#Instagram and Facebook have the comparison posts

[thefreckledgymrat]

“I don’t need gravity, I just need growth”

[kayas-kosmos]

Because of what's happening on Twitter...

I've made a little diagram to demonstrate why billionaires and the ultra-wealthy are bad for society.

(Text in Image)

"If we view society as a body, every sector is like a different organ within the body that serves a function and works in harmony with other organs to maintain balance. Every part of the body is important for the whole thing to function."

"The ultra-wealthy want you to believe they are the beating heart and thinking mind of the society – they are the innovators who create our jobs and their brilliance drives society forward. They deserve to be at the top of society because they have earned that. Without them, the body won’t function because they are the most important part."

"In reality, they are more like a malignant tumour, sucking all of the blood (resources) away from everything else (people and the planet) to fuel its own infinite growth, depriving the rest of the body and slowly killing it. Workers create all of the innovation and keep things running, the ultra-wealthy take all the credit."

------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a public domain image so feel free to pinch it for whatever.

Elon Musk has put the careers of thousands of small business owners who depend on Twitter (myself included) in jeopardy by completely running it into the ground. Before this, Mark Zuckerberg had already been doing the same when he started pursuing Metaverse, making Instagram and Facebook much more unusable for artists. Do I really need to go into other examples of CEOs and very normalised practise of wage theft?

Meanwhile, the UK currently has the richest Prime Minister in its history. What is this man doing with this wealth? Continuing the Tory legacy of austerity in order to line his pockets and the pockets of his crony friends. This has resulted in a devastating cost of living crisis that continues to ravage the country as people's energy bills skyrocket out of control.

My diagram is pretty basic and lacks nuance, there's definitely more I could elaborate on with this comparison but I really don't have time. I just want people to get the basic point of how billionaires view themselves vs what function they actually serve. I'm also not here to debate whether some organs are more important than others since I'm not a doctor, that's not really the point here. And no, I don't care if people think I'm being harsh by comparing billionaires to a tumour. If they don't want to be compared to one they should stop acting like one. Jeff Bezos could end world hunger right now and chooses not to.

Also, I know a lot of people are going to come at me with the argument that billionaires give away massive amounts of money. First off, people like Jeff Bezos only give large sums of money to charity a.) for the sake of improving their public image and b.) because giving to charity allows them to write it off in their taxes. Also, charities in of themselves have a lot of problems, but that's a blog post for another day. Mutual Aid is a better way to help people directly. Really, the ultra wealthy need to be taxed, of course they do everything within their power to avoid taxes.

Also:

"Earning a lot of money" and "holding onto a lot of money" are two different things. You cannot be a multi-millionaire unless you hold onto that money. If you give away massive chunks of it to enrich society, you cease to be a billionaire.

Oh and this is worth a watch, too.

Furthermore:

Also before the inevitable great man comments:

Being a billionaire is a moral failing. Nobody needs that much money.

[Slight edit here - I made the assertion that a billionaire could not spend all of their money in their lifetime, but as someone in the comments pointed out it's very easy for them to completely waste billions in no time. Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg have shown that].

Anyway, if you would like to see more anti-Capitalist art from me, I am currently working on a webcomic called "Flowerpunk" - a story about a group of anarchists who are trying to save the city of Wyrdon from a supernatural plague known as "the rot." The comic heavily discusses disaster Capitalism and how the rich will use mass death and destruction as an opportunity to further line their pockets.

I also like to do little anti-Capitalist doodles relating to this project, which I plan to make into posters at some point.

Please consider donating a Ko-Fi also if you would like to help support this project. I am really struggling at the moment because I've basically lost a massive chunk of my client base due to this Twitter implosion and also because of the AI BS that has made it impossible for me to get any reach nowadays. The last year or so has been an absolute nightmare for my career because of all of this.

Thank you all for your continued support! Hopefully I can re-establish my audience here on Tumblr and wherever else I decide to go.

[chirpsythismorning]

Well, it looks like I've been shadowbanned by the Stranger Things subreddit for talking about the strikes.

This might not seem like that big of a deal, but considering the ST subreddit might very well be moderated by Netflix themselves in some capacity, has me pretty pissed off rn.

For some context, Netflix creating the ST sub has already been speculated since the sub's inception. The first season of the show didn't even start filming until November of 2015, however the subreddit for the show was created a month before that, in mid October of 2015.

It's not uncommon for Netflix to create social media accounts across the board for all of their content in order to promote it online, and so it makes sense that in the process of getting filming ready, marketing was going about creating social media accounts on every platform (their other official accounts on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram were also created months in advance of filming as well).

Also worth noting that there is a separate sub called Hawkins AV Club, which fans created themselves to talk about the show and other things related to it that they weren't able to on the main sub, most commonly leaks, which are prohibited on the main one (Netflix don't like leaks...).

Recently though, I noticed all the strike related posts were getting removed, with it being flagged as breaking rule three.

Rule three is pretty simple, in that all it really states is that users cannot post stuff unrelated to the show.

As far as I know, the main ST sub has never made an official post about how the strikes qualify as being unrelated to the show, so it's not like this is some widely understood specific point that has been elaborated on that fans have to follow. To me, it looks like this rule operates as a loophole for a moderator to remove strike posts and list it as 'breaking rule three', without having to acknowledge how fucked up that is.

And so I wanted to test this theory and decided to post the picture of Finn picketing at Paramount Studios in support of SAG-AFTRA the other day.

Right after posting, I added the comment, 'Also ST sub if you delete this, you're confirming you have a Netflix bias'.

For the first hour, the post remained public and so luckily I was able to get some comments on it from other users in the sub. A majority of the comments just acknowledged the picture of Finn and voiced their support, though there was at least one condescending comment speaking negatively against the writers and actors striking. But most importantly, I got a few comments from fans asking why I was insinuating that the post would get deleted aka my time to shine.

I replied by saying that I noticed all the strike related posts were being removed for 'breaking rule three' and how it was bogus because plenty of other unserious posts, that are even less related to the show, stay up all the time. And so, considering the speculation over the years that Netflix played a part in creating the sub and therefore likely still has a stake in moderating it in some capacity, means they are essentially blocking fans from discussing the strike.

I then went into how ST has one of the biggest fandoms for a TV series and how the sub reflects that with over 1 million users. There are plenty of other fandoms out there that are much more niche and small in comparison to ST's base, that have been able to come together and make a big difference by donating and spreading the word as a community, and how it's kind of embarrassing considering our size, that we have not been able to come together to show support for our writers and actors in a tangible way.

And that's when I speculated how I didn't think it was a coincidence that one of the biggest fandoms in the world isn't able to even merely talk about the strikes, in the one place that affords them the ability to come together in the masses, to potentially have the ability to play role in putting pressure on the studios in order to reach a fair deal sooner than later.

These strikes literally depend on the writers and actors not talking about their content in order to put pressure on the studios, and this sub basically operates in the exact opposite way. It allows free for all discussions about the show, but doesn't allow any discussions of the strikes.

Who benefits from that? Netflix. The studios.

The reality is the strikes have EVERYTHING to do with the show. Making posts about an actor protesting so that the writers and actors of said show can continue production in a way that is more just and humane, is about the show. Technically, in a reality where things are never resolved as a result of this strike and the studios being greedy, the show could literally cease to continue. So again, this strike has EVERYTHING to do with the show.

I then ended my comment by saying that despite my suspicions, I hoped that I was wrong and that my post would stay up.

Returning to the sub the following day, I found that my post was not only removed, but also all of my comments were. Everyone else's comments remained including the anti-strike one, and there was also the addition of a pinned moderator comment explaining why the post was removed ie Rule 3.

Now, I have had some of my posts removed on Reddit in the past. Byler posts for example tend to get removed pretty swiftly because the comments get nasty and so that's the moderators usual excuse for removing those, however they don't say it outright with a moderator comment, you usually have to message them directly to get the gist of why it was removed. I've also posted memes before with them being removed and being flagged as breaking rule three, however I have never seen an actual moderator pin the details of the rule. They usually just tag Rule 3 at the top, with it being implied that you have to go look into their FAQ to read up on the rules yourself.

The way they removed my post just came off soooooooooo corporate to me, where the moderator(s) didn't even acknowledge what I said, but basically just proved my point by taking advantage of their rule loophole, by listing off the irrelevant argument against it based on said rule, with no further elaboration on what I actually speculated.

Initially, I wanted to make a post about what happened on here, but I sort of just shined it on because I already assumed they were going to remove it, and so all they did was confirm my suspicions.

But then today I was on the sub and tried to comment on a recent post, only to see that when I tried to reread it after posting, my comment wasn't showing up.

To test if it was a me problem, I went to another subreddit I'm in, Shrek (naturally), and commented on a post. Low and behold it showed up and stayed there...

I then went back to the ST sub to comment on a different recent post and again it did not show up right after I posted it.

So apparently I am a threat to the ST sub to the point where they do not want me commenting on posts anymore, specifically after I posted about the strike and the subs intense measures to prevent it from being discussed at all. Like... ya'll just literally proved my point tenfold.

Now, I do think there very well could be several moderators that are not associated with Netflix at all that are in charge of moderating the main sub. That's actually very likely. However, whether Netflix was involved from the beginning or not, it's also very likely they are now, as the sub is MASSIVE and they probably don't want an account on that scale to be controlled entirely by fans. That would mean 1 million people having access to leaks or anything and everything. Not being able to moderate that would be a pain in the ass (and we're seeing how now in the case of a strike, they also benefit from preventing certain posts from being seen).

So I think that either Netflix created the account themselves from the beginning and have recruited a handful of regular hardcore fans over the years to help moderate it, or they hopped on after a bunch of complications with leaks getting posted to hundreds of thousands of fans during s2-3, taking control at some point from the original moderator, only to join the mix of other moderators that already existed and are basically none the wiser.

In the case of either of those, they can play off that they are an unofficial ST reddit, all because they have a few fan moderators, when it's clear that is not the case.

Anyways, the ST sub has a Netflix (studio) bias and everything that's posted on there is likely moderated by someone that works for Netflix. So, keep that in mind.

[brf-rumortrackinganon]

I had a thought last night when reading your posts…

Conspiracy theories and inane rumors aside, what is holding back Megan from doing social media? It’s just weird. So the whole Occam’s razor thing, simplest answer blah blah blah, what is the simplest explanation? Here again, it’s just weird.

Since you have an impressive body of reference material that could maybe leave some insight I’m missing.

The simplest answer—to me—is she simply doesn’t want it. That doesn’t seem like her though. The SussexRoyal clause still in effect? Maybe it would expose too many of her fabrications, varying recollections and interpersonal relationships? Because she seems to throw simple and transparent to the wind I’ll just go back to saying, yeah, it’s just weird.

Interest and content.

On interest: Meghan doesn't create or inspire the kind of interest to generate tons and tons of followers. She doesn't want Tig numbers anymore, she wants Jennifer Aniston and Kensington Palace numbers:

Jennifer Aniston broke Instagram's record by getting 1 million followers in 5 hours back in 2019, which broke the previous record set by the SussexRoyal Instagram, 1 million followers in 6 hours. Aniston's record isn't even top 5 anymore - a BTS singer holds first place with 1 million followers in 45 minutes and Angelina Jolie is next with 1 million followers in 1 hour.

Kensington Palace's Instagram has 15 million followers, currently. (SussexRoyal Instagram is currently around 9 million followers now - I think that's how many they had when they left in March 2020.)

Meghan/The Tig's Instagram before she deactivated in January 2018 was 3 million followers. For comparison - the official Invictus Games Instagram has 46 thousand followers and Invictus Games Vancouver only has 3,000 followers.

We know that Meghan and Harry were trying to get Facebook, who owns Instagram, to migrate their followers from SussexRoyal Instagram to a new Instagram account and Facebook kept refusing. So we know that they were concerned about wanting/having a huge following. We also know that there are a lot of bots supporting SussexRoyal -- all you had to do is dig deep into the comments and it was there.

I think the account they wanted Facebook to move their SussexRoyal followers to was @thearchewellorganization. The account was created at the same time they announced Archewell and the profile picture uses the same font as their website. Since they lost the fight with Facebook to get their followers moved, they scrubbed the Archewell social media but the account still remains (probably so they have the option to use it later).

And there was a TON of PR from Meghan last summer, August 2023 especially, that she was coming back to social media. Those stories specifically pointed to this account as Meghan's to boost the follower count before she "returned."

As you can see, the followers didn't come, so therefore there was no big comeback. I think Meghan was expecting to get at least Tig-like numbers with her teases and links (after all, it worked the first time around) but the influencer/follower model is completely different now. What worked in 2016 isn't going to work in 2023. Which leads to the second point:

Content. The rules, both the official rules and the unofficial rules, have changed since 2018. The biggest change has been the rules for branded content, or sponsorship. Influencers that are merching are now required, by the terms and conditions of using Instagram, to disclose when they are merching and who is sponsoring them. You didn't have to do that back in 2016. And Meghan doesn't want to disclose who her sponsors are or when she's merching. She doesn't want us to know how desperate for money she is because it goes against the illusion she thinks she has created of being fabulously wealthy and an iconic trendsetter.

The second way the content game has changed is that you have to have stuff to post and promote. Only the incredibly popular people or the incredibly beloved people - the Angelina Jolies, the BTSs, the Kensington Palaces of the world - can get away with not posting for weeks or months at a time and it won't affect their follower count.

Meghan can't do that. She doesn't have the popularity, the fanbase, or the breadth and quality of work to be posting on any kind of regular or consistent basis. She wants to be at that level of fame, she believes she's at that level of fame, she's gaslighted some people to believing she has that level of fame, but she knows she can't convince all of us and the risk of non-believers "corrupting" believers is too great for her to chance.

Which leads to the third way the content game has changed: content moderation. She knows she is disliked and hated. She knows exactly why people dislike and hate her. She's fine with that. She likes the notoreity because in her mind, any attention is good attention. What Meghan doesn't like, and what she wants to control, is how visible that hate is to the public and the people who do like her. She only wants praise on social media because it's what garners the most traction in the power elite circles she wants to be in. Meaning she's going to have to do content moderation - either pay people to delete the hate, not allowing content, or being so restrictive in what keywords are allowed - that it's not worth the hassle.

My gut feeling is that they both want to be on social media but they can't deal with the criticism or the comparisons to William and Kate so Meghan hired Bouzy to take care of the haters (especially the ones that value William and Kate more) and Harry tackled media censorship as his Big Issue to take care of the content moderation.

(And all of these combined is, I think, is the root cause for why she and Harry are so suddenly focused on online child safety. WME probably got them on the bandwagon but you know they were super butthurt Zuckerburg and the other tech guys wouldn't do what they wanted back in 2020.)

Edit to fix the BTS band name.

[publiccollectors]

[Apologies to On Kawara] 

Sometime yesterday, March 17, 2024, someone hacked my Facebook account, connected it to their Instagram account, and was promptly caught by Mark Zuckerberg himself probably (such a hero) and my account was disabled. Thus far I have not been able to re-able my account and it is locked. There is nothing to see here (there). Facebook’s instructions don’t work and they haven’t invited me to rejoin the party. I’m trying not to feel hurt. 

So many thoughts have crossed my mind. I could create a new account but—and this is such a weird thing to think about—I would never be able to reconnect with my Facebook friends that are dead to see how their old posts are doing. 

About 14 years of posts are just gone, I guess? I could start a new account (maybe, if I’m allowed) and feel like Rock Hudson in the creepy movie Seconds, starting a whole new life (except with probably a lot of the same friends all over again and the same job and stuff, so maybe that's not a good comparison). 

I made entire publications of my Facebook posts, and the posts of others that I collaborated with. It could be a very productive space for me, and a lot of new friendships sprouted from being on that platform. A lot of old friendships became deeper too. I wrote and posted a lot. It was mostly a very positive place in my experience. Being on Facebook generated a lot of creative opportunities. It has also destroyed a lot of people and countries and attention spans. I'm sure I read fewer books because of it. It has come with a price.

When Facebook started and all of my friends were signing up and talking about it, I waited. I hesitated to join because I was afraid that I would like it too much, and I would lose a lot of time using it. I eventually joined and quickly found out that I was correct. There are many people on that platform that I have not met in person but interact with online all the time, and have only known through email and social media for multiple decades. In many cases I don’t know any other way to get ahold of them. If I choose not to start a new account or can’t get my old one back, I will miss my interactions with those friends. 

Multiple times over the years people have told me that they enjoyed my posts so much that I was the only reason they stayed on Facebook. That’s a lovely compliment (that I mostly don’t believe). Now that my account is gone, I assume they will all leave the platform en masse. 

In the meantime, I suspect that my productivity will soar, at a time when I have multiple creative projects that demand a lot of attention. So for now, I am here and I am still alive. Feel free to message me, or email me at: marc [at] publiccollectors [dot] org. I love you. It’s been facetastic. 

[anonymoushouseplantfan]

I just checked and the BRF has 6.6M followers on Facebook, 13M on Instagram, 5.7M on Twitter, and 1.2M on Youtube.

The P/PoW accounts on Insta have 15M and 2.8M for their Twitter.

Those are kind of low numbers for celebs, but obviously the BRF have all of traditional media to report on them. It does seem like Insta is their preferred medium though.

For comparison Fergie has 0.6M on Insta, and Eugenie has 1.8M.

The old Sussex Royal account had about 13.5M at its peak, and is now 9.5M.

I think Meghan could manage to get maybe 2M genuine followers, comparable to Eugenie. Double it if she features Harry, pics of the kids, or promotes something interesting/relatable/inspirational. But I don't know how she could maintain 5M+ following, she simply hasn't done enough to be that important.

And she doesn't post that often or that well. It's going to be hard to maintain a large following.

[mariacallous]

This is from 2022.

The claim: Bob Cratchit was destitute but still earned more than the U.S. minimum wage

The work of Victorian-era novelist Charles Dickens went viral over the holidays, when a tweet used his 1843 novella "A Christmas Carol" to make a point about the minimum wage. 

Posted Dec. 19 and retweeted by over 14,000 users, it centered on Bob Cratchit. The character works as a clerk and accountant for wealthy Ebenezer Scrooge yet struggles to provide enough food and clothing for his wife and six children.

According to the post – which was screenshotted and shared by many Facebook users – Cratchit symbolizes "destitution" in the novella but would have made an inflation-adjusted wage of around $13.50 per hour – almost twice the federal minimum wage. 

"Time for your annual reminder that, according to A Christmas Carol, Bob Cratchit makes 15 shillings a week. Adjusted for inflation, that's $530.27/wk, $27,574/yr, or $13.50/hr," the tweet reads.

"Most Americans on minimum wage earn less than a Dickensian allegory for destitution."

If he were alive today, would Cratchit actually be earning more than the minimum wage?

The wage figure is roughly accurate. But as independent fact-checking organizations have reported, the claim is more complicated than the post makes it seem.

Chris Thompson, who posted the original tweet, told USA TODAY in a LinkedIn message that the claim came from an article published by the site EverythingWhat, which he said he found after "a very cursory Google search."

The tweet drew thousands of comments and shares on Facebook, Instagram and other platforms. More than 30,000 users shared a screenshot of the tweet posted by liberal Facebook page The Other 98% – though it later updated its post to state that "this post has been fact checked and found to be False."

Cratchit's salary roughly equivalent to $14.20 per hour

Inflation is typically measured using the Consumer Price Index, which looks at annual increases in the average price of a standard bundle of consumer goods and services.

But this kind of measurement can't accurately estimate Cratchit's salary, said Samuel H. Williamson, professor emeritus of economics at Miami University of Ohio.

"The term ‘inflation-adjusted salary’ is very misleading because it implies that ... these 'adjusted' salaries can buy a similar set of goods and services," Williamson said. "But over time the bundle becomes so different that the comparison is ludicrous. Cell phones with quill pens, etc.”

While no measure is perfect, What is the relative value of Bob Cratchit’s 15 shillings a week in 1843? of the modern-day equivalent of a 15-shilling wage in 1843, Williamson said. This indicator adjusts a wage based on the inflation of the average worker’s pay each year.

Using this method, Cratchit’s 15 shillings per week would translate to a relative labor earnings value of £611.30 per week, according to MeasuringWorth, an inflation calculation resource that Williamson co-founded. At the current conversion rate, that's about $850 per week and $43,000 annually. 

Keep in mind that, in Victorian England in the 1840s, laborers were expected to work 10 hours per day, six days per week. Assuming Scrooge didn’t make Cratchit work longer hours, that means Cratchit was making the equivalent of $14.20 per hour, adjusting for wage inflation.

That would make his pay nearly double the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, though 30 U.S. states have set higher pay floors. 

However, that wage would put the Cratchits below the federal poverty line of $44,660 for a family of eight. 

Cratchit wasn’t 'destitute' for his time

By calling Cratchit "a Dickensian allegory for destitution," the tweet implies he was paid a relatively low wage for a person in the Victorian era. But that isn't the full story. 

Joel J. Brattin, a professor of English at Worcester Polytechnic Institute who has researched Dickens’ work, told USA TODAY that although Cratchit was paid a relatively low wage for his skillset and time period, he wasn’t the poorest person in Victorian London. For example, manual laborers were paid around 8 shillings per week, he said, and there wasn't a minimum wage.

“It is important to note that Bob Cratchit was not destitute,” Brattin said in an email. “Rather, he was paid little, and had a large family – six children and a wife – to feed and clothe.”

Peter Gurney, a history professor at the University of Essex who has studied consumption and consumer goods in the Victorian era, said fixating on Cratchit's wage takes away from the message of "A Christmas Carol."

“The important thing is that the Cratchit family are almost starving all year round, and Dickens shows how Christmas makes things worse, exposing extremes of poverty and wealth and the erosion of Christian charity by laissez-faire individualism," Gurney said in an email.

Our rating: Partly false

Based on our research, we rate PARTLY FALSE the claim that Cratchit was destitute but still earned more than the U.S. minimum wage. Based on wage inflation, his salary of 15 shillings per week translates to around $43,000 per year, or $14.20 per hour with the standard 60-hour workweek of his time. So it's true that he would have made more than the federal minimum wage.

However, he was not "destitute" for his time, experts told USA TODAY. Cratchit's pay as an educated clerk, while meager for a family of eight, was higher than that of many other workers. There was no minimum wage in Victorian London. In addition, the standard and cost of living today are so different that comparing wages directly is misleading.

[beardedmrbean]

Threads, Meta's new social media app, has signed up 100 million new users less than a week since its launch last Wednesday, making it the fastest-growing app in history.

Like other social media apps, users probably barely scanned − or skipped − the terms and conditions for what information Threads can collect, share and sell about them.

Meta probably already had a lot of information about users because Threads is built upon its Instagram platform.

Start the day smarter. Get all the news you need in your inbox each morning.

So how much does Threads already know about you, and what can it do with that data? Here are a few reasons to be concerned about your privacy.

What information does Threads collect?

Social media platforms monetize user data by selling relevant ads based on your location and activity, but, along with the usual app privacy requests like browsing history and location data, Threads also asks for financial information, health and fitness data, diagnostics and a nefarious-sounding "sensitive info."

Many users have voiced concern over Threads for its 14-point list of data permissions you're granting Meta to use the app. Twitter, by comparison, has 10 of these.

"I would say it's at the outer boundaries of what's usually expected, which is to be expected from its connection to Facebook, a brand long known for being especially hungry to take in user data and commercialize it in different ways," says Dan Ackerman, the new editor-in-chief at Gizmodo, a leading technology, science and culture news publication.

Android users can toggle off some of the data requests from the app, while the Apple App Store is "more take-it-or-leave it," Ackerman said.

"It also doesn't help that there's no browser-based fully functional version of Threads right now, and so you have to use the app version," he said.

Meta declined my request for comment and clarification.

Is Threads data collection worse than Twitter?

It's not necessarily malicious, suggests Tim Bajarin, a veteran technology analyst and Chairman of the San Jose, California-based market research firm Creative Strategies. "Users should know this Threads data list is pulled directly from Instagram, and it's all tied to their advertising engine when they start to monetize Threads.  

"When you sign off on financial info, for example, they're not looking at your bank statements or anything," Bajarin said.

Rather, Threads collects what you're posting about and liking, where you are, and whether you bought something through a third-party site, app or game you logged into using your connected Facebook/Instagram ID (usually to avoid creating a new password altogether).

Bajarin said users are granting Meta access for future advertising.

"Meta isn't giving you a free app out of the goodness of their heart − they're there to make money, which is mostly from advertising."

Threads can collect and save this information, and the data can also be shared with third-party services that connect to your Threads profile.

Can you deactivate Threads?

Yes, but you cannot delete it without also deleting Instagram, Bajarin said.

"Meta built (Threads) on the Instagram infrastructure, on top of the program itself, and so it would be very difficult to uninstall one and not both – at least the way it's engineered today. ... They could eventually be spun out to be completely separate apps," Bajarin said.

To deactivate (but not delete) your Threads account, Adam Mosseri − the Instagram boss who now spearheads the Threads app – says you can choose to hide your Threads profile and content, delete individual Threads posts and set your profile to private, as reported by USA TODAY contributor Jennifer Jolly.

"Threads is powered by Instagram, so right now it's just one account, but we're looking into a way to delete your Threads account separately,” he posted.

Ackerman said the fact Threads is built on Instagram is actually a boon for Meta and users, "as it's especially easy to sign up for, has no wait list, and is simple to use." But "in order to delete your Threads account after you sign up, you’ll need to delete your Instagram account, as well, which reminds me of the difficulty people had deleting their Facebook accounts in the past, and how there was a lot of fine print about what data Facebook would keep unless you jumped through extra hoops."

Is the Threads app safe?

Threads is asking for more permissions than Twitter, so it boils down to your comfort level.

Though some of the privacy permissions seem ludicrous – granting Threads access to health and activity data and other "sensitive info" on a smartphone just seems wrong – no one is forcing users to install and use Threads or any other social media app that monetizes its free platform by delivering personalized, contextual ads to you.

Threads is available in more than 100 countries, but perhaps it's no surprise it isn't available in the Europe Union just yet: Meta was forced to pay more than $400 million by EU regulators for forcing users to accept targeted ads.

Personally, I am using and enjoying Threads quite a bit but wish there was more clarity about how my data is collected and used. And I'm disappointed Meta declined to clarify things.

I select "Ask not to track" on all iPhone apps to reduce an app's visibility into my web browsing activity, and I have a virtual private network (VPN) on my computer for extra privacy, but perhaps it's true there is nothing truly free in this world – it's just up to each person to decide whether the cost is worth it.

[being-noovoo]

I’ve been off of social media for almost 6 months.

With the exception of tumblr, Pinterest, and youtube. And before you say well those are social medias too, yes you’re right they are social media. The difference is how I use them. Instagram and Pinterest are two completely incomparable vibes. On instagram, I’m always overthinking it, and try to make my life seem as picture perfect as i can.

Where as on Pinterest and tumblr i don’t feel the need to be seen as a perfect human, though i still don’t allow my “moments” or my business on these sites either because somethings just don’t need to be shared. But on these site I feel as if i can relax a bit more and share my thoughts and how my brain works without the need for them to be validated. Maybe its because Im not directly posting myself and that I know that the odds are someone in real life connecting this blog to me are slim to none.

These sites feel slower and a bit more grounding for me. Mainly because I use them as a way to track myself, my thoughts, my affirmations, my goals, my dream self. Where as on other socials you’re bombarded with other peoples lives, what new thing they’re doing, whats going on in their lives. And by constantly seeing it your mind is constantly think of it and comparing. Comparison is the thief of joy, you’ll never truly be happy if you’re always worried about what the next person is doing.

Of course as any young adult these days knows, navigating life without social media is hard. Not only in the sense that you feel as if you’re out of the loop and missing out on things that your peers are doing, but in the fact that being without social media makes you realize how much of your time you’ve spent on it. Now you feel restless, bored, you don’t know what to do, every time you pick up your phone you’re itching for instagram, facebook, or twitter. Without these sites you have to sit with yourself and your thoughts.

I will say my life has been much slower without these apps, I’m more focused on my next move instead of which one of my mutuals got cheated on today and wondering if my significant other will cheat on me. I can say that without these apps I feel better, not only about myself but there is a genuine relief in not knowing everything that is going on in everyones life across the world.

We were not built to process that much information. And the privacy that comes with not spending every free moment of social media feels great. You can feel the authenticity of every moment come back. You can hang out with your friends and take pictures that you actually enjoy because they’re not “instagramable”. Not that your life cant be aesthetically pleasing but, some of the more enjoyable experiences are not the most aesthetic things.

You don’t have to leave social media entirely for these benefits either. As i said earlier I use Pinterest, tumblr, and youtube. And my instagram is still up, though I removed 90% of my followers and privated my page. It all depends on what works best for you, what you want out of this social-medialess (?) experience. Do what makes you truly happy and comfortable. And remember you don’t have to explain yourself to anyone. Saying “because i wanted to” or “ just because” are valid statements and you don’t have to go any further.

[masongrizchel]

The Joy of Missing Out 🎉🌟

In 2019, I decided to deactivate my social media accounts (e.g., Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter) 😌. 30 days later, the platform automatically deleted my Twitter account in accordance with its policy 📅. But before that happened, I found myself constantly checking up on people I barely knew, sharing simple accomplishments and thoughts 💬.

At one point, I found myself comparing my journey to that of others, observing how they were building their families, sharing their successes, and having similar experiences. It consumed me and made me anxious 😔. These overwhelming thoughts have led me to the conclusion that, I guess, I have to deactivate my social media platforms.

We primarily checked our notifications from time to time, driven by the urge, as indicated by studies and statements 📱. I tracked my social media consumption. I noticed that I was spending almost 6-7 hours on the Internet, which was essentially an accumulation of just 15-20 minutes of surfing whenever time permitted ⏱️.

And I came to the realization that social media isn't real life. What I realized is that behind every filter, there is a false sense of aesthetics and an underappreciation of someone's beauty just to attain society's high standards. There are other stories behind each post. At the end of the day, we need to realize that all these things aren’t as true as they seem. We need to reality-check ourselves to ensure that we don't let the high standards and pressures presented to us through social media and society consume us.

And this is how I came to embrace the concept of the joy of missing out 😊. It celebrates the beauty of absence and the liberation it brings. Being unaware of what is happening is clearly satisfying and gives you inner peace.

What it offered me was an encouraging thought about prioritizing our well-being and cultivating a deeper connection within ourselves. In a culture saturated with constant notifications and relentless social pressures, the ability to disconnect and revel in the bliss of solitude becomes increasingly precious. Instead of succumbing to the pressure of attending every event or keeping up with every trend, embracing this idea allows us to reclaim our time and energy for pursuits that truly nourish our souls.

The joy of missing out fosters a sense of gratitude for the simple pleasures of life. By choosing to miss out on certain activities or social gatherings, individuals gain the opportunity to savor moments of solitude and reflection. Whether it's indulging in a favorite book, taking a leisurely stroll in nature, or enjoying a quiet evening at home, it invites us to appreciate the beauty of slowing down and being fully present in the moment.

Embracing the joy of missing out empowers us to set boundaries and prioritize our mental health. In a well-connected world (digitally), where social media serves as a constant reminder of what others are doing, it's easy to fall into the trap of comparison and self-doubt. By consciously choosing to opt out of certain social engagements or online activities, individuals can protect their mental and emotional well-being, focusing instead on activities that bring them genuine fulfillment and joy.

The joy of missing out is not about deprivation or isolation, but rather about intentional living and embracing the freedom to choose how we spend our time and energy. By embracing this idea, individuals can cultivate a greater sense of inner peace, gratitude, and fulfillment in a world that often glorifies busyness and constant stimulation. It gently reminds us that sometimes the most meaningful moments in life occur not in the frenzy of activity but in the quiet spaces where we can simply be ourselves.

So I find it more peaceful, and it gives me more time to explore the things that I find more meaningful. Offering my time and energy is what matters most. 💖

[jesusinstilettos]

I struggle a lot with the feeling of “if I’m not being perceived, I don’t exist.” And “if my experiences aren’t being witnessed, they don’t count.” Which is obviously a result of existing in a consumerist society where we turn people into brands/consumable items. It’s the attention economy. But this can’t be the way we live. I need to learn my existence is so much more than that. I am literally the universe and I’m tired of dancing for likes like corporations want me to.

So I decided in therapy today after unpacking this stuff, I definitely need to delete Instagram and Facebook. 1. Companies like Meta are purposely stealing as much of our finite lives away from us via psychological manipulation in the name of profit. They want to nuke our attention spans and self worth, so the people at the top can buy their yachts. 2. I obviously only post to seek external validation. It’s bandaid-ing my emotional/social needs instead of actually addressing them. 3. I also use it as a way to dissociate which is unhealthy. 4. I gain literally nothing good from social media. I genuinely can’t think of one pro. 5. I just left religion/a cult. The years after doing that are so precious because you are rebuilding from the ground up. We are humans, we can’t help but compare our lives to others. So my therapist brought up a question: is this time where you’re rebuilding from a cult really the best time to expose yourself to all that comparison? To all that feeling of inadequacy? Comparing yourself to people who didn’t have the obstacles you did? The answer is no.

[bearballing]

I am here to second Cohost as a alternative/migration point from Tumblr. Same sort of set up as Tumblr, but admittedly it's a lot quieter in comparison. Then again that can only change if more people move to Cohost at all. With what's been happening lately, I have the feeling that might happen soon. :u

i thought i'd answered this earlier but i guess tumblr ate the response :|

yeah from looking at cohost it did look a lot like tumblr, and i really do want some place to actually stick and get like, reasonably big. tiktok has been the only social media to actually get big and stay big like, since twitter/facebook/instagram/tumblr/reddit were established i guess??

but seeing the replies in the post i reblogged earlier about cohost, how they do in fact host predators and shit it'slike god damn! please let us have one nice thing

[catchingpapermoons]

27

just musings on aging and mental health and being alive.

content warnings for suicidal ideation, death, self-loathing.

as the days ticked down to my 20th birthday, i became acutely aware of the fact that i was still a living, breathing person.

i hadn’t thought about it much; i’d been surviving on empty for so long i hadn’t realized it was time for me to leave my teen years behind. for me, much like it was for everyone else in the world, being a teenager knocked me around like those inflatable tube guys that blow violently in the wind outside the most drab-looking car dealership.

i grew up a lot from 13 to 19. i was very different at 19 than i was when i entered high school, but an apt comparison of those girls would be that i was so deeply, achingly insecure of my personality, because i wasn’t really sure i had one at all. much of it came from other people because i wanted them to like me, because i wanted everyone to like me. i wanted to make myself fit in spaces i probably wouldn’t have fit in at all. i didn’t know how to rise above it. i wasn’t sure i wanted to rise above it. all i knew, with absolute certainty, was that everyone would find out that i was secretly a terrible, jealous, conniving, uppity cunt who no one would ever love.

i had long believed i wouldn’t make it to 20. unfailingly, i’d hoped, maybe even believed, that something would happen and i wouldn’t have to face the rest of my life. and as much as i had believed that, suddenly i had made it through two years of undergrad and i was marching headfirst toward my 20s. i even wrote something too, braving how uncomfortable i was in facing my emotions to tell my community of facebook friends, people i’d known since birth, since middle school, since high school, since i started college, that i was grateful to them for giving me a safe place to land when it felt like i’d been freefalling for years.

“as a very lonely freshman in high school, for some reason, reaching the age of 20 seemed impossible,” i said in my post. “i’m happy to be 20 today.”

and just as suddenly as i’d approached 20, i was 21 and falling in love, and i was 22 and falling out of it. 23 and finally feeling a sense of self after being (mostly) properly treated for my depression, and then the world shut down. 24, 25, and 26 came and went. and a constant in all those years was that i’d come to this realization, this understanding of myself, that there was something—something young, feral, and bright—that was hurt. not irreparably, not from one single blow, but taken altogether, there was something fragile that needed tending to, like the broken ankle i never let heal properly.

there was an instagram story prompt the other day that asked you to show yourself in the past six years. what was startling to me was, first, that i found six pictures from six different years within the 20 thousand something photos in my library. but the prevailing thought was, looking at the pictures side-by-side, that you could tell how unhappy i was at 22, 23, 24 even. how halfway through being 25 you could see how settled i had become, that at 26, about to graduate with a professional doctorate degree, despite the massive stress and anger and anxiety and imposter-syndrome-god-complex that every law student has, i looked happy.

there’s a lump in my throat just thinking about it.

because when i was 14, i couldn’t picture life past 20. i could barely see the 15th birthday light at the end of the freshman year tunnel. when i was 19, i was shocked to see 20 flying around the corner, and even more shocked that i wanted to keep aging. it’s a source of pride for me that i’d managed, despite everything trying to tear me to pieces, to make it that far, and even farther than that.

there were reasons, of course, that i would never have left. i knew even in the throes of my insurmountable incapacitation that i couldn’t ruin my family like that. maybe that’s narcissistic to say, but maybe it’s just true, that a lack of grace in the world would hurt people in a way that would never leave them. i’m still haunted by memories of people i knew—whether i knew them well or more peripherally—because they’re gone and i won’t be able to send them a follow request on instagram or run into them on the train on our morning commute  because they died too early. and some of these people weren’t even my friends, just friends of friends or boyfriends of friends or kids i passed in the hallway. i think about them still and the mark they left, and i couldn’t do that to my family or friends or people who feel like me about the people whose posts they “love” on facebook or whose tweets they like on twitter.

and now, as i’m typing this, i am two weeks away from 27. in the past 6 and a half years i’ve been so adrift. i’d been so certain of life not existing past 20 that i never thought to picture what it would look like. i graduated from university and didn’t have a plan, and i was traumatized from my last relationship and heartbreak. i had no immediate plans beyond “make enough money to pay for gas” after i’d completely bombed the GRE, and i didn’t know who i was beyond my illness. 

now, i’m getting ready to take this exam that will determine my future and i worry about passing because everyone worries about passing the bar, but i’ve made it 7 years past where i thought i would. and i want to make it 10, 20, 30 more years, and beyond that. i want to be 100 with a family of kids and grandkids and great-grandkids and i want to be hopeful about the world that we live in even when hope feels fruitless and when climate change feels catastrophic because even when i was my most depressed, my most helpless, the little hurt part of me still felt hope.

the thing in me that’s hurting is simultaneously more prevalent and less painful than it has been. i like to picture it like a child version of me. and some part of me is telling her, whether she’s 5 or 13 or 21, that she’s going to be okay. she might feel lonely, she might feel sad and scared and panicked, she might try—well-meaning and missing the mark often—to help those around her when they just need to be left alone, but that it’s okay to make those mistakes. it’s okay to believe the best in people until they’ve shown you otherwise. it’s okay to be kind and know that, for as many loud and awful people there are in the world, there are more people who just care about helping each other. and it’s okay to believe all those things. and it’s okay to be discouraged and disappointed.

but i’m going to turn 27 and i’m going to celebrate with friends who live near me and call my friends who live far away and i’m going to provide help when i’m asked to and support when it’s needed. and i like to believe that’s made at least one person’s life a little brighter. i’ve never liked my birthday much. i think i’m just excited to turn another year older and to just keep going.

reaching 30 doesn’t seem so impossible anymore. 

[nichenirvana]

Niche Site Teardown #3: housefresh.com

Niche Site Teardown #3: housefresh.com

Site: housefresh.com

Niche: Air Purifiers & Humidifiers

Note: Data such as traffic, backlinks, competitors, authority, keywords rankings etc are all ESTIMATES provided by 3rd party tools mostly UberSuggest.

Website Overview

Date Site Founded: 2013 (first registered but not built out until 2021)

Domain Authority: 53

Organic Monthly Traffic: 112,000 visitors p/m

Number of Keywords Ranking: 40,190

Number of Backlinks: 10,322

Number of Pages: 295

Top 5 Pages

6 Best Bathroom Dehumidifiers – 10,650 visitors p/m.

9 Best Air Purifiers for Cigarette Smoke – 4,961 visitors p/m.

Humidifier vs Air Purifier: What’s The Difference? – 2,683 visitors p/m.

6 Best Air Purifiers for VOCs – 2,529 visitors p/m.

6 Best Air Purifiers Made in the USA – 2,167 visitors p/m.

Monetization Methods:

Affiliate Marketing: Yes.

Display Ads: Yes. (Mediavine)

Digital Products: No.

Physical Products: No.

Subscriptions / Memberships: No.

Branding & Design

Built On: Wordpress.

Theme: Generatepress.

Unique or Generic Looking: Generic.

Well Branded: Yes.

Good Logo: Yes.

Trust & Authority

Real Person or Persona: Persona (I think – About page lists owner and staff but no full names or personal social profiles linked to so hard to be 100% sure)

Good About Page: It’s OK (Covers what the site does, why should trust them, how they test products etc)

Genuine Authority: Yes (A full topical authority covering all things humidifier, air purifiers, and filters)

Social Prescence: Yes . - Facebook: No. - Instagram: Yes. - Pinterest: Yes. - Youtube: Yes. - Tik Tok: No. - LinkedIn: No. - Twitter: Yes. - Discord: No.

Email List: No.

Competitors List

ohsospotless.com / Estimated Traffic = 95,532 visitors p/m / # of Backlinks: 40,789

airpurifierfirst.com / Estimated Traffic = 40,000 visitors p/m / # of Backlinks: 8,820

airfuji.com / Estimated Traffic = 4,819 visitors p/m / # of Backlinks: 5,078

My Thoughts on How To Improve Traffic:

Video Traffic: If they are really reviewing the products, and they do have unique images which suggests they own the products, I think they could do more with video to drive traffic. Adding full video reviews of the products on Youtube and Tik Tok could be more revenue.

Social Traffic: Despite having a social media presence they have very little following and haven’t posted much social content – if this was something they focused on it could become a bigger traffic driver.

Build an Email List: Although sites built around specific product types can be difficult to build an email list there are options such as a lead magnet advising on the best ways to clear the air in your house or the best device for specific type of air issues.

My Thoughts on How To Improve Revenue:

Avoid Distracting The Reader: The top of some of their “best X” affiliate reviews have highlighted boxes that randomly link out to other websites (I believe in the thought that linking out to authority sites is a good signal to Google, which is true) but this is likely to send people away from the affiliate content and lose sales, so put those links at the bottom of the page or within the content.

Call To Action Buttons: There’s no buttons with call to actions in the “top 3” product review comparison tables on their affiliate content, just text links, big, colourful buttons, would generate more attention and clicks.

Showcase The Personal Experience: Though they seemingly have unique images of the products and even videos on Youtube showcasing the products their written reviews and affiliate content don’t really highlight that personal experience of using the product, it still reads like a very generic review written by someone who hasn’t actually used it (even though I believe they may have owned and used the products).

Don’t Display Prices: They are displaying prices directly in reviews and comparison affiliate posts which I would discourage because one big reason people will click your affiliate buttons is to check the price on the retailer.

Avoid Listing The Retailer: On their call to action buttons they often use terms like “Buy on Amazon” which although I’ve never tested it specifically I believe could cause a reduction in clicks because people may think “OK, I’ll check it on Amazon later” or open Amazon direcrly without clicking your links or buttons.

Biggest Takeaways To Apply To Your Own Site

Product Sites Still Work: Going all in one specific product type (in this case devices that clean the air of your house) and covering every piece of information, reviewing every product, and comparing all the different models can give you high topical authority and extremely high traffic (an estimated 100,000+ visitors p/m in this case).

Using the Products Builds Trust: If you can buy the products and take original photos and videos to add into your content then do it – this shows much more trust because people can see you have actually used them rather than regurgitating the Amazon listing information.

Always Use Call to Action BUTTONS: Never use text link call to actions but instead always use big, colourful, contrasting buttons people can’t miss.

Don’t Distract Your Visitor: Never put anything at the top of your pages that can take your visitor AWAY from the thing you want them to focus on otherwise you’ll lose their attention and lose clicks and sales.

Avoid Listing Prices: Avoid using product prices on your affiliate content (even when using Amazon’s API to display the current price) because it gives people one less incentive to click through to Amazon – many people will click to check the price.

Don’t Tell The Reader Where The Link Leads: Again, avoid mentioning “Amazon” on your call to action buttons (though remember you do need a clear disclaimer at the top of your pages / visible above the fold saying you’re an Amazon affiliate) as many people will open Amazon in a new tab or decide to just check it directly on Amazon later meaning they won’t click your affiliate link.

Build your Email List: It drives repeat traffic back to your site, makes people more likely to buy, and drives more sales plus it’s something Google cannot take away from you.  

[somethingboutlife]

Day in life of the barely functioning #1

Scrolling through social media, mainly Facebook, TikTok, instagram, we have all these glamorous "day in the life of..", and even though not being perfect has become very modern, I still feel like im barely functioning in comparison. Im very aware that social media life is not real life, of course, but where's the norm? And where am I? Since I'm barely function in comparison to the "normal" individual, I cannot mirror myself, and it leaves me feeling anxious and vulnerable. Therefore, im gonna make some updates of a day in the life of a barely functioning individual. And im gonna pray to god that nobody IRL finds this and realise that I don't function. And maybe, someday, I'll make a post where I am indeed functioning in comparison to now.

9 am: I woke up, after sleeping for about 11-12 hours. I went to a party and got drunk friday, the hungover seemed endless, but it was mostly gone today. I stayed in bed for about an hour and got up, made some coffee and ate some fruit.

12 am: I started doing my assignment for school, its almost 7 pm now and I'm still not done. I really like my study, but its also very difficult and time consuming.

4 pm: I took a shower, and made a snack pot, had my last cup of coffee since im caffeine sensitive and cannot fall asleep if I've had too much coffee

6 pm: I boiled some eggs and ate them with rye bred, had a pepsi max.

I've been spending all day in bed, but I'm a good place mentally today. I'm anxious about tomorrow because I have to go to class, but hopefully I'll be too tired in the morning to realise that, and just get it done.

[luulapants]

"Reddit and Tumblr don't have algorithms" just because you forcibly ignore them doesn't mean they don't exist, you're being fed information via algorithms even on this hellsite all the fuckin time lol

That's how you get new people to follow, new posts (based on your likes!) new tags to discover

You're literally inundated with algorithms but because it was such a slow change you refuse to see it

Reading comprehension on this site is beyond compare. The ACTUAL words I wrote that you're referring to are that Tumblr and Reddit "don’t rely on recommendation algorithms to operate." That is true. The site is perfectly functional without the use of recommendation algorithms, and a sizable portion if not a majority of the user base chooses not to engage with them. If recommendation algorithms were removed from these websites, nothing else would need to be changed to accommodate it.

This is in comparison to sites which primarily rely on passive consumption, which currently cannot be used without a heavy algorithmic presence: Instagram, Twitter, TikTok, Facebook, Youtube, etc.

If you are seeing the "based on your likes!" feature or your dash is not chronological, you can and should turn that off by going into your Settings > Dashboard > Preferences and disabling at least the top three toggles.