A Digital Walden Despond: Life without Social Media
July 11, 2024
Here is a refreshing post from Deep Work Culture and More about the author’s shift to an existence mostly offline, where he discovered … actual life. Upon marking one year without Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter / X, the blogger describes “Rediscovering Time and Relationships: The Impact of Quitting Social Media.” After a brief period of withdrawal, he learned to put his newly freed time and attention to good use. He writes:
“Hours previously lost to mindless scrolling were now available for activities that brought genuine enrichment. I rediscovered the joy of uninterrupted reading, long walks, and deep conversations. This newfound time became a fertile ground for hobbies that had languished in the shadows of digital distractions. The absence of the incessant need to document and share every moment of my life allowed me to be fully present in my experiences.”
Imagine that. The author states more time for reflection and self-discovery, as well as abandoning the chase for likes and comments, provided clarity and opportunities for personal growth. He even rediscovered his love of books. He considers:
“Without the constant distractions of social media, I found myself turning to books more frequently and with greater enthusiasm. … My recent literary journey has been instrumental in fostering a deeper sense of empathy and curiosity, encouraging me to view the world through varied lenses and enhancing my overall cognitive and emotional well-being. Additionally, reading more has cultivated a more reflective mindset, allowing me to draw connections between my personal experiences and broader human themes. This has translated into a more nuanced approach to both my professional endeavors and personal relationships, as the wisdom gleaned from books has informed my decision-making, problem-solving, and communication skills.”
Enticing, is it not? Strangely, this freedom, time, and depth of experience are available to any of us. All we have to do is log out of social media once and for all. Are you ready, dear reader? Find a walled in despond.
Cynthia Murrell, July 11, 2024
Doom Scrolling Fixed by Watching Cheers Re-Runs
July 5, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I spotted an article which provided a new way to think about lying on a sofa watching reruns of “Cheers.” The estimable online news resource YourTango: Revolutionizing Your Relationships published “Man Admits he Uses TV to Heal His Brain from Endless Short-Form Content. And Experts Agree He’s onto Something.” Amazing. The vast wasteland of Newton Minnow has morphed into a brain healing solution. Does this sound like craziness? (I must admit the assertion seems wacky to me.) Many years ago in Washington, DC, there was a sports announcer who would say in a loud voice while on air, “Let’s go to the videotape.” Well, gentle reader, let’s go to the YourTango “real” news article.
Will some of those mobile addicts and doom scrolling lovers take the suggestions of the YouTango article? Unlikely. The fellow with lung cancer continues to fiddle around, ignoring the No Smoking sign. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. How’s that Windows 11 update going?
The write up states:
A Gen Z man said he uses TV to ‘unfry’ his brain from endless short-form content — ‘Maybe I’ll fix the damage.’ It all feels so incredibly ironic that this young man — and thousands of other Gen Zers and millennials online — are using TV as therapy.
The individual who discovered this therapeutic use of OTA and YouTubeTV-type TV asserts:
I’m trying to unfry my brain from this short-form destruction.”
I admit. I like the phrase “short-form destruction.”
The write up includes this statement:
Not only is it keeping people from reading books, watching movies, and engaging in conversation, but it is also impacting their ability to maintain healthy relationships, both personal and professional. The dopamine release resulting from watching short-form content is why people become addicted to or, at the very least, highly attached to their screens and devices.
My hunch is that YourTango is not an online publication intended for those who regularly read the Atlantic and New Yorker magazines. That’s what makes these statement compelling. An online service for a specific demographic known to paw their mobile devices a thousand times or more each day is calling attention to a “problem.”
Now YourTango’s write up veers into the best way to teach. The write up states:
For young minds, especially kids in preschool and kindergarten, excessive screen time isn’t healthy. Their minds are yearning for connection, mobility, and education, and substituting iPad time or TV time isn’t fulfilling that need. However, for teenagers and adults in their 20s and 30s, the negative effects of too much screen time can be combated with a more balanced lifestyle. Utilizing long-form content like movies, books, and even a YouTube video could help improve cognitive ability and concentration.
The idea that watching a “YouTube video” can undo what flowing social media has done in the last 20 years is amusing to me. Really. To remediate the TikTok-type of mental hammering, one should watch a 10 minute video about the Harsh Trust of Big Automotive YouTube Channels. Does that sound effective?
Let’s look at the final paragraph in the “report”:
If you can’t read a book without checking your phone, catch a film without dozing off, or hold a conversation on a first date without allowing your mind to wander, consider some new habits that help to train your brain — even if it’s watching TV.
I love that “even if it’s watching TV.”
Net net: I lost attention after reading the first few words of the write up. I am now going to recognize my problem and watch a YouTube video called ”Dubai Amazing Dubai Mall. Burj Khalifa, City Center Walking Tour.” I feel less flawed just reading the same word twice in the YouTube video’s title. Yes. Amazing.
Stephen E Arnold, July 5, 2024
X: The Prominent (Fake) News Source
June 26, 2024
Many of us have turned away from X, formerly Twitter, since its Musky takeover and now pay it little mind. However, it seems many Americans still trust the platform to deliver their news. This is concerning, considering “X Has Highest Rate of Misinformation As a New Source, Study Finds.”
Citing a recent Pew Research study, MediaDailyNews reports 65% of X users say news is a reason they visit the platform. Breaking news is even more of a draw, with 75% of users getting their real-time news on the platform. This is understandable given Twitter’s legacy, but are users unaware how unreliable X has become? Writer Colin Kirkland emphasizes:
“What may the greatest concern in Pew’s findings is that while X touts that it has the most devoted base of news seekers, it also ranked the highest in terms of inaccurate reporting. All of the platforms Pew studied proliferate misinformation-based news stories, but 86% of X’s base reported seeing inaccurate news, and 37% say they see it often. As Meta makes definitive moves to curb its news output on apps like Instagram, Facebook and Threads — the only other potential breaking-news alternative to X — Elon Musk’s app reigns supreme in the proliferation and digestion of news content, which could have effects on the upcoming presidential election, especially due to the amount of misinformation circling the platform.”
Yep. How can one reach X users with this important update? Pew is trying the direct route. Will it make any difference?
Cynthia Murrell, June 26, 2024
Modern Elon Threats: Tossing Granola or Grenades
June 13, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
Bad me. I ignored the Apple announcements. I did spot one interesting somewhat out-of-phase reaction to Tim Apple’s attempt to not screw up again. “Elon Musk Calls Apple Devices with ChatGPT a Security Violation.” Since the Tim Apple crowd was learning about what was “to be,” not what is, this statement caught my attention:
If Apple integrates OpenAI at the OS level, then Apple devices will be banned at my companies. That is an unacceptable security violation.
I want to comment about the implicit “then” in this remarkable prose output from Elon Musk. On the surface, the “then” is that the most affluent mobile phone users will be prohibited from the X.com service. I wonder how advertisers are reacting to this idea of cutting down the potential eyeballs for their product if advertised to an group of prospects no longer clutching Apple iPhones. I don’t advertise, but I can game out how the meetings between the company with advertising dollars and the agency helping the company make informed advertising decisions. (Let’s assume that advertising “works”, and advertising outfits are informed for the purpose of this blog post.)
A tortured genius struggles against the psychological forces that ripped the Apple car from the fingers of its rightful owner. Too bad. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. How is your coding security coming along? What about the shut down of the upcharge for Copilot? Oh, no answer. That’s okay. Good enough.
Let’s assume Mr. Musk “sees” something a dinobaby like me cannot. What’s with the threat logic? The loss of a beloved investment? A threat to a to-be artificial intelligence company destined to blast into orbit on a tower of intellectual rocket fuel? Mr. Musk has detected a signal. He has interpreted. And he has responded with an ultimatum. That’s pretty fast action, even for a genius. I started college in 1962, and I dimly recall a class called Psych 101. Even though I attended a low-ball institution, the knowledge value of the course was evident in the large and shabby lecture room with a couple of hundred seats.
Threats, if I am remembering something that took place 62 years ago, tell more about the entity issuing the threat than the actual threat event itself. The words worming from the infrequently accessed cupboards of my mind are linked to an entity wanting to assert, establish, or maintain some type of control. Slapping quasi-ancient psycho-babble on Mr. Musk is not fair to the grand profession of psychology. However, it does appear to reveal that whatever Apple thinks it will do in its “to be”, coming-soon service struck a nerve into Mr. Musk’s super-bright, well-developed brain.
I surmise there is some insecurity with the Musk entity. I can’t figure out the connection between what amounts to vaporware and a threat to behead or de-iPhone a potentially bucket load of prospects for advertisers to pester. I guess that’s why I did not invent the Cybertruck, a boring machine, and a rocket ship.
But a threat over vaporware in a field which has demonstrated that Googzilla, Microsoft, and others have dropped their baskets of curds and whey is interesting. The speed with which Mr. Musk reacts suggests to me that he perceives the Apple vaporware as an existential threat. I see it as another big company trying to grab some fruit from the AI tree until the bubble deflates. Software does have a tendency to disappoint, build up technical debt, and then evolve to the weird service which no one can fix, change, or kill because meaningful competition no longer exists. When will the IRS computer systems be “fixed”? When will airline reservations systems serve the customer? When will smart software stop hallucinating?
I actually looked up some information about threats from the recently disgraced fake research publisher John Wiley & Sons. “Exploring the Landscape of Psychological Threat” reminded me why I thought psychology was not for me. With weird jargon and some diagrams, the threat may be linked to Tesla’s rumored attempt to fall in love with Apple. The product of this interesting genetic bonding would be the Apple car, oodles of cash for Mr. Musk, and the worshipful affection of the Apple acolytes. But the online date did not work out. Apple swiped Tesla into the loser bin. Now Mr. Musk can get some publicity, put X.com (don’t you love Web sites that remind people of pornography on the Dark Web?) in the news, and cause people like me to wonder. “Why dump on Apple?” (The outfit has plenty of worries with the China thing, doesn’t it? What about some anti-trust action? What about the hostility of M3 powered devices?)
Here’s my take:
- Apple Intelligence is a better “name” than Mr. Musk’s AI company xAI. Apple gets to use “AI” but without the porn hook.
- A controversial social media emission will stir up the digital elite. Publicity is good. Just ask Michael Cimino of Heaven’s Gate fame?
- Mr. Musk’s threat provides an outlet for the failure to make Tesla the Apple car.
What if I am wrong? [a] I don’t care. I don’t use an iPhone, Twitter, or online advertising. [b] A GenX, Y, or Z pooh-bah will present the “truth” and set the record straight. [c] Mr. Musk’s threat will be like the result of a Boring Company operation. A hole, a void.
Net net: Granola. The fast response to what seems to be “coming soon” vaporware suggests a potential weak spot in Mr. Musk’s make up. Is Apple afraid? Probably not. Is Mr. Musk? Yep.
Stephen E Arnold, June 13, 2024
Think You Know Which Gen Z Is What?
June 7, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
I had to look this up? A Gen Z was born when? A Gen Z was born between 1981 and 1996. In 2024, a person aged 28 to 43 is, therefore, a Gen Z. Who knew? The definition is important. I read “Shocking Survey: Nearly Half of Gen Z Live a Double Life Online.” What do you know? A nice suburb, lots of Gen Zs, and half of these folks are living another life online. Go to one of those hip new churches with kick-back names and half of the Gen Zs heads bowed in prayer are living a double life. For whom do those folks pray? Hit the golf club and look at the polo shirt clad, self-satisfied 28 to 43 year olds. Which self is which? The chat room Dark Web person or a happy golfer enjoying the 19th hole?
Someone who is older is jumping to conclusions. Those vans probably contain office supplies, toxic waste, or surplus government equipment. No one would take Gen Zs out of the flow, would they? Thanks, MSFT. Do you have Gen Zs working on your superlative security systems?
The write up reports:
A survey of 2,000 Americans, split evenly by generation, found that 46% of Gen Z respondents feel their personality online vastly differs from how they present themselves in the real world.
Only eight percent of the baby boomers are different online. New flash: If you ever meet me, I am the same person writing these blog posts. As an 80-year-old dinobaby, I don’t need another persona to baffle the brats in the social media sewer. I just avoid the sewer and remain true to my ageing self.
The write up also provides this glimpse into the hearts and souls of those 28 to 43:
Specifically, 31% of Gen Z respondents admitted their online world is a secret from family
That’s good. These Gen Zs can keep a secret. But why? What are they trying to hide from their family, friends, and co-workers? I can guess but won’t.
If you work with a Gen Z, here’s an allegedly valid factoid from the survey:
53% of Gen Zers said it’s easier to express themselves online than offline.
Want another? Too bad. Here’s a winner insight:
68 percent of Gen Zs sometimes feel a disconnect between who they are online and offline.
I think I took a psychology class when I was a freshman in college. I recall learning about a mental disorder with inconsistent or contradictory elements. Are Gen Zs schizophrenic? That’s probably the wrong term, but I think I am heading in the right direction. Mental disorder signals flashing. Just the Gen Z I want to avoid if possible.
One aspect of the write up in the article is that the “author” — maybe human, maybe AI, maybe Gen X with a grudge, who knows? — is that some explanation of who paid the bill to obtain data from 2,000 people. Okay, who paid the bill? Answer: Lenovo. What company conducted the study? Answer: OnePoll. (I never heard of the outfit, and I am too much of a dinobaby to care much.)
Net net: The Gen Zs seem to be a prime source of persons of interest for those investigating certain types of online crime. There you go.
Stephen E Arnold, June 6, 2024
Meta Deletes Workplace. Why? AI!
June 7, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
Workplace was Meta’s attempt to jump into the office-productivity ring and face off against the likes of Slack and MS Teams. It did not fare well. Yahoo Finance shares the brief write-up, “Meta Is Shuttering Workplace, Its Enterprise Version of Facebook.” The company is spinning the decision as a shift to bigger and better things. Bloomberg’s Kurt Wagner cites reporting from TechCrunch as she writes:
“The service operated much like the original Facebook social network, but let people have separate accounts for their work interactions. Workplace had as many as 7 million total paying subscribers in May 2021. … Meta once had ambitious plans for Workplace, and viewed it as a way to make money through subscriptions as well as a chance to extend Facebook’s reach by infusing the product into work and office settings. At one point, Meta touted a list of high-profile customers, including Starbucks Corp., Walmart Inc. and Spotify Technology SA. The company will continue to focus on workplace-related products, a spokesperson said, but in other areas, such as the metaverse by building features for the company’s Quest VR headsets.”
The Meta spokesperson repeated the emphasis on those future products, also stating:
“We are discontinuing Workplace from Meta so we can focus on building AI and metaverse technologies that we believe will fundamentally reshape the way we work.”
Meta will continue to use Workplace internally, but everyone else has until the end of August 2025 before the service ends. Meta plans to keep user data accessible until the end of May 2026. The company also pledges to help users shift to Zoom’s Workvivo platform. What, no forced migration into the Metaverse and their proprietary headsets? Not yet, anyway.
Cynthia Murrell, June 7, 2024
Large Dictators. Name the Largest
June 6, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
I read “Social Media Bosses Are the Largest Dictators, Says Nobel Peace Prize Winner.” I immediately thought of “fat” dictators; for example, Benito Mussolini, but I may have him mixed up with Charles Laughton in “Mutiny on the Bounty.”
A mother is trying to implement the “keep your kids off social media” recommendation. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough.
I think the idea intended is something along the lines of “unregulated companies and their CEOs have more money and power than some countries. These CEOs act like dictators on a par with Julius Caesar. Brutus and friends took out Julius, but the heads of technopolies are indifferent to laws, social norms, and the limp limbs of ethical behavior.”
That’s a lot of words. Ergo: Largest dictators is close enough for horseshoes. It is 2024, and no one wants old-fashioned ideas like appropriate business activities to get in the way of making money and selling online advertising.
The write up shares the quaint ideas of a Noble Peace Prize winner. Here are the main points about social media and technology by someone who is interested in peace:
- Tech bros are dictators with considerable power over information and ideas
- Tech bros manipulate culture, language, and behavior
- The companies these dictators runs “change the way we feel” and “change the way we see the world and change the way we act”
I found this statement from the article suggestive:
“In the Philippines, it was rich versus poor. In the United States, it’s race,” she said. “Black Lives Matter … was bombarded on both sides by Russian propaganda. And the goal was not to make people believe one thing. The goal was to burst this wide open to create chaos.” The way tech companies are “inciting polarization, inciting fear and anger and hatred” changes us “at a personal level, a societal level”, she said.
What’s the fix? A speech? Two actions are needed:
- Dump the protection afforded the dictators by the 1996 Communications Decency Act
- Prevent children from using social media.
Now it is time for a reality check. Changing the Communications Decency Act will take some time. Some advocates have been chasing this legal Loch Ness monster for years. The US system is sensitive to “laws” and lobbyists. Change is slow and regulations are often drafted by lobbyists. Therefore, don’t hold your breath on revising the CDA by the end of the week.
Second, go to a family-oriented restaurant in the US. How many of the children have mobile phones? Now, be a change expert, and try to get the kids at a nearby table to give you their mobile devices. Let me know how that works out, please.
Net net: The Peace Prize winner’s ideas are interesting. That’s about it. And the fat dictators? Keto diets and chemicals do the trick.
Stephen E Arnold, June 6, 2024
Wanna Be Happy? Use the Internet
May 13, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
The glory days of the Internet have faded. Social media, AI-generated baloney, and brain numbing TikTok-esque short videos — Outstanding ways to be happy. What about endless online scams, phishing, and smishing, deep fake voices to grandma from grandchildren needing money — Yes, guaranteed uplifts to sagging spirits.
The idea of a payoff in a coffee shop is silly. Who would compromise academic standards for a latte and a pile of cash. Absolutely no one involved in academic pursuits. Good enough, MSFT Copilot. Good enough.
When I read two of the “real” news stories about how the Internet manufactures happiness, I asked myself, “Exactly what’s with this study?” The PR push to say happy things about online reminded me of the OII or Oxford Internet Institute and some of its other cheerleading. And what is the OII? It is an outfit which receives some university support, funds from private industry, and foundation cash; for example, the Shirley Institute.
In my opinion, it is often difficult to figure out if the “research” is wonky due to its methodology, the desire to keep some sources of funding writing checks, or a nifty way to influence policies in the UK and elsewhere. The magic of the “Oxford” brand gives the outfit some cachet for those who want to collect conference name tags to bedeck their office coat hangers.
The OII is back in the content marketing game. I read the BBC’s “Internet Access Linked to Higher Wellbeing, Study Finds” and the Guardian’s “Internet Use Is Associated with Greater Wellbeing, Global Study Finds.” Both articles are generated from the same PR-type verbiage. But the weirdness of the assertion is undermined by this statement from the BBC’s rewrite of the OII’s PR:
The study was not able to prove cause and effect, but the team found measures of life satisfaction were 8.5% higher for those who had internet access. Nor did the study look at the length of time people spent using the internet or what they used it for, while some factors that could explain associations may not have be considered.
The Oxford brand and the big numbers about a massive sample size cannot hide one awkward fact: There is little evidence that happiness drips from Internet use. Convenience? Yep. Entertainment? Yep. Crime? Yep. Self-harm, drug use or experimentation, meme amplification. Yep, yep, yep.
Several questions arise:
- Why is the message “online is good” suddenly big news? If anything, the idea runs counter to the significant efforts to contain access to potentially harmful online content in the UK and elsewhere. Gee, I wonder if the companies facing some type of sanctions are helping out the good old OII?
- What’s up with Oxford University itself? Doesn’t it have more substantive research to publicize? Perhaps Oxford should emulate the “Naked Scientist” podcast or lobby to get Melvin Bragg to report about more factual matters? Does Oxford have an identity crisis?
- And the BBC and the Guardian! Have the editors lost the plot? Don’t these professionals have first hand knowledge about the impact of online on children and young adults? Don’t they try to talk to their kids or grandkids at the dinner table when the youthful progeny of “real” news people are using their mobile phones?
I like facts which push back against received assumptions. But online is helping out those who use it needs a bit more precision, clearer thinking, and less tenuous cause-and-effect hoo-hah in my opinion.
Stephen E Arnold, May 13, 2024
AI May Help Real Journalists Explain Being Smart. May, Not Will
May 9, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
I found the link between social media and stupid people interesting. I am not sure I embrace the causal chain as presented in “As IQ Scores Decline in the US, Experts Blame the Rise of Tech — How Stupid Is Your State?” The “real” news story has a snappy headline, but social media and IQ? Let’s take a look. The write up states:
Here’s the first sentence of the write up. Note the novel coinage, dumbening. I assume the use of dumb as a gerund open the door to such statements as “I dumb” or “We dumbed together at Harvard’s lecture about ethics” or “My boss dumbed again, like he did last summer.”
Do all Americans go through a process of dumbening?
A tour group has a low IQ when it comes to understanding ancient rock painting. Should we blame technology and social media? Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Earning extra money because you do great security?
The write up explains that IQ scores are going down after a “rise” which began in 1905. What causes this decline? Is it broken homes? Lousy teachers? A lack of consequences for inattentiveness? Skipping school? Crappy pre-schools? Bus rides? School starting too early or too late? Dropping courses in art, music, and PE? Chemical-infused food? Television? Not learning cursive?
The answer is, “Technology.” More specifically, the culprit is social media. The article quotes a professor, who opines:
The professor [Hetty Roessingh, professor emerita of education at the University of Calgary] said that time spent with devices like phones and iPads means less time for more effective methods of increasing one’s intelligence level.
Several observations:
- Wow.
- Technology is an umbrella term. Social media is an umbrella term. What exactly is causing people to be dumb?
- What about an IQ test being mismatched to those who take it? My IQ was pretty low when I lived in Campinas, Brazil. It was tough to answer questions I could not read until I learned Portuguese.
Net net: Dumbening. You got it.
Stephen E Arnold, May 9, 2024
LinkedIn Content Ripple: Possible Wave Amplification
April 19, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Google continues to make headlines. This morning (April 19, 2024) I flicked through the information in my assorted newsreaders. The coverage of Google’s calling the police and have alleged non-Googley professionals chatted up by law enforcement sparked many comments. One of those comments about this most recent demonstration of management mastery was from Dr. Timnit Gebru. My understanding of the Gebru incident is that she called attention to the bias in Google’s smart software systems and methods. She wrote a paper. Big thinkers at Google did not like the paper. The paper appeared, and Dr. Gebru disappeared from the Google payroll. I am have over simplified this remarkable management maneuver, but like some of Google’s synthetic data, I think I am close enough for horse shoes.
Is change coming to a social media service which has been quite homogeneous? Thanks, MSFT Copilot. How’s the security work coming?
Dr. Gebru posted a short item on LinkedIn, which is Microsoft’s professional social media service. Here’s what Dr. Gebru made available to LinkedIn’s members:
Not even 24 hrs after making history as the first company to mass fire workers for pro-Palestine protests, by summarily firing 28 people, Google announced that the “(ir)responsible AI org,” the one they created in response to firing me, is now reporting up the Israeli office, through an SVP there. Seems like they want us to know how forcefully and clearly they are backing this genocide.
To provide context, Dr. Gebru linked to a Medium (a begging for dollars information service). That article brandished the title “STATEMENT from Google Workers with the No Tech for Apartheid Campaign on Google’s Mass, Retaliatory Firings of Workers: [sic].” This Medium article is at this link. I am not sure if [a] these stories are going to require registration or payment to view and [b] the items will remain online.
What’s interesting about the Dr. Gebru item and her link is the comments made by LinkedIn members. These suggest that [a] most LinkedIn members either did not see Dr. Gebru’s post or were not motivated go click one of the “response” icons or [b] topics like Google’s management mastery are not popular with the LinkedIn audience.
Several observations based on my experience:
- Dr. Gebru’s use of LinkedIn may be a one-time shot, but on the other hand, it might provide ideas for others with a specific point of view to use as a platform
- With Apple’s willingness to remove Meta apps from the Chinese iPhone app store, will LinkedIn follow with its own filtering of content? I don’t know the answer to the question, but clicking on Dr. Gebru’s link will make it easy to track
- Will LinkedIn begin to experience greater pressure to allow content not related to self promotion and look for business contacts? I have noticed an uptick in requests from what appear to be machine-generated images preponderately young females asking, “Will you be my contact?” I routinely click, No, and I often add a comment along the lines of “I am 80 years old. Why do you want to interact with me?”
Net net: Change may be poised to test some of the professional social media service’s policies.
Stephen E Arnold, March 19, 2024
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
