so you can't just assume that everyone will find what you found. See, the thing about research, is you have to actually read what you link, or you haven't actually done research.
We're all familiar with how to use Google to find sources, but if you want to actually participate in an intelligent debate, you should actually, you know, use Google to find sources, which you have yet to actually do. And it's not clever to tell me to Google it when you didn't actually read what you Googled.
Uh, no, if you're claiming facts, they require sources, always. I only pointed it out when it became absurd that you thought people would accept your word on faith, since it was clear someone already didn't accept your word.
> I literally dis this to very whether I am right: https://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&client=ms-android-sam....
Ah yes, well, you didn't actually verify that very well, because most of the links I found with that search cite the same meaningless "per 1000 people" stat, and the remaining links contradict each other. Also, given the top link is a divorce lawyer trying to sell their services, I'm really not sure which one of those you thought was a credible source.
Some of us search on other search engines with other search phrases, so you can't just assume that everyone will find what you found. See, the thing about research, is you have to actually read what you link, or you haven't actually done research.
We're all familiar with how to use Google to find sources, but if you want to actually participate in an intelligent debate, you should actually, you know, use Google to find sources, which you have yet to actually do. And it's not clever to tell me to Google it when you didn't actually read what you Googled.
I agree with your evaluation of the article, but I'm tired of this "social problems created by tech" narrative. I grew up in the world before the internet. It was NOT better.
I actually think it was worse before, just like in many areas. The bullying and fighting then was physical and real.
Everything keeps getting better over time (measured in say decades) but the one constant we will always have is complaining.
Yes there are always real problems and new ones are also created, but on the whole we are doing better in many matters.
Everything keeps getting better over time (measured in say decades) but the one constant we will always have is complaining.
Yes there are always real problems and new ones are also created, but on the whole we are doing better in many matters.
Yes, I think the personal computer sucked in many people who previously would have idled their time elsewhere, having nothing better to do. It was often a life saver or at the very least a more productive use of time - for me it certainly was.
> I actually think it was worse before, just like in many areas. The bullying and fighting then was physical and real.
That seem like a pretty hard to prove statement. Per definition those who were young in the olden-days of bullying are now old and not in the same situation where the bullying typically happens. I too remember the physical "real" bullying but one up-side of that is that the bullies couldn't get away with that much bullying since it was very visible and left physical traces. Also the extreme solution of relocating was available. Modern day bullies bullies in a very _real_ way (ask someone who is bullied) and it's harder to find a safe place and also harder to find and build a few strong meaningful friendships. Bullies find their way into your bedroom under your covers (phone lights up, "is it them?") and when every relation is visible and measured in likes and engagement good luck getting a friend that wants to connect with someone who is bullied and risk attracting the attention of the bullies.
So what until today's young ones are old enough to tell you exactly how bad we fucked them up. Bring tissues.
But maybe this app will fix them! Invest!
That seem like a pretty hard to prove statement. Per definition those who were young in the olden-days of bullying are now old and not in the same situation where the bullying typically happens. I too remember the physical "real" bullying but one up-side of that is that the bullies couldn't get away with that much bullying since it was very visible and left physical traces. Also the extreme solution of relocating was available. Modern day bullies bullies in a very _real_ way (ask someone who is bullied) and it's harder to find a safe place and also harder to find and build a few strong meaningful friendships. Bullies find their way into your bedroom under your covers (phone lights up, "is it them?") and when every relation is visible and measured in likes and engagement good luck getting a friend that wants to connect with someone who is bullied and risk attracting the attention of the bullies.
So what until today's young ones are old enough to tell you exactly how bad we fucked them up. Bring tissues.
But maybe this app will fix them! Invest!
Same here and I completely agree.
Easy, low effort communication has allowed me to much better overcome my poor socialization/abusive childhood and make friends much easier than before. Even something as simple as having a GPS has opened up a lot of doors, as there's places I will go to now that I wouldn't attempt to go to ~10 years ago due to the fear of getting lost.
Easy, low effort communication has allowed me to much better overcome my poor socialization/abusive childhood and make friends much easier than before. Even something as simple as having a GPS has opened up a lot of doors, as there's places I will go to now that I wouldn't attempt to go to ~10 years ago due to the fear of getting lost.
Indeed. Atomization was well under way before social media came along.
I don't think the analogy is apt. People need ways to socialize and many are isolated by, among other things, overabundance of individual or shallow entertainment, overabundance of entertainment vs. learning and challenging activities, and excessive demands of work. An app simply trying to connect people could bring less of the former.
The problem isn't apps (or 'tech') per se, it's more of a systemic problem. The solutions will almost definitely involve a mix or cultural evolution, technology, and the impact of various groups and organizations.
The problem isn't apps (or 'tech') per se, it's more of a systemic problem. The solutions will almost definitely involve a mix or cultural evolution, technology, and the impact of various groups and organizations.
Of course it's sales copy, but if this is what sells now, maybe we're heading in the right direction?
I mainly like this line: "They laid out a few principles to build by: a focus on relationships instead of Likes and followers, conscious design that won’t exploit people’s attention or weaknesses, no ads, and keeping all data private and in control of the user."
It would be great if this could be an actual thing.
I mainly like this line: "They laid out a few principles to build by: a focus on relationships instead of Likes and followers, conscious design that won’t exploit people’s attention or weaknesses, no ads, and keeping all data private and in control of the user."
It would be great if this could be an actual thing.
Yeah, I agree. I want SO BADLY to believe in this, and so far I haven't found anything that I can clearly see is wrong. But I've NEVER seen a company succeed by doing something legitimately prosocial, so my default position isn't trust here.
Loneliness is because people have convinced themselves that the cost of being with someone is bigger than the reward of being with someone.
The immediate cost of being alone is going down.
We need to understand, no matter how much a person has read or introspected their behaviour or are kind at their heart - no one will every be able to live up to the expectations of millions of people on internet.
This is why relationship advice on internet is such a joke, whenever anything happens, advice that's given to them is "leave this person, this person is abusive, manipulative, you deserve better". They follow the advice and end up alone and convince themselves that being alone is best.
Now, about the people who want to pursue romantic interests,the game is soo different now.
Long ago, girls from my town only dated local boys. They had to do with what's available to them locally but these days, one girl tells me that their boyfriend is coming to see them on weekend from Italy, while others boyfriend is coming from Greece, etc... Meanwhile men of town have drowned themselves in video games, porn and drinking/drugs because they've no meaningful relationships - they told me they feel like loser because girls aren't interested in them.
Yes, the men they are with are wayy better than what's available locally. Better according to preference of those girls, not according to me. Can I blame women for choosing best available to them? No. Many guys will do same provided they had the opportunity.
If romantic interests is not what you wanna pursue, it hardly matters if you are not very attractive - you can find plenty of people are church, at beach or anywhere where you see people. Finding people to spend time with us not difficult at all provided you can fulfill the minimum required to not put off the people.
I am pretty sure when people say they are lonely - they are talking about absence of people in their life who care about them or make efforts to make them happy or go out of their way to make them feel special, cared for, treasured. Who doesn't want this?
How technology can solve it?
The immediate cost of being alone is going down.
We need to understand, no matter how much a person has read or introspected their behaviour or are kind at their heart - no one will every be able to live up to the expectations of millions of people on internet.
This is why relationship advice on internet is such a joke, whenever anything happens, advice that's given to them is "leave this person, this person is abusive, manipulative, you deserve better". They follow the advice and end up alone and convince themselves that being alone is best.
Now, about the people who want to pursue romantic interests,the game is soo different now.
Long ago, girls from my town only dated local boys. They had to do with what's available to them locally but these days, one girl tells me that their boyfriend is coming to see them on weekend from Italy, while others boyfriend is coming from Greece, etc... Meanwhile men of town have drowned themselves in video games, porn and drinking/drugs because they've no meaningful relationships - they told me they feel like loser because girls aren't interested in them.
Yes, the men they are with are wayy better than what's available locally. Better according to preference of those girls, not according to me. Can I blame women for choosing best available to them? No. Many guys will do same provided they had the opportunity.
If romantic interests is not what you wanna pursue, it hardly matters if you are not very attractive - you can find plenty of people are church, at beach or anywhere where you see people. Finding people to spend time with us not difficult at all provided you can fulfill the minimum required to not put off the people.
I am pretty sure when people say they are lonely - they are talking about absence of people in their life who care about them or make efforts to make them happy or go out of their way to make them feel special, cared for, treasured. Who doesn't want this?
How technology can solve it?
On the other hand, leaving abusive or manipulative person is a good idea - you are better off alone.
And dating addicted gamer that also drinks or takes drugs sounds like special kind of hell. It would just make her suffer in bad relationship where she has no meaningfull companion and partner.
No girl can cure any of these. And guys like this won't change after starting to date a girl - not for long. The idea that she will civilised him by her presence is bonkers.
Hardcore gamer culture is not the "you found a girl stop playing that much" culture. It is "you don't play enough you are weakling get gut looser, if girl stopping you from hobby she is bad partner" culture.
Amd real life dating activities are boring compared to excitement of gane for gamers. Even if he wanted to stop instantly, it is trully hard.
And dating addicted gamer that also drinks or takes drugs sounds like special kind of hell. It would just make her suffer in bad relationship where she has no meaningfull companion and partner.
No girl can cure any of these. And guys like this won't change after starting to date a girl - not for long. The idea that she will civilised him by her presence is bonkers.
Hardcore gamer culture is not the "you found a girl stop playing that much" culture. It is "you don't play enough you are weakling get gut looser, if girl stopping you from hobby she is bad partner" culture.
Amd real life dating activities are boring compared to excitement of gane for gamers. Even if he wanted to stop instantly, it is trully hard.
>And dating addicted gamer that also drinks or takes drugs sounds like special kind of hell. It would just make her suffer in bad relationship where she has no meaningfull companion and partner.
That happened once they accepted that they'll find any relationship - everyone they were interested in, rejected them and they gave up.
>No girl can cure any of these. And guys like this won't change after starting to date a girl - not for long. The idea that she will civilised him by her presence is bonkers
Do we always live for ourselves? Do we never try to live up to expectations of our family or friends? Or those who believe in us, being on our side in life?
That happened once they accepted that they'll find any relationship - everyone they were interested in, rejected them and they gave up.
>No girl can cure any of these. And guys like this won't change after starting to date a girl - not for long. The idea that she will civilised him by her presence is bonkers
Do we always live for ourselves? Do we never try to live up to expectations of our family or friends? Or those who believe in us, being on our side in life?
> Do we always live for ourselves? Do we never try to live up to expectations of our family or friends? Or those who believe in us, being on our side in life?
People can of course change over time and be influenced by people around them. However, entering a relationship with another person based on the presumption that you can "change" them is a recipe for relationship disaster.
There are billions of people on this planet. If you're looking for a relationship, you're better off finding one that suits you rather than someone who doesn't and trying to change them into something else.
People can of course change over time and be influenced by people around them. However, entering a relationship with another person based on the presumption that you can "change" them is a recipe for relationship disaster.
There are billions of people on this planet. If you're looking for a relationship, you're better off finding one that suits you rather than someone who doesn't and trying to change them into something else.
This is simply false. Gamers don't start at 27 when they gave up on dating. They just keep playing more and more from pre-teenage years as social thing with friends.
Nor do people start drink after they have been without partner for years. Instead, they are friends with peers and drink with them progressively.
> Do we always live for ourselves? Do we never try to live up to expectations of our family or friends? Or those who believe in us, being on our side in life?
Sure not. But what you want there is a person whose only role is to make you better by making you feel like she expects from you - without getting much in return.
That is not how relationships work, both sides need to have their needs met. Both sides need the other side to give.
Including girls.
Nor do people start drink after they have been without partner for years. Instead, they are friends with peers and drink with them progressively.
> Do we always live for ourselves? Do we never try to live up to expectations of our family or friends? Or those who believe in us, being on our side in life?
Sure not. But what you want there is a person whose only role is to make you better by making you feel like she expects from you - without getting much in return.
That is not how relationships work, both sides need to have their needs met. Both sides need the other side to give.
Including girls.
To make some perspective, you started in a “clueless dad” mode about gaming and then went that route (gamers social grouping, etc) to justify the phenomenon.
There is nothing to justify though. Someone is choosing a partner from a different country, who can fly over for a weekend. It is not “better” or “worse”, it is a selection from a bigger set of beautiful he-dogs, and all-time high expectations. You can see that even not crossing a country border, just look at a small town near a big one. All males in there fall in shadow of any confident big city citizen. With technology, the discussed outcome was inevitable.
I bet that our parent commenter did not speak about NY, Paris or Tokio downtowns.
There is nothing to justify though. Someone is choosing a partner from a different country, who can fly over for a weekend. It is not “better” or “worse”, it is a selection from a bigger set of beautiful he-dogs, and all-time high expectations. You can see that even not crossing a country border, just look at a small town near a big one. All males in there fall in shadow of any confident big city citizen. With technology, the discussed outcome was inevitable.
I bet that our parent commenter did not speak about NY, Paris or Tokio downtowns.
There is nothing clueless about observation that people start playing games way sooner then they seek partners. There is nothing clueless about observation that it has social component - bonding among guys. In particular gamers tend to have whole social life composed of other gamers.
The guys you described are not failing to meet some super high expectations. You described people with drug and alcohol issues who have game addiction issues on top.
Romantic relationship is not the only source of company and relationships. You can't depend on one person for all your social and emotional needs.
There are slightly more girls then males at any given moment. There are plenty of single women around the world. They don't blame missing guys for their alcoholism (through plenty of them have other issues)
The guys you described are not failing to meet some super high expectations. You described people with drug and alcohol issues who have game addiction issues on top.
Romantic relationship is not the only source of company and relationships. You can't depend on one person for all your social and emotional needs.
There are slightly more girls then males at any given moment. There are plenty of single women around the world. They don't blame missing guys for their alcoholism (through plenty of them have other issues)
>You described people with drug and alcohol issues who have game addiction issues on top.
I had no such thing in mind at all. Not sure if me or you misread this subthread, but blaming guys who cannot find a local match for their depression (if they take place; this idea was brought out of nowhere) seems too prejudicial, while more prosaic explanations exist - they cannot compete at their best.
Op was like “girls in town choose foreigners so local guys feel like loser”, and you jumped to “they are all game addicts, and drugs, and alcohol, their fault”.
I had no such thing in mind at all. Not sure if me or you misread this subthread, but blaming guys who cannot find a local match for their depression (if they take place; this idea was brought out of nowhere) seems too prejudicial, while more prosaic explanations exist - they cannot compete at their best.
Op was like “girls in town choose foreigners so local guys feel like loser”, and you jumped to “they are all game addicts, and drugs, and alcohol, their fault”.
Nah, it was not merely depression. Full quote: "men of town have drowned themselves in video games, porn and drinking/drugs". Which is way more then being depressed. It does not matter whose is to be blamed, but dating anyone like that is receipt for unavailable alcoholic partner. And she won't meet him anyway, cause he is moving solely among males.
His explanation is "because they've no meaningful relationships", but then he proceed to define meaningfull relationships as romantic only.
No girl can fix any of that. They can't fix lack of friendship, can't fix lack of familly relationships, can't fix no roots in local community. Women are not rewards for good behavior nor cure for mental health problems. If you expect any of that, you will end up ressentful of partner who won't be able to provide that much.
Having long term partner is not cure all, nor cure for depression or loneliness. Not in long term, not after initial honeymoon passionate period ends.
I doubt that majority of town girls have foreign long distance intercultural partners. Such relationships are quote hard to keep and generally rare. Despite there being some girls with foreign boyfriend, majority will date local or not at all.
And plenty of girls have depressions on their own, mental health problems, bad habits, possibly own addiction struggles. Problems in families with relatives or on the job.
His explanation is "because they've no meaningful relationships", but then he proceed to define meaningfull relationships as romantic only.
No girl can fix any of that. They can't fix lack of friendship, can't fix lack of familly relationships, can't fix no roots in local community. Women are not rewards for good behavior nor cure for mental health problems. If you expect any of that, you will end up ressentful of partner who won't be able to provide that much.
Having long term partner is not cure all, nor cure for depression or loneliness. Not in long term, not after initial honeymoon passionate period ends.
I doubt that majority of town girls have foreign long distance intercultural partners. Such relationships are quote hard to keep and generally rare. Despite there being some girls with foreign boyfriend, majority will date local or not at all.
And plenty of girls have depressions on their own, mental health problems, bad habits, possibly own addiction struggles. Problems in families with relatives or on the job.
But how'd they get there in the first place? Contact with a D12 is terminal? What set our hypothetical failure apart from a 20-something guy that drinks, does drugs, plays games, is in a relationship and leads a rewarding life? Allow me to blast some copypasta about for an idea I can't quite articulate myself:
>Everything is systemic until it's people you don't like, and then suddenly they're personally morally culpable for their shit ass attitude. A whole generation of men simultaneously said "nah fuck it having a life is for fags"? When you see this many people with the same problem, the word "systemic" should come to mind immediately. They need to wipe their own ass obviously but I'm in no rush to blame a whole generation of teenagers for burning out the exact same way; I wanna know who sold them the video games, weed and tendies.
>Everything is systemic until it's people you don't like, and then suddenly they're personally morally culpable for their shit ass attitude. A whole generation of men simultaneously said "nah fuck it having a life is for fags"? When you see this many people with the same problem, the word "systemic" should come to mind immediately. They need to wipe their own ass obviously but I'm in no rush to blame a whole generation of teenagers for burning out the exact same way; I wanna know who sold them the video games, weed and tendies.
May I ask where you are from?
What confuses me about your post: Why do the girls of your town data guys from abroad but the guys do not date girls from abroad?
What confuses me about your post: Why do the girls of your town data guys from abroad but the guys do not date girls from abroad?
pretty girls (without money) have access to a wide pool of potential candidates, while a charming boy without cash won't. This is what I see in Eastern Europe. Some towns are also dying because of this (the other reason is availability of jobs ofc)
And also how many international long distance relationships are in the town. Especially compared to how many single guys are there. Given how hard it is to keep long term long distance relationship and additional complication of intercultural one, it is super unlikely that planes are flying there every weekend full of boyfriends.
> Loneliness is because people have convinced themselves that the cost of being with someone is bigger than the reward of being with someone.
"I understand the human condition because I studied microeconomics, and other stories you can tell yourself at night."
> How can technology solve it?
Have you considered that maybe it can't?
A power drill is a great tool. That doesn't mean it's well suited to every task.
"I understand the human condition because I studied microeconomics, and other stories you can tell yourself at night."
> How can technology solve it?
Have you considered that maybe it can't?
A power drill is a great tool. That doesn't mean it's well suited to every task.
There is also good relationship advice on the internet, but it probably won't be on hate-fueled platforms like Reddit or Facebook.
And mainly, it is:
- talk to people, both guys and girls
- always stay curious to learn or try something new
- always discourage comparing people. Nobody else can know all of your strength. And you will never know all the good points about the person you're judging.
#1 will make you easy to be around #2 will make you interesting #3 will make you take the time to really get to know people
Together that should do to find someone nice.
But let's also talk about the other direction. Most local guys will see advertisements and hope for a nice and pretty girl. And compared with TV ads, most of the local girls will fall short. I mean even the model herself will look worse than her photoshopped images.
So why should those guys put in full effort if there's no truly satisfying girl available locally?
And mainly, it is:
- talk to people, both guys and girls
- always stay curious to learn or try something new
- always discourage comparing people. Nobody else can know all of your strength. And you will never know all the good points about the person you're judging.
#1 will make you easy to be around #2 will make you interesting #3 will make you take the time to really get to know people
Together that should do to find someone nice.
But let's also talk about the other direction. Most local guys will see advertisements and hope for a nice and pretty girl. And compared with TV ads, most of the local girls will fall short. I mean even the model herself will look worse than her photoshopped images.
So why should those guys put in full effort if there's no truly satisfying girl available locally?
In a world where there are literal conferences on how to psychologically abuse people to spend money in your app I feel that I'd never trust any sort of app that aims "help my psychologicall health".
Combined that with the fact that this whole "reveal article" has no actual substance and trying to sell me the idea and emotion rather than a feature makes feel that I'm being manipulated already and I hadn't even opened up the app yet!
I feel that the "app" medium has lost any credibility for providing solutions of this sort.
Combined that with the fact that this whole "reveal article" has no actual substance and trying to sell me the idea and emotion rather than a feature makes feel that I'm being manipulated already and I hadn't even opened up the app yet!
I feel that the "app" medium has lost any credibility for providing solutions of this sort.
I am so tired of generic Tech Crunch articles like this that add no new/ meaningful information.
It never actually had any credibility for these sorts of deep and complex social problems.
That was just a lie we told ourselves and investors during the heyday where we naively believed we were going to solve all of the world's problems through apps.
It was never real. No one ever actually believed an app could fix loneliness or depression outside of bored investors with too much money and time on their hands and starving startup developers desperate to break even.
And yes, dear HN reader, that likely means YOU.
HN readers love to rightfully talk shit about Gwyneth Paltrow and GOOP, but apparently can't see that many of them are pushing the exact same kind of bullshit for a different audience.
That was just a lie we told ourselves and investors during the heyday where we naively believed we were going to solve all of the world's problems through apps.
It was never real. No one ever actually believed an app could fix loneliness or depression outside of bored investors with too much money and time on their hands and starving startup developers desperate to break even.
And yes, dear HN reader, that likely means YOU.
HN readers love to rightfully talk shit about Gwyneth Paltrow and GOOP, but apparently can't see that many of them are pushing the exact same kind of bullshit for a different audience.
Meetup has actually been pretty effective for me. Granted it's more of a website than an app, not sure the distinction is important though.
> “I don’t feel good about that. That sucks,” Chrys Bader-Wechseler reflects when asked about the bullying that went down on the anonymous app Secret he co-founded in 2013. After $35 million raised, 15 million users and a spectacular flame out two years later, the startup was dead. “Since I left Secret I feel alive and aligned with my values and my purpose again.”
I wonder what his values and purpose are.
I wonder what his values and purpose are.
> “Since I left Secret I feel alive and aligned with my values and my purpose again.”
> I wonder what his values and purpose are.
Few people know the founder and whether he's actually a good person or a fraud, but we do know that: he was the recipient of huge VC largess, created an app with shaky moral foundation that caused actual harm, and then shut it down after lots of bad publicity.
Not reasons to totally discount a person, but good reasons to be skeptical.
Few people know the founder and whether he's actually a good person or a fraud, but we do know that: he was the recipient of huge VC largess, created an app with shaky moral foundation that caused actual harm, and then shut it down after lots of bad publicity.
Not reasons to totally discount a person, but good reasons to be skeptical.
[deleted]
To look forward, to hope for the best for everyone and to overcome the unforeseen.
Idk who this guy is, but it is clear from the text that he is a startup entrepreneur.
Idk who this guy is, but it is clear from the text that he is a startup entrepreneur.
Hi,
This is a totally fair question. I appreciate you giving me the benefit of the doubt.
When I designed and built Secret, it was based on an early community of people who were sharing things we'd never see on Facebook or anywhere else. I was touched by the vulnerable stories and conversations people were having. People would come to me and tell me Secret changed their life in positive ways. This is why I continued to work on it and believed that it was possible for it to do good in the world.
Ever since I left Secret, those moments always stuck with me. And even to this day people reach out and tell me they miss Secret; what I hear is that people still have a need to share vulnerably. That's why I decided to lick my wounds and get back to work.
Last August I hit a peak of loneliness after moving to LA, and using Instagram all the time. I felt like shit, like I wasn't enough, and I was really hard on myself and self critical. This led me to an emotional rock bottom. It wasn't until then that I demanded self love from myself and built myself back up emotionally, and it was that process that inspired me to help other who might feel like I did at that difficult point last August.
Personally, some of my values are:
— People are inherently good. I believe everyone has a story and their own challenges, and if they can feel heard, they can feel accepted and become a healthy and thriving individual.
— Strangers are just friends waiting to happen. We can be quick to judge other people, but we should always bias to listening and to asking questions to better understand where people are coming from.
— It starts with self love. If you can't accept yourself, how can you ever truly know how to accept anyone else? Usually when we reject others, it's because we reject something about ourselves. I learned this lesson the hard way, and hope to bring more self compassion to others.
— It takes a village. Pursuing any mission in life is greater than any one person. When I built Secret, initially it was mostly my idea and I designed it myself. I think that's the exception to the rule. With what we're building now, we've received so much support that all I can do is empower and enable people to do what they love to bring this mission to life.
— Leave it better than you found it. Whatever situation you're in, do what you can to make a little better.
— Joy waits on the other side of fear. Often the things we are afraid of are gateways to self-discovery and fulfilling our potential.
I could go on, but these are just some that come to mind now. You can read about the values of our company on our website at http://ikaria.co
This is a totally fair question. I appreciate you giving me the benefit of the doubt.
When I designed and built Secret, it was based on an early community of people who were sharing things we'd never see on Facebook or anywhere else. I was touched by the vulnerable stories and conversations people were having. People would come to me and tell me Secret changed their life in positive ways. This is why I continued to work on it and believed that it was possible for it to do good in the world.
Ever since I left Secret, those moments always stuck with me. And even to this day people reach out and tell me they miss Secret; what I hear is that people still have a need to share vulnerably. That's why I decided to lick my wounds and get back to work.
Last August I hit a peak of loneliness after moving to LA, and using Instagram all the time. I felt like shit, like I wasn't enough, and I was really hard on myself and self critical. This led me to an emotional rock bottom. It wasn't until then that I demanded self love from myself and built myself back up emotionally, and it was that process that inspired me to help other who might feel like I did at that difficult point last August.
Personally, some of my values are:
— People are inherently good. I believe everyone has a story and their own challenges, and if they can feel heard, they can feel accepted and become a healthy and thriving individual.
— Strangers are just friends waiting to happen. We can be quick to judge other people, but we should always bias to listening and to asking questions to better understand where people are coming from.
— It starts with self love. If you can't accept yourself, how can you ever truly know how to accept anyone else? Usually when we reject others, it's because we reject something about ourselves. I learned this lesson the hard way, and hope to bring more self compassion to others.
— It takes a village. Pursuing any mission in life is greater than any one person. When I built Secret, initially it was mostly my idea and I designed it myself. I think that's the exception to the rule. With what we're building now, we've received so much support that all I can do is empower and enable people to do what they love to bring this mission to life.
— Leave it better than you found it. Whatever situation you're in, do what you can to make a little better.
— Joy waits on the other side of fear. Often the things we are afraid of are gateways to self-discovery and fulfilling our potential.
I could go on, but these are just some that come to mind now. You can read about the values of our company on our website at http://ikaria.co
> I wonder what his values and purpose are.
Hopefully not using investor $$ to buy himself a ferrari, like his co-founder! https://nextshark.com/david-byttow-secret-founder-sells-priz...
Hopefully not using investor $$ to buy himself a ferrari, like his co-founder! https://nextshark.com/david-byttow-secret-founder-sells-priz...
what the hell is the point of this statement? he didn't do that.
Wow had a flashback to the web 2.0 bubble. They must be really convincing at sales to get funding for something they can't even explain, again.
In my opinion, with regards to friendship, there is simply no substitute for an in person conversation. I happily drive 6 hours to see my best friends for a weekend; that's at least $70 in gas as well. FaceTime just isn't the same and I have a hard time imagining the people in my circle (the same type of people I would like to meet) spending their time trying to meet people on an app.
I also value in-person conversation. But my experience has increasingly been that my circle of friends is up for having dinner or whatever, but during the meal everyone is looking down at their phones and they only have half of their attention on the conversation. When your friends aren’t entirely present mentally, then even in-person meetups can make you feel lonely.
Try to get your circle of friends more engaged and present if you can.
I spent an entire year living on my own, never inviting a single other person into my home and only entering the home of another person (save for immediate family, during holiday) once. Having chat apps made that experience much more bearable and actually did lead to a handful of real-world, albeit mostly long-distance, friendships (in that I host them in town for one week out of the year and they host me for one week out of the year).
At this point, I think chat apps can improve things in some ways for some people.
But that year alone mostly just made me hungry for more real face-to-face bonding. Apart from the people who are well-enough off to travel, but poor enough to have no friends, I’m not sure any chat app really has a place in your social life unless creating real-world friendships is one of its primary goals and it’s designed to actually achieve that effectively.
At this point, I think chat apps can improve things in some ways for some people.
But that year alone mostly just made me hungry for more real face-to-face bonding. Apart from the people who are well-enough off to travel, but poor enough to have no friends, I’m not sure any chat app really has a place in your social life unless creating real-world friendships is one of its primary goals and it’s designed to actually achieve that effectively.
Hannah Arendt claims that loneliness was necessary for the rise of totalitarianism in the 20th century.
She writes:
> Loneliness, the common ground for terror, the essence of totalitarian government, and for ideology or logicality, the preparation of its executioners and victims, is closely connected with uprootedness and superfluousness which have been the curse of modern masses since the beginning of the industrial revolution and have become acute with the rise of imperialism at the end of the last century and the break-down of political institutions and social traditions in our own time. To be uprooted means to have no place in the world, recognized and guaranteed by others; to be superfluous means not to belong to the world at all. Uprootedness can be the preliminary condition for superfluousness, just as isolation can (but must not) be the preliminary condition for loneliness. Taken in itself, without consideration of its recent historical causes and its new role in politics, loneliness is at the same time contrary to the basic requirements of the human condition and one of the fundamental experiences of every human life. Even the experience of the materially and sensually given world depends upon my being in contact with other men, upon our common sense which regulates and controls all other senses and without which each of us would enclosed in his own particularity of sense data which in themselves are unreliable and treacherous. Only because we have common sense, that is only because not one man, but men in the plural inhabit the earth can we trust our immediate sensual experience. Yet, we have only to remind ourselves that one day we shall have to leave this common world which will go on as before and for whose continuity we are superfluous in order to realize loneliness, the experience of being abandoned by everything and everybody.
Dealing with "uprootedness and superfluousness" is one of the most perplexing questions facing modernity. I doubt an app can address this but...good luck.
She writes:
> Loneliness, the common ground for terror, the essence of totalitarian government, and for ideology or logicality, the preparation of its executioners and victims, is closely connected with uprootedness and superfluousness which have been the curse of modern masses since the beginning of the industrial revolution and have become acute with the rise of imperialism at the end of the last century and the break-down of political institutions and social traditions in our own time. To be uprooted means to have no place in the world, recognized and guaranteed by others; to be superfluous means not to belong to the world at all. Uprootedness can be the preliminary condition for superfluousness, just as isolation can (but must not) be the preliminary condition for loneliness. Taken in itself, without consideration of its recent historical causes and its new role in politics, loneliness is at the same time contrary to the basic requirements of the human condition and one of the fundamental experiences of every human life. Even the experience of the materially and sensually given world depends upon my being in contact with other men, upon our common sense which regulates and controls all other senses and without which each of us would enclosed in his own particularity of sense data which in themselves are unreliable and treacherous. Only because we have common sense, that is only because not one man, but men in the plural inhabit the earth can we trust our immediate sensual experience. Yet, we have only to remind ourselves that one day we shall have to leave this common world which will go on as before and for whose continuity we are superfluous in order to realize loneliness, the experience of being abandoned by everything and everybody.
Dealing with "uprootedness and superfluousness" is one of the most perplexing questions facing modernity. I doubt an app can address this but...good luck.
I read through around 75% of the TechCrunch article and I am yet to figure out what exactly this app is supposed to be. Seemed like a lot of feel good jargon but it couldn’t tell me how exactly it will make my life better or improve upon other social media (if that’s what this app is??)
The phone's off button is the ultimate anti-loneliness app.
Sorry, I missed the parent thread.
This all started with a very simple question: Do we fundamentally believe that technology can help us create more meaningful relationships and increase our social wellness?
If we believe the answer is yes, then we absolutely must do everything in our power and ability to try to find the answer. That's why we decided to build Ikaria.
We are not ignorant to the value of real, in-person communication and interaction, and we're not trying to replace it. We've done deep research on the psychology of relationships and loneliness, and the mental health impact of it. The problem exists with or without social media, although numerous studies have shown the problem can be exacerbated by social media.
Since we cannot avoid technology, we must reclaim it and give people spaces where they can form healthy habits and healthy relationships with their phones and each other. Very much like the fitness industry was born from a junk food epidemic, it's time for a shake-up in junk social nutrition.
Our goal is to bring healthy relational practices to the forefront. Very much like Calm and Headspace have done for mindfulness and mental health, we would like to do for social health. From what we've seen, the behaviors we learn in a digital space are transferable into the physical world.
We are working directly with experts and mental health professionals to help inform our product decisions and include them from the very beginning. This is bigger than any one person or idea, and we believe it's going to take a village.
So far, in our closed beta, people are reporting feeling closer to everyone in their groups, increased levels of happiness, and a positive relationship with the app. (i.e. "This is the only app where I allow notifications other than text")
For me, personally, it's brought me much closer to my parents and I keep in touch with them more than I ever have. I'd love for more people to have that experience.
We welcome criticism and support equally, thank you to everyone who has shown interest and has shared their views.
This all started with a very simple question: Do we fundamentally believe that technology can help us create more meaningful relationships and increase our social wellness?
If we believe the answer is yes, then we absolutely must do everything in our power and ability to try to find the answer. That's why we decided to build Ikaria.
We are not ignorant to the value of real, in-person communication and interaction, and we're not trying to replace it. We've done deep research on the psychology of relationships and loneliness, and the mental health impact of it. The problem exists with or without social media, although numerous studies have shown the problem can be exacerbated by social media.
Since we cannot avoid technology, we must reclaim it and give people spaces where they can form healthy habits and healthy relationships with their phones and each other. Very much like the fitness industry was born from a junk food epidemic, it's time for a shake-up in junk social nutrition.
Our goal is to bring healthy relational practices to the forefront. Very much like Calm and Headspace have done for mindfulness and mental health, we would like to do for social health. From what we've seen, the behaviors we learn in a digital space are transferable into the physical world.
We are working directly with experts and mental health professionals to help inform our product decisions and include them from the very beginning. This is bigger than any one person or idea, and we believe it's going to take a village.
So far, in our closed beta, people are reporting feeling closer to everyone in their groups, increased levels of happiness, and a positive relationship with the app. (i.e. "This is the only app where I allow notifications other than text")
For me, personally, it's brought me much closer to my parents and I keep in touch with them more than I ever have. I'd love for more people to have that experience.
We welcome criticism and support equally, thank you to everyone who has shown interest and has shared their views.
Suspicious app.
This might be another clever way to harvest private user information. Are you lonely? Hey, how about some therapy? Here’s a list of some good therapists. (Your name was auctioned off to the highest bidders.)
Or how about some Zoloft? It cures everything. Buy now, for a 25% discount. (Your name and demographic was auctioned off to the highest bidder.)
If I was a lunatic, then, I don’t think I want to be in some random company’s insecure database, just waiting to be hacked.
This might be another clever way to harvest private user information. Are you lonely? Hey, how about some therapy? Here’s a list of some good therapists. (Your name was auctioned off to the highest bidders.)
Or how about some Zoloft? It cures everything. Buy now, for a 25% discount. (Your name and demographic was auctioned off to the highest bidder.)
If I was a lunatic, then, I don’t think I want to be in some random company’s insecure database, just waiting to be hacked.
Why do these sites obnoxiously hijack the browser back button ?!
"Ikaria...named after the Greek island where a close-knit community helps extend people’s lifespans."
"Bader met Dadashi through an offline men’s group for discussing life, love and everything in the wake of Secret’s collapse and a rough romantic breakup. After just a few weeks of these meetups, they say they felt closer to each other than to most of their friends."
"Basically, since 2004, technology has created this monumental shift in the human social experience. We’re more connected than ever technically but all the studies show we’re lonelier than ever,” Bader explains. “It’s like eating McDonald’s to get healthy."
And the conclusion is to take VC money to make a slightly different McDonald's. I just can't even.
"Bader met Dadashi through an offline men’s group for discussing life, love and everything in the wake of Secret’s collapse and a rough romantic breakup. After just a few weeks of these meetups, they say they felt closer to each other than to most of their friends."
"Basically, since 2004, technology has created this monumental shift in the human social experience. We’re more connected than ever technically but all the studies show we’re lonelier than ever,” Bader explains. “It’s like eating McDonald’s to get healthy."
And the conclusion is to take VC money to make a slightly different McDonald's. I just can't even.
It should be an app in the form of a huge EPFCG EMP. ;) Only when:
0. people's survival depends on them interacting
1. the established ruling-class is dethroned from atomizing and monetizing people into individual, lonely, learned-helpless products who are taught to spend 10% of their pay on a laptop every 3 years, forgo single-payer healthcare and spend 10x more for medications
2. people can afford housing, start a family and put down roots instead of going in insane debt, gig economy pseudo-jobs, changing jobs/moving like a pinball or living at work to burn-out
3. return to solidarity, cohesion, the Golden Rule and basic decency as the prevalent modality
... will they do so.
0. people's survival depends on them interacting
1. the established ruling-class is dethroned from atomizing and monetizing people into individual, lonely, learned-helpless products who are taught to spend 10% of their pay on a laptop every 3 years, forgo single-payer healthcare and spend 10x more for medications
2. people can afford housing, start a family and put down roots instead of going in insane debt, gig economy pseudo-jobs, changing jobs/moving like a pinball or living at work to burn-out
3. return to solidarity, cohesion, the Golden Rule and basic decency as the prevalent modality
... will they do so.
I'd argue that modern day issue of loneliness is an urban design problem way more than it is a technology problem.
The suburbs are isolating, and building strip malls instead of walkable downtowns (for both suburbs and denser areas) just adds to that. We pushed for the quiet and privacy of suburbs but took it so far that we eliminated the human interaction.
We need to start prioritizing spaces and urban design that encourage social interaction. Build walkable downtowns around commuter rail stations. More parks, coffeeshops, community spaces to suit different hobbies, etc.
The suburbs are isolating, and building strip malls instead of walkable downtowns (for both suburbs and denser areas) just adds to that. We pushed for the quiet and privacy of suburbs but took it so far that we eliminated the human interaction.
We need to start prioritizing spaces and urban design that encourage social interaction. Build walkable downtowns around commuter rail stations. More parks, coffeeshops, community spaces to suit different hobbies, etc.
Hype laden, manipulative article with no substance.
Is the product going to be similar?
Is the product going to be similar?
“Since I left Secret I feel alive and aligned with my values and my purpose again.” - Bader, co founder
What Bader learned from watching Secret’s users “do this in the dark” was the realization that “actually, we need to learn to do this in the light, to have that same kind of dialogue, but do it openly with each other.”
Hell of anti workplace toxicity spot if you ask me.
We need to regain this piece of our humanity back.
Im doing l my share, are you ? HN does lean towards the light from what i can see.
What Bader learned from watching Secret’s users “do this in the dark” was the realization that “actually, we need to learn to do this in the light, to have that same kind of dialogue, but do it openly with each other.”
Hell of anti workplace toxicity spot if you ask me.
We need to regain this piece of our humanity back.
Im doing l my share, are you ? HN does lean towards the light from what i can see.
> Im doing l my share, are you ? HN does lean towards the light from what i can see.
I think, in general, HN leans a little towards the light but that is true of humanity in general.
But, there is a boat load of toxicity in this very discussion.
I think, in general, HN leans a little towards the light but that is true of humanity in general.
But, there is a boat load of toxicity in this very discussion.
Point it out! Im actually eager to be told my shortcomings. Unconscious things are hard to aolve
[deleted]
Solve loneliness by giving people another reason to stare at their phone. Sigh.
I sometimes feel like the tech industry is an episode of black mirror.
I sometimes feel like the tech industry is an episode of black mirror.
An anti-loneliness app? What's wrong with M-x doctor?
Solution to loniliness on the internet is be decent looking, hot or the vision of what ppl want (aka the beauty standards we're programmed to desire). Those who fit that mold probably aren't the target audience for this app.
Overall the Internet and the dating/hook up apps I believe are one of the problems to the loneliness epedemic Ive read about (all or many of us are too judgy online). People being immediately judged and swiped right on (throw to the bin) without ever getting to know someone. Someone who might make you pee your pants with laughter!
Overall the Internet and the dating/hook up apps I believe are one of the problems to the loneliness epedemic Ive read about (all or many of us are too judgy online). People being immediately judged and swiped right on (throw to the bin) without ever getting to know someone. Someone who might make you pee your pants with laughter!
I have made close friendships from people on IRC without ever knowing who they look like.
Sure, that’s what tinder is, but you don’t have to use tinder.
Sure, that’s what tinder is, but you don’t have to use tinder.
Me, too. But I wouldn't be able to imagine IRC chat as a VC-fueled iPhone app without ruining it's charms.
Is the guy on the right not the sycophant of Gavin Belson?
1propionyl(1)
The root cause of this is pretty much entirely greed.
Greed in the form of housing policies where that is used as a tool for investment, rather than an investment in the community.
Greed in the form of a missing integration in to society and support for all who are in it to at least a basic level of guarantee. (Popular example, Star Trek utopia)
Greed in the form of profits being squeezed upward rather than shared as prosperity for all.
-
If everyone had their own, quality (private, outside noises/smells/etc excluded by good design and build quality), living spaces nearer to each other that would be far better for the design of our cities and the environment.
If everyone had a useful, non-broken-window, job and place where they added value to society, that would be better for everyone.
If everyone needed to expend less and less of their day working as things got more efficient, we would have the time to actually exist as humans / intelligent emotional beings among Family, Friends, and those we don't yet know.
-
I really believe that if people were treated like people, and had the time to be better people, much of our social ills would sort out sooner rather than later.
Greed in the form of housing policies where that is used as a tool for investment, rather than an investment in the community.
Greed in the form of a missing integration in to society and support for all who are in it to at least a basic level of guarantee. (Popular example, Star Trek utopia)
Greed in the form of profits being squeezed upward rather than shared as prosperity for all.
-
If everyone had their own, quality (private, outside noises/smells/etc excluded by good design and build quality), living spaces nearer to each other that would be far better for the design of our cities and the environment.
If everyone had a useful, non-broken-window, job and place where they added value to society, that would be better for everyone.
If everyone needed to expend less and less of their day working as things got more efficient, we would have the time to actually exist as humans / intelligent emotional beings among Family, Friends, and those we don't yet know.
-
I really believe that if people were treated like people, and had the time to be better people, much of our social ills would sort out sooner rather than later.
I’m guessing you’ve never actually been lonely. I am not lonely because of greed.
I am lonely because my friends have all married and moved away to start families.
I am lonely because I have always been socially awkward and being in my mid 30s with less time and energy than ever the prospect of trying to make new friends is a terrifying maze. I go to meetups and other social events and put myself out ther but connecting with people I don’t already know on anything more than a superficial level has proven impossible.
I am not lonely because of greed.
I am lonely because my friends have all married and moved away to start families.
I am lonely because I have always been socially awkward and being in my mid 30s with less time and energy than ever the prospect of trying to make new friends is a terrifying maze. I go to meetups and other social events and put myself out ther but connecting with people I don’t already know on anything more than a superficial level has proven impossible.
I am not lonely because of greed.
I wonder how you came to the conclusion that you're socially awkward, because in my experience people behave so differently depending on context that I would bet you that there's a crowd where you would feel right at home.
It's probably not the stereotypical club party crowd, but that's OK.
None of my friends met their long-term partner in a bar or club. All of them were doing things as a hobby and then accidentally met someone or got introduced by a common friend.
Two of my friends met their girlfriend (now wife) through World of Warcraft. Turns out people bring their curious sisters with them to the guild meeting, so even if the guild is all guys, you might meet a girl at the meetup. And if you're into Wow, you will surely be a lot more confident connecting with people on a Wow event.
The trick is not to try learning to meet people like in cliché movies. The trick is to figure out where to go so that you can have fun and meet people accidentally.
It's probably not the stereotypical club party crowd, but that's OK.
None of my friends met their long-term partner in a bar or club. All of them were doing things as a hobby and then accidentally met someone or got introduced by a common friend.
Two of my friends met their girlfriend (now wife) through World of Warcraft. Turns out people bring their curious sisters with them to the guild meeting, so even if the guild is all guys, you might meet a girl at the meetup. And if you're into Wow, you will surely be a lot more confident connecting with people on a Wow event.
The trick is not to try learning to meet people like in cliché movies. The trick is to figure out where to go so that you can have fun and meet people accidentally.
mid 30s you say, ha then yes I will become lonely because of greed
I live in New Zealand and most of what you say already exists. Yet we still have all the normal social ills. So I think that's proof you're wrong.
> If everyone needed to expend less and less of their day working as things got more efficient
We have that! Get an unskilled part time job and the government will give you a bit extra to pay the rent, and even more to support your children, etc. They'll also actively help you find work if you're unemployed. To remain unemployed here, you have to really put an effort in if you're not disabled.
Personally, I have fairly high value skills and only use them part time, so I'm living your utopia. Most people with high earning capacity choose to earn more though.
So the big problem for you is how do you limit the efforts of ambitious people to enforce this easy life on them?
> If everyone needed to expend less and less of their day working as things got more efficient
We have that! Get an unskilled part time job and the government will give you a bit extra to pay the rent, and even more to support your children, etc. They'll also actively help you find work if you're unemployed. To remain unemployed here, you have to really put an effort in if you're not disabled.
Personally, I have fairly high value skills and only use them part time, so I'm living your utopia. Most people with high earning capacity choose to earn more though.
So the big problem for you is how do you limit the efforts of ambitious people to enforce this easy life on them?
I think you have some of it, not all of it.
When will people learn that more technology is not only not always the answer, but often the problem?
The biggest fallacy of the 21st century is the idea that the shortcomings and collateral effects of the advance of technology can be addressed with more technology.
I'm not against technology. I'm not a neo-Luddite. But at the same time, the conception that all of the problems we've created or exacerbated through technology can be resolved by more of it is painfully naive. It's "when all you've got is a hammer..." logic.
New technology won't replace or repair the decline in social centers. New technology won't fix our increasing sense of disconnection with our localities. New technology won't help us engage with local politics (in the sense of trying to do good by collective action).
Building new apps and new technologies isn't a cure-all or necessarily a solution for the problems were facing right now. It's time for us to recognize that we (the tech community) don't have all of the right answers, and it's time for us to reach out and try to learn, and try to participate in fixing the problems we helped create.