Gaywallet (they/it) @ Gaywallet @beehaw.org

I'm gay

---

Read more

Posts

214

Comments

768

Joined

3 yr. ago

Moderating

---

Hey there, this is better suited for another community, this isn't directly about a book or a discussion about books, the author just happens to have written some.

Main Outcomes and Measures Long-term patient-reported outcomes, including the Holmes-Rovner Satisfaction With Decision scale, the Decision Regret Scale, and demographic characteristics, were collected.

Holmes-Rovner Satisfaction With Decision scale ^{table-only version}
Decision Regret Scale*

*I'm only about 80% certain this is the scale used, will need to wait for access to the article to confirm

I would hope we don't slot neatly into boy or girl internet (altho some of our communities may be more boy/girl), but I can understand the frustration. Do you have any friends who are deeply into girl internet who can help you understand how they interact with the internet? Seeing what sites they go to and how they navigate info on those sites can help you to find yourself spending more time on girl internet than boy internet. I think platforms are a huge part of it, but you do need to train these algorithms to send you the content you like on these platforms (especially if we're talking something like tiktok or ig reels).

A lot of what's discussed in this article is about platform saturation and how people were interacting with various platforms. For example, even within the larger platforms like Reddit which are primarily a slice of boy internet, there's absolutely girl internet spaces within it - such as fashion and makeup subs (the same is true in the other direction as well- boy spaces on girl internet, a reflection of the messiness of these kinds of categorization). So if you want to stick to the platforms you're already using, you might want to ask questions on the platform to find the same answers as above if you don't have friends who are deeply in girl internet.

Haven't considered anything outside of donations at this time. We post regular financial updates, here's our most recent.

Thank you for responding, I think it's fine to disagree with how we think we can help to solve the problem of toxicity on the internet, so long as you're still agreeing to be nice when you're on here.

This is a reminder to be nice on Beehaw.

The following people get a report when content is reported:

• The community of the reported content
• The instance administrator for the community of the reported content
• The instance administrator for the person who reported the content
• The instance administrator for the person who was reported

This makes my queue a mess at times, especially because federation is not instant and many apps cache content. I've had people on Beehaw report content on Beehaw that was already removed hours ago. When someone spams a bunch of content across communities on the fediverse (such as today with a prolific spammer) we can sometimes have dozens of reports for the same user because of all the reports generated above.

Thank you for this. Not only for sufferers of long covid, but immunocompromised folks there are many practical considerations we should be making. If you've never known someone who has suffered from either, you're likely unfamiliar with how devastating it can be to someone's life and how much it restricts what these folks can do. Spreading knowledge like this is essential to making the world a more accessible place for them.

These are spam. Please keep reporting these, we ban the users from the site and remove the content.

I am not smart enough to know whether this report has any real value, but for transparency I wanted to mention that this post received the following report:

mond is discredited and doesn't solve any problems, it only handwaves facts

I would like to point out that more can likely be found on the wiki page, in the response/criticism section.

People may ask why I’m still on beehaw and the fact is that I don’t agree with many of the viewpoints advocated here but I have to practice what I preach. If I run away from beehaw and don’t contribute then the community gets sucked in further to group think on a specific viewpoint.

To be clear, you're explicitly stating here that you are sticking around, despite not agreeing with the ethos, in order to stick to your own ethos, which is the following:

I take a view that even if something isn’t “nice” it should never be moderated unless it advocates for violence against a group or puts endangers someone’s privacy. In life we may find ourselves in conversations or with people we can’t censor or shout down so why would we do it online?

Is that a correct read of what you are saying? Or am I completely off the mark here?

And I appreciate you bringing it up! It shows that you care about the community 🥰 let's work together to make it awesome 💜💜

Did you report the offending comments? Reply to them and ask them to be nice? We aren't running a panopticon here and the reality is that many people who register here, even when they explicitly say they will be nice, occasionally exhibit not nice behavior. I don't think defederating will solve the problem, but rather more aggressive reporting, more people stepping up to help moderate, and perhaps most importantly people nicely reminding each other to be nice and steering conversations in the right direction are the only levers we have at our disposal.

Shifting the pin for this week, thanks for posting this while alyaza is out 😄

I think it's fair to think of it in the context of, if you already struggle with depression and you enjoy eating nuts, this is just an excuse or a little nudge/reminder that it probably won't hurt to do so and might have a minor positive effect. I think that's useful information and we shouldn't focus too heavily on whether we fully understand the science.

Waiting for this to show up on sci-hub so I can provide a more useful analysis, but observational findings are super common in nutrition and while they are often extremely circumspect for the reasons outlined by @Dr_Cog@mander.xyz, sometimes studies do have a good amount of adjustment factors. Given the hazard ratio and a confidence interval which is close to including 1, I don't think these findings are particularly strong (which is fairly usual in nutrition based studies).

However, in the context of what we already know about nutrition, we know that hitting a certain amount of dietary fat is associated with reducing the risk of depression. Other nutritional factors are likely important, and studies like this can help when we do meta-analysis to deduce what factors play a role even when our science isn't as controlled as we'd like it to be

Some meta-studies on dietary factors of depression: 1 2

While I think the heart of the message is good, I always get lost in the words when someone makes a very blatantly black/white read on the world. Online socializing isn't all bad, but there's a fundamental difference between socializing in the comment section of a youtube video and with someone you regularly voice chat with. I think it's likely important for people to recognize the difference between these two, and that both of these sit on a few axes through which we can measure social dynamics. How closely you know the person you are talking to, what information you are provided (purely text, text + emojis, photos, audio, never muted mic, video, etc.), how much it's a conversation vs. parasocial, what you discuss with the individual (restricted subjects? purely intellectual? emotional? aspects of your lives?), whether you have shared connections/friends/family/etc, and other dimensions which all control the depth at which a bond can be formed.

This compression of the complexity of life often leads to poor or bad takes on issues, such as Hillary's own self-admitted demonizing of violence in media as a reason for social disconnect in America. There are plenty of problems with violence in media, just as there are with excessive video gaming, but neither are the sole cause behind social disconnect or mass shooters. Just like messages from dare which compress down to "drugs bad", you end up losing credibility and pushing people away by simplifying issues rather than taking on their complexity. While this is common in politics, and often needed in politics as a shield to fight off people who are uninterested in investing the time/energy into the nuance and due to real concerns of the amount of time you get to spend talking on an issue or with someone, when you have the space of an article or a book it does you no credit.

Ultimately I think a good issue is highlighted in this article, and one we've been seen struggling quite a bit with over the past decade of increasing toxicity online and a culture which has become polarized by politics. The solutions presented, however, seem to ignore the reality of our current life and those going forward - people are unlikely to cast technology aside in order to go to church to 'enrich' themselves. They've been leaving church because they have alternatives which are more appealing. The key is to redesign the technology we use to create spaces which allow for greater interpersonal connection - in fact, we're already seeing a lot of people (such as this website) looking to colonize this space with alternatives. There's a reason that the most successful online VR platforms are centered around quite literally just socializing with people and that places like tiktok where conversations can happen asynchronously through videos directed at each other and where people can pour their heart and soul into are popular right now. Discord servers and smaller communities where folks can get to know each other and form community are becoming increasingly desired because people want a digital alternative as well, not necessarily in spite of and it's driven by many factors. Getting people to go out in person can be encouraged in certain situations and I think improving economic conditions such as the number of hours worked in order to make a living pay can drastically help with this, but ultimately we need to be working all the levers at the same time, not compressing our view down to a single lever because it's easier or it's the one we've decided is "most important."

It's sad that this needs to be spelled out for people, but I'm glad that it is because I would imagine many out there don't realize just how much people like this get targeted for harassment and how deep that harassment can run.

The findings are interesting, but the study design is lacking. A single device is used (to be fair, it's a commonly used device) and as far as I can tell a single person recorded the keystrokes and was assessed. I don't think it did a good job of simulating trying to train and create a model for someone via recorded audio from a medium such as zoom given many realistic variables like audio quality, being on or off mute, connection quality issues, mic sensitivity, etc. With that being said, it is exposing a theoretical attack vector and I think that's important to identify and recognize.

I'm not here to proselytize about what we decide to block or not. I'm explaining what the person above is requesting - not a block, but a conscious decision about what shows up on the join-lemmy list.