Here is one. Why do people find it more acceptable to act like they do online but not in person. Is it truly because you’re not face to face or is it really because at your core that’s the real you.
oxjox @ oxjox @lemmy.ml Posts 31Comments 1,264Joined 2 yr. ago
oxjox @ oxjox @lemmy.ml
Posts
31
Comments
1,264
Joined
2 yr. ago
When has it ever been forced upon an industry to alter their product or service to make it less addictive? Hasn't it always been the burden of the individual to seek help for their addictions?
This lawsuit will go nowhere. You can't impose restrictions on an entire industry to target a small cohort. At best, you'll get parental controls. At the worst, you'll be required to sign in with a state ID. Devices already have parental controls. It's the parents who are failing to use the tools, and responsibility, they've been given.
Contrary to common sense, most (not all) of the studies I've come across indicate there is little to no impact on mental health from social media.
Also contrary to common sense, parents apparently no longer need to parent their children.
mental health risks are posed to teens and children
by compulsive TikTok use,including depression, anxiety, sleep loss and body dysmorphia.
This is called Life.
Honestly, I'm more concerned with the distraction social media plays on adults. Parents should be guiding their children to know right and wrong. But, from what I've observed, it seems parents are too preoccupied with streaming services and social media (often simultaneously) to deal with raising their children. How the heck kids are even on social media to begin with is a concern.
You have no right to complain or file lawsuits after you let an iPad raise your child for ten years.
We all know that social media is designed to be addictive. People continue to use it while complaining that it's addictive and file lawsuits so the government can tell the service to be less addictive. You know as soon as it's made less addictive you're going to drop it for the next addictive thing. FCK, we are a dumb species.
For football fans, the answer is Monday.
Not sure why you think this.
You just reiterated what I said.
If you were to rip a Bluray to your computer, you’re legally not permitted to watch that movie if you’re no longer in possession of the disc.
=
You can legally rip a Bluray for backup purposes. If you sell or give away the Bluray, you have to delete the backed up copy.
Technically, if the FBI were to ask you to prove ownership of a digital copy and you had lost the disc, it would be illegal to retain that digital copy.
Bypassing DRM is illegal because the DMCA explicitly prohibits the circumvention...
Yes. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act is a law that covers copyright protections.
Everyone should generally assume that unless you have something tangibly in your hand, you either do not own it or you may very easily and/or suddenly lose access to it. You could test this by trying to access the content without having to sign in to something.
All these streaming and subscription services should be considered ease of access conveniences. In other industries, you pay a premium for something to be prepared for you to consume. In the subscription industry, you're paying less because you're not paying for the content but for a license to temporarily consume the content (and probably because your info is being sold to advertisers).
Fun Fact: If you were to rip a Bluray to your computer, you're legally not permitted to watch that movie if you're no longer in possession of the disc. This is because you're not purchasing the content of the disc but the license to view the content. Decrypting DRM is illegal not based on whether you own the content but because the DRM encryption itself is separately copyright protected.
Just wanted to toss in Star Voting as an alternative I was just informed about yesterday. Seems to be more RCV than RCV.
The fact that this is being censored across much of social media is interesting. I think more interesting than what's in the document itself.
First I'm hearing of this. I'll look into it.
I still find the whole bottled water thing odd. I remember a time when there was just Poland Spring and Deer Park and you only bought a bottle of water if you were absolutely dying. From my vantage point, it seems like consumerism, across the board, has skyrocketed in the past 20 years.
I was just having conversation with a fellow Gen Xer about how people just don't know how or don't care to do things for themselves anymore. As I look at all the subscriptions and consumer goods and delivery services that make headlines, it seems like we, as a culture, are spending a lot more money on what used to be called luxury expenses.
Some people legitimately have bad municipal water. They need to put pressure on their civic leaders to fix their gross negligence. For most other people, I would really recommend a filter system you can install either at the source of your water, under your kitchen sink, or in a pitcher in your fridge.
It's worth noting that even the aluminum water bottles (Stanley, etc.) come with some health concerns. If you're getting something from China, I've heard their manufacturing and raw material quality control isn't up to US standards. Regardless, most if not all aluminum water bottles have a plastic liner. Your best bet is glass. If you have an aluminum bottle, don't use it for hot liquids and try to keep it out of the sunlight for too long.
Although they're a bit better than plastic bottles, all aluminum cans require a plastic inner liner.
Cool. Can we also get moving on Ranked Choice Voting?
You’re tripling down on this? This is the hill you want to die on?
Do you think a grocer would stock 18 eggs next to 12 eggs without any clear indication until you took it off the top shelf? Or do you think they’d stack it differently, on a lower shelf, so you could easy discern the difference?
What the fuck does this have to do with the fucking point of this story? You want to argue over a fucking dollar? That’s important to you?
I would like to see more investment in informative media. Social media has been one of the best sources to get information about local events, news, and alerts.
Speaking from an American’s perspective, I would like to see federated networks organized similarly to the United States. There should be one main federal instance, then a sub instance for states, eventually down to micro instances for neighborhoods or zip codes.
My complaint about “corporate social media” has been its need to make money from advertising driven by engagement. This means I miss tons of posted information by family, friends, businesses, bands, restaurants, record shops, farmers markets, city council members, police departments, reporters, etc.
I still want to connect with these users but getting them on board with the fediverse is an uphill battle if they’re only in it for the memes. Creating a platform that makes some tangible sense to people, I think, would drive more adoption. If you want to connect with your city, join cityname.state.US.verse. This wouldn’t exclude the creation of other networks like I dunno… nestle.corp.verse or tiktok.social.verse.
Ok. Simple observation of the image would inform you that you’re wrong. I’m not sure how one person can say the sky is blue and the other look at the same sky and claim it’s “obviously red”.
I wasn’t insulting you. I was speaking generally about the internet’s strange insistence to focus on pointless semantics for the sake of pride. Although, this conversation informs me that maybe there is some elementary education left to discuss among grown adults. I’m going to do us both the favor and assume you’re trolling me.
You're twisting the reality you've already twisted to continue to fit your narrative. I will not follow you down that rabbit hole.
If you'd like to discuss the real story, the "inflation explosion act" and even the lack of policy proposals by the Trump campaign (to my knowledge) to reduce the costs of goods, I'd be happy to do so.
I fail to see how that is relevant at all. He could be holding a steak or a roll of paper towels standing in front of bananas or at a car dealership and speak about the cost of a dozen eggs.
What is relevant is his claim that "Harris' inflationary policies" had an impact on the price of items at grocery stores. This is untrue.
I think I get it. The internet wants to call out every detail in an image as if they're true crime detectives. They want to be more right than everyone else. But only based on the most simple piece of content possible. If it requires reading a few paragraphs, or finding your own source material that a news outlet fails to provide, or using a middle school degree of reading / listening comprehension that's too much work. I did that here, and hate that it needed to be done, to back up my previous comments elsewhere in this thread.
Now a dozen eggs will cost you around $4.
Right there.
So, now you want to ignore the signs behind him and use statistics for the country?
Just stop. You are not contributing to any valuable discourse.
Strong agree. I think most people just go for the low hanging fruit because they don't actually care enough to be invested in policy. The vast majority of "news" is just trash to generate clicks and engagement and we all suck it up like calorie-free frappaccinos.
I posted earlier in response to his full comment regarding the "inflation explosion act". This is something worth reading about - that the Inflation Reduction Act has not had any immediate impact on inflation to date (up or down). Others here have accurately commented about the disease spreading across poultry farms which has most impacted the costs of eggs in particular.
It's also worth pointing out that bird flu is increasingly having an impact on cattle. https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/09/bird-flu-is-spreading-rapidly-in-california-infected-herds-double-over-weekend/ So, expect dairy prices to slowly and steadily increase.
Evidence has been presented to you which you are ignoring for the sake of your own narrative. You are so obsessed with your political agenda that you can not admit that your "opponent" might be right for once. The average price of the eggs he is standing in front of is $4.10. Vances' statement about the price of eggs is 100% accurate.
Regardless, the story is not about the price of eggs. The story is about a political candidate making remarks about policy which may or may not have impacted the price of eggs and other consumer goods. These specific remarks are a mixed bag as the price of eggs are impacted more by disease and the price of other goods were not impacted by the Inflation Reduction Act.
I don't understand how people are so blinded by their politics that they twist reality to turn the truth into fiction. You are disseminating "fake news" and deepening the divide between us.
This is exactly what's wrong with us. When one side makes a claim that the other side sees very clearly to be false then we attack each other over something (a meme) that's whole irrelevant to our lives. We should be discussing inflation. Because clearly, not enough people have a clue about how it works. We should be discussing this candidates claim that an Act of Congress caused the price of consumer goods to increase. Is that true or is it not? What is it that this administration has actually done?
This is what should guide us at the polls and in our political discourse, not if a quick glance at the price of eggs in one store in one part of one state is accurate to the dollar or not.
Yes.
You're the real you when not face to face.