You must log in or register to comment.
deleted by creator
Does Lemmy count as social media?
Yes - by most definitions. It’s powered by user-generated content and is based on interaction between users through engagement with that content, which is voted and scored.
There is a difference which I personally feel makes reddit less harmful than other social media, however, which is the algorithm - or lack of it.
In most social media, the algorithm exists to continually serve people the exact content they engage with in a constant feed, which is IMO the most socially damaging part of social media because it creates endless doomscrolling, toxic echo chambers, promotion of sponsored content, and a whole raft of psychological problems in users.
The Lemmy homefeed is more organic, and scrolling through ‘all’ you see content genuinely from everywhere, in a less curated way based on upvotes, not individual algorithmic tailoring. And that’s maybe not as “engaging” but it’s far less damaging.
Post-WWII put propaganda/advertising to the next level. Social media turned that to 11.
Separate apps for various retail stores. I don’t want a home depot app. I don’t want a kroger app. We have a generic app for this category called a web browser. If you want me to download a specialized app for your store, I assume that means that my browser does not sufficiently breach my privacy for your “business purposes.”
The only one I use is Safeway, to scan the in-store coupons. I’m not sure how much info they can get, because the app fails to load until I pause my VPN.
I skip the app and use one of Safeway’s “Please Don’t Rape Me” cards that I found in the parking lot.
I really hope this goes out of style eventually, and one day gets remembered alongside proprietary hardware connectors.
Dude the phone “app” is 100% on the list for me too.
As a stop gap between good web design including PWAs it made sense at a time, but 99% of apps are just bloated websites that data and power for no noticeable gains…
corporate personhood.
That’s pre-21st century though.
It’s a bad enough idea we don’t need anymore for the next few centuries.
According to someone else in here, it was 19th, and that sounds right to me. I’m guessing early 19th.
It’s just a neat, tidy legal fiction for some purposes.
it was 2010
Negative. Corporate personhood predates Citizens United v. FCC (which is what I assume you’re referring to). IMO: The ruling itself still counts as an answer to the original question though!
Is that really a 21st century idea? I would have thought that was a reaganomics reform tbh
well citizens united was 21st and encoded it in law.
It’s a 19th century idea that appeared in the published decision of the Supreme Court in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co.
Only—get this—it wasn’t even what the Court decided. Instead, it was the guy in charge of recording the decision for publication who declared “corporate personhood” in the headnote (summary) of the case. And would it surprise you to learn that the guy was the former president of a railroad company? We just sort of went along with this not-precedent until the Citizens United case.
yeah but citizens united codified it into us law.
Not quite. The Santa Clara decision gave corporations equal protection under the 14th Amendment, is law in the same sense that Citizens United is, and has been applied many, many times. The 2010 decision held that 1st Amendment protections apply to corporations.
Facial recognition technology. Not only is it not as perfect as people claim in identifying people, but some countries are using it to attack the LGBT since it was discovered the LGBT have different variances in facial features. And yet that’s not even 100% perfect, so now you have a bad technology for a negative purpose repurposed into another negative purpose that it’s causing collateral damage with because it’s as awful at that as the first thing.
Just pointing out I read that whole article and there was nothing in it to suggest that any countries are using it to attack LGBT people
Dunno why you linked it instead of something more relevant
By the same token gait recognition.
proof-of-work blockchains. instead of a utopian decentralized currency we have a utopia for scammers and day traders, and uses a ton of energy at a time when we need to conserve to combat global warming.
Influencers
Back in the day, they were just people of varying fame, whether warranted or not.
Emissions controller modifiers designed to “roll coal”
It should be legal to slash the tires of anyone who does this.
Just remove their stem valve cores lol
Modern social media
Billionaire celebrities with millions of fans enabling their narcissism.
Those are very old. I’d wager that the first monarchs and despots wouldn’t be too different from such celebrities
Clickbait.
Internet advertising.
Social Media 100%.
I’d say specifically the predatory algorithms.
Corporations are people?
Trickle down economics?
Nuclear weapons?
The first is 19th century. The rest are definitely 20th century
Ah I was falling asleep and didn’t read well enough apparently thanks
Anything cooking related. It all the same shit you already had but this time it’s plastic, harder to clean and only does 1 specific thing.
Not to mention the shit that’s completely fucking useless, like Juicero - a “juice squeezing machine” that only works with plastic bags you get from their subscription service.
Can you give a few examples of older stuff worth getting? I’m looking to update my kitchen soon :)
deleted by creator
Old mandolin slicers. The plastic on one’s produced recently cracks in a year for the cheap ones, or five years for the expensive ones. My grandmother had one that was solid metal. I’m sure it’s serving my cousin as well today as it served my grandmother 50+ years ago.
Nah because my kitchen is full of plastic junk 😅
I’d suggest a stand mixer, but even those have gone down hill, even brands like kitchenaid have gotten worse.
Maybe some old pyrex, if you can find some. The new stuff is bad, can’t recommend that.
SUVs have to be high on the list.
20th century for those
They’re good if you need a vehicle that sits high and has a cargo capacity similar to a truck with a little more efficiency instead of torque.
need a vehicle that sits high
Why does anybody need a vehicle that “sits high”?
Because you need to handle terrain other than a clear road. When you live somewhere that regularly gets a foot of snow overnight then having a bit of extra ground clearance is a must for navigating that. You also want a bit of extra ground clearance if you need to go off road regularly. The last thing anyone wants is to be out in the boonies and crack their oil pan on a tree stump or something.
Of course, far more people buy SUVs and trucks than actually need them. Also lite trucks would have been the better solution for most people who do actually need them if the EPA hadn’t killed them with poorly written standards. With the current wheelbase based efficiency requirements we’re left with the choice between sedans that drag the undercarriage on residential speedbumps or a Landbarge 9000 toddler slaughter special with worse sight lines than an abrams tank and the (lack of) fuel efficiency to match.
the EPA hadn’t killed them with poorly written standards
Thank you! I see so many people blaming the manufacturers for greed. No, the EPA killed the small truck. Perfect example of well-meaning laws paving the road to hell.
Technically LBJ killed the small truck with the chicken tax. If nobody can afford to import reasonably sized European and Asian trucks, we’re left with whatever the big three churn out.
I have a Santa Cruz. It’s my little half-truck and it’s badass.
Elderly people and people with certain disabilities can have difficulty entering and exiting low vehicle seats.
And loading/unloading a car trunk.
If you’re in the <1% of SUV users that needs to drive through unmaintained trails or similar.
But being high make them incredibly dangerous for other road users. If a normal car hits you, you break your leg, it sucks, but within a month you’d walk on crutches and within 6 month you’d be fine. A SUV hitting a pedestrian or a cyclist will break their pelvis or even their back which has a harder recovery and long lasting consequences.
These stuff should be banned
Microtransactions in video games. Hell, I’d say that modern video games in general are pretty bad, ESPECIALLY modern mobile games.
Look, I agree they suck, but video games being slightly worse isn’t the worst thing about the 21st century.
Eh, I couldn’t really think of anything that isn’t already pointed out by somebody else in the comments, so this is the thing that came to mind.
Have you played many modern games?
Breath of the Wild?
Deep Rock Galactic?
Battlebit Remastered?
Baba is you?
That first one is actually pretty good. For some reason I have never heard of the other three.
Go ahead. Downvote my comment with pleasure.
… Ok?
