Did that. You could elaborate.
In the here and now it would not be the end of the world, but it would take some time to fill it all in with other services. Which I said and you then repeated to meā¦
But it is just a silly thought that the world would be a better place with out them. They are not all good by any means but the advantages still outweigh destroying them tomorrow. I do not agree that it would be a better place.
Why I repeated is that I donāt think that we would have to take a significant ātime to fillā at all, since we already have great alternatives for all Google services except for the infamous ads. On that note, there are so many alternatives that are better quality and more ethical that I donāt really see any advantages of them staying alive.
1 Like
what about the two scandinavians girls who got beheaded in morocco, kids are sharing those vids on facebook and media are absolutely kvetching over it lmao
UK government needed an excuse to shut down conversations about suicide
There is data suggesting there is a problem in some academy schools
(for a few suicide levels are or worse than japanese schools)
but IMO is to attempt distraction from the larger problem for the rest of the adult population
10,000 extra deaths per year due to austerity
if someone has hurt feelings from a comment online, donāt really care
bigger problems than that to consider just in this country alone
any problem in this country isnāt that significant compared to the places with UK bombing civilians
2 Likes
Thatās pretty much the opposite of the policy Iāve seen lately, with the exception of the brexit referendum.
Are you saying that the masses are waking up?
I think itās not just social media thatās to blame, but the dramatic spike in what I would consider weaponisation of it in the past 7~ years. I remember when Twitter was new and Myspace was in. You never heard about some debacle involving someone high up having a controversial top 5 friends list, or making a comment on some event that was blown up into a news item. Even Twitter was banal in the sense that nobody used it as a platform for activism, and itās only recently that having a Twitter account is akin to being a war correspondent in the sense that you might get shot in the face for standing next to the person who was actually being aimed at. Itās a massive liability now to be on social media, because it has been used time and time again to rally people to chastise and/or employ mob justice, despite the multitude of examples of it being totally unfounded and horrifically destructive.
Thereās nothing we can do about it, either. Like the invention of nuclear weapons, once we learned that we could obliterate entire cities with one device, there was no way to put the bunny back in the box. There is no way to make social media less of the minefield itās become unless you either learn how to vigorously avoid participating in political/social debate like I do, or stop using it all together.
Like Jayz2Cents got flag for something some other douche said?
I havenāt followed that situation.
If I were the person who decided whether to ban social media completely, I wouldnāt have done that. Many parents will hate me for what Iām going to say, but this is the reality. Since we live in the era of technology and scientists are about to conquer Mars, I donāt believe you want your kids to remain far from what is going on presently. Itās perfectly okay with you will limit the childrenās time spend online or to ban digits in school. Though to forbid completely using social media where all the children are singed up, it will turn into a negativity and hate towards you. Every person needs freedom no matter what age he/she has. As for me, it would be too much if the children of 16 or 17 years old will buy Instagram views and followers. You should simply keep an eye on what they are doing on social media and donāt let your kids live like in the stone age.