And those of y’all who are promoting this pseudo-science are part of the problem. Look at what y’all did to TikTok. Wacky liberal lemmings handing the internet over to literal fascists.
Literally nobody mentioning what happened to TikTok after that sinophobic pogram. Peeps are just excited for round 2.
I, too, am distraught to see mildly conservative leaning independent tech branches of society be cancelled in extremely inopportune political times and maybe fall into hands of fascists.
But claiming ig is 100% not a drug is not the way.
Ig is kinda shitty and meta absolutely has fallen into that political trap. “Who’s to say how they would behave if we were under left rule, and not far right?”
Tiktok, I’m sad about. It truly was a real haven for many. I didn’t use insta, though, I’m too old.
I don’t think giving these tech programs into the hands of evil is the right move. But imagine if musk bought meta after a public shaming.
The world is largely headed that way, anyway. And we just have to deal with it. Maga and natsoc is cancer and should be feared and hated and fought as such. In that sense, judging correctly if meta has been infected/is lost/will be lost, is the correct course of action as a preliminary, and further actions stemming from that result. With “this app is addictive and manipulative and influential” being important, but not as.
If we want to win against fascism, unfortunately, they’re playing ball and we’re standing in the field shitting our pants and trying to smell the flowers.
How is it psuedo science to compare the addicting ways social media affects people and its similarity to drug addiction? It’s an analogy, obviously no one is being 100% literal.
This is not just pseudo-science. It’s literally a false statement. Maybe it’s a metaphor but science is not a metaphor. Metaphor’s are generally a bad foundation for actions based on reality.
It’s ok if people want to compare “social media” to a drug, but there’s any meaningful evidence for those claims either so that’s pseudo-science too. Notice how all the arguments against “social media” here are based on feelings, stories, etc. while there’s zero scientific evidence.
Both electronic media (social media, apps) and cigarettes act as quick-hit, artificial sources of dopamine, the brain’s “feel-good” neurotransmitter, which can lead to addiction. Cigarettes/vapes release dopamine through nicotine, while digital media does so through notifications and content, both hijacking the brain’s reward system to create compulsive, repetitive behaviors.
IG is 100% not a drug.
And those of y’all who are promoting this pseudo-science are part of the problem. Look at what y’all did to TikTok. Wacky liberal lemmings handing the internet over to literal fascists.
Literally nobody mentioning what happened to TikTok after that sinophobic pogram. Peeps are just excited for round 2.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/29/palestinian-journalist-bisan-owda-with-1-4m-followers-reports-tiktok-ban
I, too, am distraught to see mildly conservative leaning independent tech branches of society be cancelled in extremely inopportune political times and maybe fall into hands of fascists.
But claiming ig is 100% not a drug is not the way.
Ig is kinda shitty and meta absolutely has fallen into that political trap. “Who’s to say how they would behave if we were under left rule, and not far right?”
Tiktok, I’m sad about. It truly was a real haven for many. I didn’t use insta, though, I’m too old.
I don’t think giving these tech programs into the hands of evil is the right move. But imagine if musk bought meta after a public shaming.
The world is largely headed that way, anyway. And we just have to deal with it. Maga and natsoc is cancer and should be feared and hated and fought as such. In that sense, judging correctly if meta has been infected/is lost/will be lost, is the correct course of action as a preliminary, and further actions stemming from that result. With “this app is addictive and manipulative and influential” being important, but not as.
If we want to win against fascism, unfortunately, they’re playing ball and we’re standing in the field shitting our pants and trying to smell the flowers.
How is it psuedo science to compare the addicting ways social media affects people and its similarity to drug addiction? It’s an analogy, obviously no one is being 100% literal.
This is not just pseudo-science. It’s literally a false statement. Maybe it’s a metaphor but science is not a metaphor. Metaphor’s are generally a bad foundation for actions based on reality.
It’s ok if people want to compare “social media” to a drug, but there’s any meaningful evidence for those claims either so that’s pseudo-science too. Notice how all the arguments against “social media” here are based on feelings, stories, etc. while there’s zero scientific evidence.
This was a quote from internal memos you dolt.
That they thought this way, and treated it this way, and leaned into it, is the problem.
do you like it when big tech bros call you a good boy
Both electronic media (social media, apps) and cigarettes act as quick-hit, artificial sources of dopamine, the brain’s “feel-good” neurotransmitter, which can lead to addiction. Cigarettes/vapes release dopamine through nicotine, while digital media does so through notifications and content, both hijacking the brain’s reward system to create compulsive, repetitive behaviors.