Social Media

Originally Posted by ChuangTzu Exactly, I added "" for context.

Sorry, in my defence, I was posting from a phone whilst riding a train (or was I?!).

Originally Posted by ChuangTzu I stay away from it. Closest "social media" activity I have are forums, especially LQ, and a few blogs. If someone wants to communicate with me, they can call, email, send a text, or speak in person.

Yes.

Originally Posted by 273 but these things [LQ et al] are not "social media" -- they are communication and are as anonymous as "a good chat in the line at Tesco"...

"A good chat in the line at Tesco", something apparently trivial but actually very important to each of us - a discussion with someone with no personal axe to grind.

Originally Posted by fido_dogstoyevsky "A good chat in the line at Tesco", something apparently trivial but actually very important to each of us - a discussion with someone with no personal axe to grind.

Unless the person in line behind you sees that you have the last item of that "on sale item".

Originally Posted by fido_dogstoyevsky "A good chat in the line at Tesco", something apparently trivial but actually very important to each of us - a discussion with someone with no personal axe to grind.

Indeed! Actual communication without the need for advertisers or it being recorded against anybody's name for the rest of their lives. The most interesting conversations happen with "strangers", with some kind of anonymity.

Originally Posted by ChuangTzu Unless the person in line behind you sees that you have the last item of that "on sale item".

Well, yes, that means war for some people...

Originally Posted by ChuangTzu Unless the person in line behind you sees that you have the last item of that "on sale item".

They can have my can of baked beans when they... ummh nevermind.

Originally Posted by fido_dogstoyevsky They can have my can of baked beans when they... ummh nevermind.

Well, in the UK beans may be in demand after Brexit... Thankfully I played a lot of DayZ in the past, so know the value of a can of beans

This interview with Denis Roio (Jaromil) of Dyne.org may be of interest to this thread, especially the sections on technological sovereignty and IoT:

Jaromil Rojo on technological sovereignty, blockchain, bitcoin and the Internet of Things
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTZD9iJHOSc

Yep. The more of you that delete your account.
Seems to improve my Karma.

Dude machined up some nice parts that fit my motorcycles and asked if anybody wanted any. I raised my hand and asked for a couple. He mailed em to me free of charge. Told me if I am in the neighbourhood to stop by and stay awhile.

Not to mention my neices helping out me out with hardware tech on my phone.

I aint complaining. Not a big time waster for me. I probably spend more time out doors than most members.

Edit: speaking of time wasting. I spend more time here.

My social media feed is landline phones and snail mail, or even mirror signals if it comes to it.
On the internet it's mostly email and pidgin.

Places like Reddit, Twitter, FB, etc, are not really social media but more propaganda sites with a "topic" anglerfish lure on top of it.

I do get a good laugh out of "twitter" essays, tho, where people have completely 'forgotten' the microblogging 'purpose' and now split up long messages over several tweets.

Riiiiiii donculous.

Someone once carried out a survey on social media sites and depression. It found that the more people used social media, and Facebook in particular, the more depressed they were likely to be.

Why would anyone want to go on sites that just make them feel miserable?

Originally Posted by hazel Why would anyone want to go on sites that just make them feel miserable?

Tainted incentives.

Why would people who would very likely would have become quite competent parents with a fulfilled life opt for cats and dogs as their babies?
one explanation could be a constant barrage of "how awful it is to be a parent", "how awful small children are", "how difficult it is to keep up with resource spending on children", "how awful it is to put children into a world full of badness", "how bad for environment it is to make children and how good one is to not do so, for the environment".

In the case of social media, it's often an engineered fear of missing out, and that compounds on itself the more people use it, etc.


Sell something awful as some sort of 'relief' of any kind.
Even if it's avoiding something 'bad', and even if this 'bad', overall, would actually be less bad than not doing the whatever one is not doing to avoid this bad.

Or, in less convoluted words:
Yeah, children cost money, they are loud, they break things, the world has problems, but:
Unlike that dog, a child, just might, have more overall positiveness than the 'anguish of wiping a dook'd up butt".

Children can be incredibly enriching, a lot more enriching than waterskiing or a fancy car/boat.

P.S.:
This is generally more devastating in societies that are trust based.
And taking advantage of that is one of the greatest evil in my own personal set of morals.

One of the benefits of being old is that nobody argues with me when I say I don't have a FB/Twitter/G+ or whatever account. They just assume old people don't know anything about tech - which amuses me because some of our peers wrote the very infrastructure they're still using and many of us have been using programmable computers since the 70s - or even earlier.

I use this to my advantage!

My kids know better. I have a VPS setup just for running software that lets us communicate, schedule, and share data. We even have our own email accounts on our own family domain name. As my family grows, I've automated more and more of my VPS admin duties and we've let in some close family friends and extended family.

The thing is, it's really not all that expensive - nor is it all that difficult. I'm not sure exactly when the 'net decided everything should be centralized, 'cause it works just fine for us to do this and it makes sense for other family/social groups to do this. It's not even all that expensive to get reliable VPS services.

Originally Posted by Geist Tainted incentives. Why would people who would very likely would have become quite competent parents with a fulfilled life opt for cats and dogs as their babies? one explanation could be a constant barrage of "how awful it is to be a parent", "how awful small children are", "how difficult it is to keep up with resource spending on children", "how awful it is to put children into a world full of badness", "how bad for environment it is to make children and how good one is to not do so, for the environment".

Exactly.

The old "non-procreation due to overpopulation argument" is one put forward by the elites - i.e. those in a tiny minority, but with enough wealth and privilege to have as many/few children as they want to have. They only need useful idiots - and there are hordes of them at the ready - to spread the word on their behalf. To the elites the less privileged plebs are "human resources" to power their factories and distribution centres.

Those who then decide that procreation is not for them, simply remove their DNA from the gene pool - good / bad however you want to look at it. But that guarantees that they will play no further part in educating the next generation.

Meanwhile the vast majority procreate as before and it is they who instruct the next generation... ironic.

Not everyone likes babies! I've always found them utterly revolting, which is why I never produced any of my own. I much prefer dogs, which are easier to house-train.

Of course it's a pity in a way that my intelligence will not be passed down to a future generation but that would have been unlikely to happen anyway, given the way that I'm sure I would react to a wailing baby. Dead babies pass no intelligence tests!