What in god’s green earth about limitting social media usage on a daily time-us basis implies anything about targetting marginalized groups? Things that are detrimental to mental health, like excessive social media consumption, aren’t magically less-so for marginalized groups.
If anything, such media is a distraction and pacifier of sorts.
If you read what I wrote, open source social media is also easier to consume and interact with in the manner I described. Usenet, e-mail, IRC, forums, even private messaging and group-chats are both healthier to interact with and less demanding of our time than “services” that bury the content we want to see like facebook and the rest.
Every single on is still around and in use by the same people who built the internet and others who get more done for themselves and open-source projects than you or I or most of us on Lemmy and the more modern de-federated schemes.
Even if they somehow limit time spent on forums, mastodon, whatever, content can be saved for later consumption, and responses composed for later posting. Instant access to the latest tweet or tiktok isn’t helping anyone but advertisers.
Limitting time is nothing like limitting speech. If I want to write a lengthy post, I can write it off-line, copy-and-paste without wasting quota time or whatever. Same goes for reading lengthy content; Copy/Paste(or print2pdf) and save for later.
Missing the latest short-form content garbage would be a boon for those who otherwise insist on wasting their time, mental and emotional energy like so.
Might as well call peak usage rates for electricity “fashy shit”. Excessive social media usage helps no-one. In fact its the opposite, and particularly so for marginalized groups.
The difference between workable and non-workable usually boils down to whether I can understand each step and how they arrived at their solution(that is, can I fix my own fuck-up if I miss a step or impliment it wrong for my own situation), which I will know pretty quickly. That said, with my limitted knowlege, I can still spot the 50% that have no chance in hell of working pretty quickly.
OTOH, if a solution is succinct, upvoted, and still looks wrong, I’m at least going to look into the problem further with that as a reference point before I write it off completely.
Worst thing about this is it stops at “non-adults”, and puts the burden in individual services(which would be un-workable, yes) rather than ISPs(which have the means). God forbid we do anything to help society as a whole.
Up-shot: The sooner it comes for minorities, the sooner it comes for all of us worthless fleshbags.
… and who is going to tell someone that when they’ve socially isolated themselves by taking time off for an extended period?
The only time I’ve seen a therapist more often than weekly or bi-weekly was in a short stint in rehab. No way, no how, does normal therapy replace daily contact with others.
Also, most people aren’t assertive, informed, or motivated enough to seek a second professional opinion, and that’s before we throw grief into the equation. Congrats on describing many therapists with you last line as well.
That one word is doing a lot of heavy lifting on its own, until what follows contradicts what you’ve said. If you don’t have the words, a therapist’s questions and prompts and what-not aren’t really doing all that much to break the silence, nor to promote healing until you’re ready to participate.
… and/or aren’t planning to go. I would love to get through Bloomington, IN without seeing the location of every Liquor store dotting my navigation screen. Can’t be personalized, as I basically never visit Liquor stores.
“getting into bed together” and “careful who you get into bed with” are so old/common in the business world that its hard for me to relate to most of the comments on this one.
Even meeting the spouse first is nothing new in the world of business or “high-society” contacts. The only thing new here is that he got his own bed and didn’t have to mention the couch or leave it even more vague.
… but I’m not here to sympathise with either of them?
I don’t disagree with your assessment per se, but ethics-wise I’m liking Chad, or anywhere else that actively takes in large numbers of immigrants/refugees.
I didn’t come here to criticize most countries like so, but when you hit the nail on the head like that …
That said, there are plenty of people who should be willing to all but sell their souls to get out, if they could only see and acknowlege what’s coming for them. I’m not here to tell anyone besides magats “get out of my country”, but if enough privileged people like me lead by example, maybe more will get the message.
By definition, polycules include people who all members are cool with, and exclude everyone else. If a member has cancer or is otherwise already immunocomprimised, excluding people with STI’s makes sense.
Yes. Theirs remains a country worth defending, from a credible, external threat, and the bulk of the potential victims were both allowed to leave and given reasonable options for places to flee to at the outset.
Personally, I’m more worried about most of my friends and family being coerced/tricked to the wrong side than being victimized - merely being deported as a white person would be a win in this sick, sad, world. The contrast was literally the point of my comment.
I feel like this is more relatable than the reasons my family insists on staying on the US. All any “decent” people’s presence does is “legitimize” the regime and lull the victims and future conscripts into a false sense of security and hope, at this point.
The internet was better before ignorant takes like yours showed up. Facebook, tik-tok, and the like invented nothing that wasn’t done better previously. Are you really so addicted to all this Web 2.0 non-sense? Of course you are. Get help.