The Effects of Being “Chronically Online” and How It Distorts Our View of Reality
The invention and spread of the Internet in the last few decades has given rise to a number of colloquial terms, whether that be slang across many languages or universal acronyms with oddly specific meanings. One such term that has gained popularity and frequent usage among youth of late has been “chronically online,” a term used to describe a person who is constantly on the Internet, somewhat akin to similar terms such as “chronically ill” with something of a medical connotation. One definition from Urban Dictionary defines “chronically online” as “someone who is basically always on the internet and their entire existence revolves around being on the internet…” which sums up the term fairly well.
While the usage of “chronically online” is typically humorous and used to poke fun at people on Twitter rather than be an actual insult or diagnosis of a problem, what it connotes is much darker. The entire concept of having one’s “entire existence [revolve] around being on the internet” is far more common and far more harmful than it may seem. The Internet has and the dozens of technological innovations and revolutions have bolstered and reinforced our quality life in quite a few ways, whether that be giving us communication with relatives halfway across the globe or providing us with a plethora of knowledgeable tools, everyone’s favorite (except that of high school English teachers) recently being OpenAI’s ChatGPT. Yet at the same time, the Internet has its fair share of issues that often go unnoticed. While valid problems, these are not limited to simply the effects of blue light on our eyes or the lack of exercise that comes with sitting in front of a screen all day.
The Internet may analogically be compared to a bar of candy. It provides instant relief, brings a smile to our faces in the moment, and if you eat one every month, for example, no real harm should befall you. But unlike candy bars, the Internet is not only much easier to access at any given time for most living in first-world countries, but also much more versatile (and unfortunately, necessary) than a candy bar. Its effects are less visible than weight gain or cavities in teeth and though sugar addiction is a real problem for some, for most, the Internet is still more irresistible.
One of the biggest draws of the Internet is the source of distraction it serves as. While life is rocky, full of challenges on the daily, and unceasingly frustrating, the Internet is colorful, bountifully amusing, and most of all, simple, with the difficulties of using it decreasing by the day. There has been no global event since the birth of the Internet that has provided it a better opportunity to become the knight in shining armor as a source of escapism from reality than the Covid-19 pandemic, and the effects of that are still seen today. Specifically, the loneliness, lack of sleep quality and anxiety that accompanied the pandemic for youth led to excessive time spent gaming or on the Internet, beginning to resemble addictive behaviors, according to a study from the American Psychological Association. In this way, addictive Internet usage can mimic other addictions, such as alcohol addiction, in the sense that both the Internet and alcohol tend to be abused in order to temporarily provide relief from stressful situations or circumstances. This is especially true in the case of gaming, with Gaming Disorder being classified officially as a disease, according to the World Health Organization.
Aside from the rather oversimplified explanation of the Internet providing “relief,” however, there are more scientific causes behind its addictive nature. According to an article from The Guardian, in recent times, behavioral addictions are starting to become more common than substance addictions (e.g. drugs, alcohol). In a long-term sense, this affects our overall happiness and productivity. However, the extent to which an individual may be affected can differ, and contrary to popular assumption, it is certainly possible to be addicted even if the behavior does not significantly harm your day-to-day life. From a scientific point of view, it is the neurotransmitter dopamine that fuels these addictions, as it pushes the brain to give itself pleasure. However, after a dopamine high, a “dip” can be experienced as a result of homeostasis, the process organisms use to achieve stability internally for optimal functioning. As sources of dopamine become more common, the brain compensates with a lower “dip.” This leads to a cyclical addiction, which causes us to live in the emotional limbic brain rather than the prefrontal cortex, where important decisions are made. Eventually, we start to see our ability to delay gratification and deal with issues become impaired.
However, it is important to recognize that this dopamine-fueled vicious cycle is not solely perpetuated by us and our brains, but rather strengthened a great deal by social media sites and their designs. In general, social media platforms’ goal is to keep users glued to their screens in order to make the most amount of profit off of advertisements. We can see this goal reflected in the nature of social media platforms and how they are intended to be used. Content on these sites is made to be so addictive that it is no longer the fault of the common person who falls through the loop of spending hours of valuable time scrolling or watching videos; the sites themselves encourage unhealthy amounts of viewing for their own benefit, without regard to users’ health.
One of the best examples of this perpetuation is YouTube’s algorithm. Calling YouTube a popular platform would be quite the understatement; it is the second-most visited site in the United States, with billions of total users. Of YouTube’s many features, one of its most brilliant is its personalized algorithm, which loads users’ new content based on the previous content they’ve watched. It takes very little time for YouTube to determine a user’s interests, likes, dislikes, and overall tendencies. It is because of this highly effective algorithm that users spend so many hours on this site, falling into what many people call “rabbit holes” that are difficult to get out of. Another concern raised by critics is that of “echo chambers,” or areas of the Internet where a user only has to interact with views similar to their own, giving the effect that everyone agrees with them. Brookings did a study on rabbit holes and echo chambers on YouTube, finding essentially that while people may be overestimating both issues, they exist to a certain extent. In fact, the study acknowledges that the way it was carried out may have made the results out to be less extreme than in real life, as in the study, users could not choose content, but on YouTube, they have recommendations that they must pick from.
Not only is social media made to be inherently addictive, the far-reaching connection and artificial sense of connectedness it provides has also exacerbated a much older addictive behavior: celebrity worship and popular culture obsession. The National Library of Medicine has established a connection between “problematic Internet use” and parasocial (entirely one-sided) relationships, maladaptive daydreaming and desire for fame. Here, maladaptive daydreaming is defined as “extensive fantasy activity that replaces human interaction and/or interferes with academic, interpersonal or vocational functioning” and is one of the most effective predictors of some form of celebrity worship.
According to their research, the media plays an immense role in the fantasization and devoted support of celebrity figures. Musicians, actors, and video-makers were most likely to have a following of an extreme nature, and generally, females were at a greater risk of falling victim to celebrity obsession. This is evidence of yet another example of the media and the Internet exploiting others for engagement and creating an unhealthy relationship between celebrities and their “fans” that has now become normalized. The obsession with superstars and famous figures has gotten to a point where celebrity news garners more interest than serious and dire world issues, according to The Orion, and often the discourse that these topics receive is hardly meaningful.
The downsides of the Internet are particularly tragic when we consider the fact that the Internet is undoubtedly one of the most brilliant inventions of the last century. It has catalyzed progress in solving global issues like never before, allowed us to solve countless problems, and in addition to spreading an immeasurable amount of misinformation, it has also opened us up to novel research and reliable information about timely issues. Take the pandemic as an example. Sure, the Internet may have been utilized to spread negative agendas about the vaccine and other aspects of the disease, but the average person would have absolutely no source of information about this completely new, frightening disease without it. The Internet continues to have plenty of individual benefits to this day. “Influencers,” as they are called, are frequently looked at in a negative light, but we forget that many of them spread positive messages and inspire young people, as explained by the Times of India.
So, if the Internet, like nearly everything else in this world, has its attributes and flaws, what does it really boil down to? What causes this Internet addiction? How is it preventable? Some, like the above article from the Times of India article, are proponents of media literacy. However, while media literacy skills are inarguably important for youth, it’s also important to recognize the greater problem: the way social media sites operate. Social media does not have to be inherently addictive, but if we briefly examine the way social media sites make money, it becomes obvious why it is so. According to the Michigan Daily, social media sites need users to spend as much time as they can on their platforms to maximize ad revenue. So, they employ all kinds of questionable tactics — political extremism, creating echo chambers, you name it — to make sure that users never leave, at the expense of the user themselves. And because sites are never legally responsible for what users say, they never pay the price. The issue runs so deep that even fact-checking tools will not be able to solve it.
To put it another way, for profit, social media platforms are looking to aggravate us, according to Vox. Sites like Twitter and Tiktok are rife with rage-bait and strange discourse. People are criticized for ordinary, harmless things. One particularly wild instance of this was when a user correlated playing fetch with a dog to abuse. If we take a step back and think, we can see that these kinds of conversations are unrealistic and we never see this kind of discussion in real life. On the Internet, most people pretend to care about “injustice” — in the real world, few do. People on the Internet also create “straw men” and seemingly want to be purposely upset or offended just to verbally get angry about it. The Depp vs Heard case is one of the best examples of many of these phenomena — misinformation, the public, press and media all taking one side, scapegoatism, and extreme opinions.
All of this begs the question of why online discourse is so unrealistic. What truly separates the environment online than the environment of real life? The short answer is that the Internet gives us a mask to hide behind. Unlike the real world, where people will associate every word we say with our face and name, online, we can use made-up usernames and profile pictures to manufacture false identities. We can then use those identities to say almost anything. This gives users a dangerous sense of comfort and freedom online and, in turn, weakens their inhibitions. This is why people online are also so gullible and easy to take advantage of. This vulnerability is eventually what makes misinformation and the like so effective — unlike in real life, where people are highly critical of what they see and hear, online, people rarely fact-check their sources.
For instance, let’s think about journalism. People in developed countries are consuming content from “reputable” news sources on a daily basis. They often take this news as fully factual, which it generally is — but with a slight catch. Most well-respected news sources do report the truth, but what part of it they report and how they report is what people often neglect. To be more specific, let’s explore the complex relationship between the government’s interests and journalism. According to Harvard Business Review, there is something of a cycle between the two: journalists need crises, while governments need to look like they are taking action against them, whether they really are or not. For instance, in the 1980s, there was a great movement to eliminate the federal deficit. The media used many tactics and misled people at the time to make it look like Reagan’s administration was fixing the issue when they were actually making it worse. This gives Reagan’s administration a good image amongst the public, and it gives the media engagement. What does it give readers? A perplexing, fractional version of the truth.
Worse yet, misinformation and propaganda are not unique to Reagan’s administration, the 1980s, or even just the United States — these issues are widespread across the globe. Anywhere where opinionated people and the Internet can be found, so can online toxicity. An excellent example of this would be the case of a platform called 2channel in Japan. According to Noema Magazine, a 17-year-old boy once hijacked a bus and murdered a passenger after posting about it on this platform. Afterward, authorities in Japan began to observe and moderate the platform more closely, and rightly so, because it was filled to the brim with problematic discourse and strange arguments. To sum it up, 2channel was extremely right-winged. Its users denied that Japan’s annexation of other countries was wrong, and spread propaganda about other countries that are translated to real life protests and events. The magazine says that it gave birth to the alt-right 4chan and 8kun for Americans, two other widely used but controversial sites. It’s also worth noting here, as the article points that, that there are quite a few similarities between Japan and America, particularly when it comes to media culture.
While 2channel and 4chan are two incredibly popular yet controversial forums, there is one platform famous for controversial content and disturbing online discussion like no other: Twitter. Twitter is an incredibly popular site for adults, and though its users are divided in their diverse opinions, many of them are united in their sheer passion (if you could call it that) for these opinions. Interestingly, though tweets on Twitter can range from popular culture to sports, a large chunk of Twitter and its users seem to be dedicated to politics, especially American politics. According to Science Daily, Twitter has substantial power in shaping public opinion. Based on research conducting by Chinese researchers in 2011, we can draw a few key conclusions: 1) public opinion on Twitter changes and develops fast, eventually reaching the point of having a singular dominant opinion, 2) users with minority views rarely change their opinions, and 3) Twitter users try harder to change others’ opinions than they allow their own to be changed. So, evidently, while conversation on Twitter may include somewhat diverse viewpoints, it is hardly nuanced, accepting, and open. Twitter users hardly discuss to exchange opinions and thoughts. Instead, they argue with a disturbing amount of fury and passion simply to prove a point. This kind of discourse is completely unproductive, not benefiting any of the users involved beyond a point.
Through the myriad of topics discussed on Twitter, its many hashtags, viral images, tweets, videos, and millions of users, it is not rare to stumble upon the occasional exaggerated “fact” or AI-generated image. While many of these statements and images are obviously not real, with our lowered inhibitions on the Internet, it is always important to remember to distinguish between real and fake content. Now more than ever, as artificial intelligence tools become more potent and developed, the phenomenon of AI tools distorting images has become a dangerously real concern. The same applies to misinformation over the years, with increasing incentive, both political and not, to lead people astray with fabricated information. According to the Washington Post, the best ways to identify and avoid misinformation are to recognize why something might be misinformation, check sources thoroughly, create a collection of sources you can trust, look into additional information, learn to identify AI-generated images, and use fact-checking sites and tools.
So in a place called the Internet that is open, creative, productive, and innovative on the outside, but addictive, superficial, aggravating, and misleading the closer you look, we, as users, are put into a unique position. On one hand, we are vulnerable, susceptible to all kinds of tricks. If we are not careful, we could fall into any sort of trap and be convinced of almost anything. On the other hand, though, we choose the content we consume, and we have the ability to recognize the way the Internet is harming us and explore why. Let’s start with one of the most substantial effects these platforms have had on their audiences in past years, especially on young children: the huge influence on our diets and lifestyles. Of course there is plenty of health-promoting, useful content about nutrition floating around the Internet. But what we also see is content that, often indirectly, fuels nutritional issues, namely eating disorders.
According to a study from the National Library of Medicine, problematic Internet use is linked to “anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, binge-eating disorder, food preoccupation, loss of control eating, and dieting.” Age-wise, this particularly applies to university students, however the issue is present across country borders. The cause can be attributed to multiple aspects of Internet use. There is the obvious “stylized body figure,” as phrased by the above study, shown on platforms like Instagram that contribute to an unhealthy perception of what health actually looks like. There is also, however, the sedentariness correlated with extreme Internet usage. No matter the specific reason or platforms in question, the conclusion is the same: the Internet certainly does not seem to be making its users any healthier.
Additionally, social media’s harms don’t end with physical health. In fact, the effect of social media on mental health seems to be almost more concerning. According to the Washington Post, the tendency Instagram users have to share perfect, curated content has a very negative effect on them. Unlike the popular belief that these issues only apply to young girls, boys are actually negatively affected as well. Most alarmingly, negative and suicidal thoughts can often be linked back to Instagram. Overall, according to BBC Future, Instagram makes users feel like their lives are simply not as interesting as those of their peers.
The effect of social media on mindset is not only limited to one’s outlook on life, however. It can also cause another less-discussed yet extremely debilitating problem: cyberchondria. This clever portmanteau might remind you of “hypochondria,” which is, according to Oxford Languages, “abnormal anxiety about one’s health, especially with an unwarranted fear that one has a serious disease.” Cyberchondria is essentially hypochondria specifically on the Internet. According to the National Library of Medicine, these repeated searches regarding medical health that often lead to an extreme amount of concern are linked to health anxiety. Beyond the effects these have on individuals, they can be a greater detriment to overall public health. Interestingly, we were all witness to one particularly memorable instance of widespread cyberchondria just a few years ago: Covid-19.
Beyond causing a plethora of health issues, the Internet has also simply been known for being a toxic, unfriendly place on many occasions. According to the UN Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, hatred towards minorities and other often victimized groups online, particularly towards women, has been on the rise. Hate speech on the Internet does not stay on the Internet and disappear once we close our computer screens — in fact, Internet bigotry normalizes real-life hatred and leads to crimes and violence. Starting about seven or eight years ago, we actually saw the rise of one of the most eye-catchingly disturbing Internet influencers to ever gain traction: none other than Andrew Tate.
According to British GQ, Andrew Tate promotes a “hyper-patriarchal rhetoric” that draws many thousands of men worldwide in. He promises wealth and female attention to his followers, and this promise works since Tate himself is rather wealthy. The idea of masculinity that he promotes involves a physical display of strength. His followers are pushed to fight against cage fighters, where they always lose. The above article suggests that this will reduce their self-esteem even further, which is the most disturbing part. The issue with Tate’s followers and their ideas of women is getting increasingly serious: according to the New York Times, a female British teacher had been asked by a student if she had asked her husband’s permission before becoming a teacher. Other students have even gone so far as to say women shouldn’t have rights and men should be given the power to make all decisions. It’s almost not difficult to understand why boys and men look up to Tate. There aren’t exactly plenty of other male role models that can take his place, as British GQ suggests.
From far away, the Internet certainly looks like a wonderful place. It connects people across borders, gives us access to endless pages of information, and can be an amusing outlet that distracts us from the constant stressors of life. Yet the Internet is not too unlike the gingerbread house Hansel and Gretel come across in the forest, in the famous tale Hansel and Gretel by the Brothers Grimm. While it may look appealing on the outside, the further inside we go and the longer we wait, the more the problems start to expose themselves. From rabbit holes to celebrity worship, news sensationalization to political propaganda, the Internet seems to never be at a loss in finding ways to take advantage of the attention we give it. In turn, we experience eating disorders and cyberchondria, and suffer through volleys of hate speech, bigotry, and frightening online movements. It’s sad to watch a place many of us love so much have such an adverse effect on our lives.
However, we must remember that unlike the brilliant yet simplistic, black and white fairy tales the Brothers Grimm created to teach us lessons as young children, the Internet, like many modern inventions, is more complex. Not only is the Internet not all bad, in the twenty-first century, it is also unavoidable. We simply cannot abandon the Internet or give up using it altogether. Instead, to tackle these issues, all we need is a little bit of Gretel’s cleverness. In other words, we need to be aware of how we are using the Internet, avoiding excessive and problematic use. We need to keep in mind the problems that can start due to our Internet usage and reflect to make sure we aren’t experiencing them to an extreme degree. We may not be able to ever escape this sugary candy house, but hopefully, we can at least save ourselves from getting cooked and eaten like Hansel almost did.
