• 0 Posts
  • 83 Comments
Joined 10 months ago
cake
Cake day: February 9th, 2025

help-circle
  • Sure, if you go in with the idea that the ban won’t impact their social media usage then it obviously follows that it won’t impact their usage. And that might be true for a while, but:

    • Declining usage compounds and any barrier to entry drops users. Reddit wouldn’t be suing to stop this if they didn’t think it was a major threat to their platform.
    • The single largest factor in platform membership is peer membership, and the most influential peers in adolescent development will always be real life friends
    • A cohort aging up doesn’t mean that the next cohorts will automatically follow. Late millennials weren’t tied to Facebook, Gen Z wasn’t married to Snapchat, a drop in TikTok usage will eventually precipitate a need to migrate somewhere else
    • Global social media usage, by human screen time, has been declining from its 2022 peak (excluding a North American exception), with the largest drop among younger users

    Putting all of this together, it seems very plausible that child bans could hasten this decline. It would probably work twice as well if more public money was directed to alternatives (third spaces, clubs, etc…).



  • The controversy over his public presence (both real and contrived) has convinced me that if you want to be any kind of serious public figure you should never-ever-ever put anything off-hand in text or on video. Let alone stream yourself for hours at a time.

    Take some time to compile your thoughts and don’t just spit out hot takes. It’ll get you attention for sure, but it’s not worth the scrutiny and drama hunting. For real, look at the people in this thread latched onto a single clip of a dog yelping weeks (months?) ago. Is that such a core and defining feature that I should completely discredit him? Doesn’t seem like it, but I also don’t want to dig through hours of content to find out.


  • Weird-ass thing to get on your high horse about. If you’re so concerned about phone numbers, get a burner and a sim card with cash. Or, you know, use a communication method designed with anonymity in mind.

    Would it be better to have anonymous sign up? Sure. But if you’re on a Google or apple device and got Signal from the first party store, your app usage is probably already enough to fingerprint you.

    Signal was never about anonymous chat, it’s built for secure e2e chat between known parties. If you have a different threat model then there’s other options for you.






  • I’ll take a crack at it:

    • It’s a massive privacy/surveillance concern. Look at the issues that come with doorbell cams and now multiply the number of cameras and scatter them all over
    • It’s another platform for mega corporations to track and sell data to advertisers or any malicious actors, but at an entirely new intrusive level. They no longer have to approximate what’s getting your attention when they literally know what has your attention. Good luck anonymizing or hiding your usage when you can’t spoof the real world in front of you.
    • It’s unnecessary e-waste, at best providing the exact same functionality you’d get from your phone with the added benefit of… not reaching into your pocket? You still need a free hand to use it…
    • It’s a distraction in a way that other tech can’t touch. Pedestrians/drivers getting notifications shoved directly into their eyes won’t end well.
    • It probably has all the same inherent problems as previous generations of smart glasses. Primarily: your eyes aren’t designed for extended/repeated focus on an image less than an inch from your face and at the edge of your vision


  • ITT people confuse the mathematical limits of consolidating currency with the actual unbounded consolidation of power.

    No, the rich don’t care about the health of the economy. Yes, they will run out of money that can be directly siphoned from your consumer pockets. That’s just the beginning of the real endgame.

    Short on rent money? I’ll be happy to write off your rents in perpetuity if you sign this contract granting rights to your organs upon death. Can’t afford clothes? A lifetime agreed employment spent sorting trash will keep you in free, durable work clothes. Can’t afford to raise your kids? We’ll give you a sweet deal to cover necessities and they can pay it back later. Muggers and thieves got you down? Come sign on to our secure company commune!

    These are the exact conditions that historically lead to feudal systems. People didn’t abandon their homesteads and independence to become serfs voluntarily. It was always out of necessity.





  • Purely from a hypothetical strategic standpoint: Kirk was one of the young household names being groomed to take the mantle of the angry, populist, old white regressive in the future.

    A lot of the current generation are decrepit mummies and could drop dead at any minute, and building gravity for successors takes time. Kirk was also a relative outsider as a cheerleader, keeping the taint of disastrous administration off him.

    Retribution is coming either way so you could argue the worst assassination attempt outcome would be giving him a bloody ear and a killer photo op. In that context it’s a decent longterm outcome for the violent opposition wing.

    Of course we’ll have to see how the shooter motives and responses play out, nobody really knows.