21–30 of 48 posts
The Goddess: What is the matter with that, if it's what you want to do?
Malaclypse: But nobody wants it! Everybody hates it!
The Goddess: Oh. Well, then stop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I totally agree. And we're the ones paying the price of their actions.
Who is we? I am not paying anything AFAIK. When my girlfriend had problems, she simply stopped using it that much. I myself simply don't subscribe to pseudomotivational bullshit or internet "personalities".
Facebook is playing a very dangerous game by not allowing people full control of their feeds and even algorithmically sorting things. That's different from just "social media", it's a specifically Facebook way of doing things
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who is we? I am not paying anything AFAIK. When my girlfriend had problems, she simply stopped using it that much. I myself simply don't subscribe to pseudomotivational bullshit or internet "personalities".
When people get stuck in a bubble of fake news and manufactured outrage they tend to vote accordingly, and that does impact you.
Facebook is playing a very dangerous game by not allowing people full control of their feeds and even algorithmically sorting things. That's different from just "social media", it's a specifically Facebook way of doing things
Isn’t Twitter doing this as well by algorithmically sorting their feed? Why single out Facebook?
You can bash Twitter for a lot of things, but this isn’t it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting thing is that antidepressant use rised despite antidepressant being mostly ineffective and their underlying principle of action being flawed. This raises the question of why antidepressant use rised this way. Could it be that heavily medicated people are easier to manage and keep under control to prevent them from rebelling against the lives they're forced into by the societal system ? Could it be related…
> antidepressant being mostly ineffective That needs a great big giant source. Because there are so many peer reviewed studies and meta-studies that show that they are effective.
Strangely, it's also what we do at parties when we're bored.
But i want to point out an anecdote: we have a newborn and we share pics of her privately with fam. All the pics are of her good moments: her first smiles, her just being cute, etc... We don't share pics or videos of her screaming her lungs out, or of her diaper explosions, which intuitively woul be weird.
Reading this article it sounds like we are doing ourselves a disservice by not sharing the bad. Like we're not being honest with ourselves or our family. But are we? isn't the point of memories to preserve the good ones? The printed photo albums my parents have of my childhood don't have any pictures of me having a meltdown. There is a saying among mothers that you forget the pain of childbirth otherwise you'd never have a second child.
I'm sure social media makes things worse by being too present in people's self esteem but I am not sure memories have to preserve the downsides of reality.
Interesting article about something we should definitely be having a conversation about. But i want to point out an anecdote: we have a newborn and we share pics of her privately with fam. All the pics are of her good moments: her first smiles, her just being cute, etc... We don't share pics or videos of her screaming her lungs out, or of her diaper explosions, which intuitively woul be weird. Reading this article it…
Occasional photo album watching (e.g. during Xmas) is a different story.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who is we? I am not paying anything AFAIK. When my girlfriend had problems, she simply stopped using it that much. I myself simply don't subscribe to pseudomotivational bullshit or internet "personalities".
"We" is referring to society in general. There will be exceptions to everything. Maybe you'd like to point out that people are free to opt out? Is that what you're saying?