While youngsters are more likely to avoid it or only have an infrequently used profile for family, Millennials and older still tend to use it, though they vary in how active they are.
I don’t use it a whole lot. I don’t just randomly post things and I don’t take pics. I do go there to catch up on the lives of the people I know who use it, or just check in on people I used to know in high school. I use its messenger for some people I know in real life, because it’s more reliable for me than texting. And it was a great comfort to me just before and after Mom’s death, because that’s how people could talk to me.
While I’m there, I also respond to falsehoods and nonsense to try and stop them from spreading. And occasionally I get so frustrated I make a post about how it angers me seeing people laughing at people dying.
There still doesn’t seem to be any other social media that connects you to the real world the way Facebook does, with its real name policy. And, yes, people spreading falsehoods is part of that.
It’s also how you can comment on some sites like FiveThirtyEight.
My college students see Facebook as an old people’s platform. I think they use it, but sparingly. Instagram, Tik-Tok, and the like are much more popular with this demographic, or at least the ones I’m in contact with. Anecdotally at least!
Not that I completely agree, but the RW folk would say that the liberals were controlling the media then and you were only seeing what they wanted you to see. And it is true that for the most part all the networks and newspapers were reporting the same stuff. I am on the side of “they were mostly just reporting facts with little to no spin”, but even the decision of which facts to report on involves decisions and hence probably some bias.
As for the media being ‘controlled by liberals’ in the pre-Internet age: seriously? Broadcast media were controlled by large corporations, then as now—though that tendency was ameliorated to a degree, in some locations, by the fact that newspapers were still (in some cases) locally owned and operated. Of course that’s all over, now.
But the decision-makers for what went on the nightly news on the three networks were highly unlikely to be liberals–or if the actual anchors had liberal tendencies, they knew that whatever they said had to pass muster with their big-corporation bosses.
I’m probably looking through the rosy glasses of nostalgia, but there were liberal Republicans back in the day, and, although paternalistic, it seems like corporations were more likely to act like their employees were more then replaceable cogs.
Plus, we hadn’t sorted ourselves so efficiently into camps - no one espousing fringe ideas was going to get far in either the corporate or political worlds (especially on the left but also the right (think of the general disdain for the Birch Society, and Barry Goldwater (who would hardly qualify as a Republican today) was considered a dangerous reactionary)).
A member of the NAACP and active supporter of desegregation in Phoenix,[3][4] Goldwater voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the 24th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but reluctantly opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, despite believing in racial equality he felt one of its provisions to be unconstitutional and a potential overreach of the federal government—a decision that considerably anguished him.[3]
Goldwater’s views on social and cultural issues grew increasingly libertarian as he neared the end of his career. After leaving the Senate, Goldwater’s views on social issues cemented as libertarian. He criticized the “moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others [in the Republican Party] who are trying to … make a religious organization out of it.” He supported homosexuals serving openly in the military,[9][10] environmental protection, abortion rights,[11][12] and the legalization of medicinal marijuana.[13]
Wiki is a great site for finding out when things happen and what song was popular on this date, but for more interpretative questions, it’s not all that great.
You know who would provide context? Stanford’s MLK Research and Education Institute:
Just found out that an employee who is leaving because she doesn’t wish to get tested or vaccinated doesn’t have another job lined up. As far as I know, she’s the only source of income in her family. Also, her supervisor lets her wear loungewear to work.
I could put up with a lot if my supervisor let me show up in my work-from-home outfits. It’s not like they’re asking much, either. I don’t get this.
Are situations like these eligible for unemployment benefits? Probably varies by state. When I told my employees they had to be vaccinated or they were out of a job, they caved. I would have fought UC, but would I have had a case in PA??
Thinking about posting this somewhere in the GR, but nah, this shithead’s pissing me off again - this’ll go here just fine…
Er, well, actually it’s the a-hole father speaking on behalf of the a-hole son, but potatos, puh-tah-tahs…
ooooo blackmail oooooo
I was just starting to get over Novak’s social media stupidity tweeting nightclub hijinks during the initial covid outbreak two Aprils ago, and now more self-centred, childish, irresponsible shit.
ooooo blackmail oooooo