07.03.2026 12:21
👍 1
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
Threads thread: thriller_instinct 3d Is it okay to bully 40 and 50 year olds who are on social media just for being on it, cuz like why are you here - 254 Q 3.1K G 28 746 corporateash 18h ••• My ICQ UIN is 7231680. That number is burned into my consciousness. I inadvertently learned that you could see private conversations in public chat rooms when using Telnet instead of a browser on GeoCities. I can tell you the difference in audible dial-up handshakes between 1200, 2400, 14.4 kbps modems. I needed a edu email address to join Facebook after my university was admitted. We were here at the beginning. We made social media. You wouldn't be in my Top 8. I have usernames older than you. 852 Q62 G6 72
“I have usernames older than you.”.
Holy shit
J’ai un billet à vendre pour le concert de Mika à Genève ce soir, je ne peux pas y aller pour raisons de santé 😢
1908: the Lancet, one of the most respected scientific journals, calls for 18 age limit on reading in bed amidst a moral panic surrounding children becoming "addicted" to novels, which were "designed to keep kids hooked" and destroy their attention/mental health
The approximate cause of death for Anne Frank was the Nazis. The specific cause of death was the outbreak of Typhus at Bergen-Belsen camp, which overtook her (and others) from chronic malnutrition and medical abuse. These conditions are not, in character, unlike our system of immigration camps today
All I can think about is Jeff Bezos saying that he slashed jobs at the Washington Post — including those of foreign correspondents in the Middle East — based on "the data," and a few weeks later a whole war breaks out in the Middle East that these laid off folks would have covered as true experts.
Parfois il faut baisser la barre jusque tout en bas. Faire un reset du programme par défaut: rien, plutôt que quelque chose. Tout enlever de la table pour avoir la place d’y poser l’essentiel.
This shit should be so fucking illegal it’s not even a question. I’d like to hear one fucking Democrat call to ban it.
Bezos gave the Trumps millions for their stupid movie. Wonder how he feels about that investment now.
Brain is off for the rest of the day, just so you know.
Today was balcony day.
Today was balcony day.
500 is really a sweet size
500 is really a sweet size
Time for lunch!
Trying a different strategy for once. Change is good. Sometimes it ripples outward.
Next!
Square promotional graphic for the Grammar Girl podcast interview. A pale green background with a courthouse façade features large headline text: “Why do we SHOUT in ALL CAPS?” At left, a woman with brown hair rests her chin on her hand and looks thoughtfully at the viewer. At right, guest Glenn Fleishman, wearing glasses, looks off to the side under pink-purple lighting. Labels identify “Grammar Girl” and “Glenn Fleishman.” Icons at the top indicate listening on Spotify and Apple Podcasts, with a QDT logo in the corner and an “Interview” tag.
Did you know people were using capital letters to shout in print as far back as 1856?
This week, I talked with Mastodon's very own technology historian, @glennf, who traced the history of "shouty caps" through centuries of newspapers, old Usenet posts, and even […]
[Original post on zirk.us]
Part of the myth of Ring is that this is MY camera on MY door--but when you see a map and realize that there are a hundred in your neighborhood and they're all connected by a corporation that serves the police, the illusion dissolves.
The political effects of X's feed algorithm https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-026-10098-2 Received: 16 December 2024 Accepted: 4 January 2026 Published online: 18 February 2026 Open access • Check for updates Germain Gauthier,5, Roland Hodler?5, Philine Widmer35 & Ekaterina Zhuravskaya3,4,5 m Feed algorithms are widely suspected to influence political attitudes. However, previous evidence from switching off the algorithm on Meta platforms found no political effects'. Here we present results from a 2023 field experiment on Elon Musk's platform X shedding light on this puzzle. We assigned active US-based users randomly to either an algorithmic or a chronological feed for 7 weeks, measuring political attitudes and online behaviour. Switching from a chronological to an algorithmic feed increased engagement and shifted political opinion towards more conservative positions, particularly regarding policy priorities, perceptions of criminal investigations into Donald Trump and views on the war in Ukraine. In contrast, switching from the algorithmic to the chronological feed had no comparable effects. Neither switching the algorithm on nor switching it off significantly affected affective polarization or self-reported partisanship. To investigate the mechanism, we analysed users' feed content and behaviour. We found that the algorithm promotes conservative content and demotes posts by traditional media. Exposure to algorithmic content leads users to follow conservative political activist accounts, which they continue to follow even after switching off the algorithm, helping explain the asymmetry in effects. These results suggest that initial exposure to X's algorithm has persistent effects on users' current political attitudes and account-following behaviour, even in the absence of a detectable effect on partisanship.
A new paper shows that less than 2 months of exposure to Twitter’s algorithmic feed significantly shifts people’s political views to the right.
Moving from chronological feed to the algorithmic feed also increases engagement.
This is one of the most concerning papers I’ve read in awhile.
