In other words, it’s really just an improvement in awareness that has led to an increase in identifying who can be helped more effectively than before.

I’m curious, which one of you is more “popular”? Is the fake you designed to meet certain aspects of a particular algorithm? Can you potentially reverse-engineer the faker’s intent? (Assuming it’s not some pervert who likes your specific look, of course)

Exactly. My wife and I both have sensory issues, and while they overlap, there are significant differences. Which is fortunate, because her texture issues mean she can’t fold laundry but I can, for example. My texture issues are more extended contact-related, so I can fold wool socks, but I can’t wear them. And there are limited materials I can wear.

We both have similar auditory sensitivities, so our house is quite quiet, and we had to check neighbourhoods at multiple times when we were house shopping to make sure there were no deal-breaker environmental sounds.

She has olfactory sensitivities, but I don’t.

What are your sensitivities?

How about also, “Wow, seems like you need to work on your resource planning skills,” when a manager tries to demand unpaid overtime?

Teaching people early how to parse the truth and spot manipulative information would go a long way to lessening the problem, but it would also make it harder for politicians and corporations to manipulate people. So there’s definitely negative motivation to doing anything that would make easy for people to spot spin on their own. (Edited typos)