Sampling error: By definition, you never hear from the ones who did give up social media because... they gave up social media.
post
giving up facebook and instagram is, contrary to your assertion, actually a higher standard of living than being on them.
Think of all the brain cells you don't kill! The arguments you don't have! The data you don't give the Zuck for free! It's its own reward, really.
Every time they use the Google bot they vote yes on the next data center. Ditto on every ChatGPT sub payment. Every use of anything owned by Meta. They voted for that which they claim to oppose.
Reddit too at this point. It’s not just bot posters any more, Reddit is moving to bot moderators.
"Lower our standard of living" is a loaded term. Imprecise. Reduce our consumption of resources, yes, that sometimes does and sometimes doesn't impact our standard of living.
E.g. Using a cast iron frying pan that becomes an heirloom passed down generations is far more sustainable than PFAS laden aluminum non-stick pans that get replaced every few years. Both can cook perfectly well.
The person living in a passivehouse premium net consumes less energy then they produce but has a comfortable, efficient home.
A city with great public transit can easily get where they need to without wasting resources on cars while reducing demand for land.
We can have a high quality of life and still live sustainably.
Facebook and Instagram don't sound like especially resource-heavy activities at all, compared to many others people routinely engage in; not sure what you're trying to tell us.
What people say that?
How else is that brainrot going to spread? Gotta keep the masses blaming each other somehow.
Giving up Meta products wouldn't be terrible. But it wouldn't solve anything. The greatest environmental footprint is left by streaming, I think.
We should all get off the internet, yet here we are. Hypocrisy is the prequel to Idiocracy.
Greatest out of what? Internet services? Believable. But compared to flying, eating meat, and making new e-waste continuously it's nothing.
Yes. The context was internet services.
The context was living sustainably. I'd argue that getting off Facebook helps that, but not because of the energy savings. My sibling talking about how I should stop playing on the computer and go snowmobiling for fun is also a less sustainable choice, both for cost in dollars and energy consumed per hour of entertainment.
The only people who said that is oil company and millionaire and above CEOs
I recall the then leader of the Green Party in my country saying we needed to stop flying and eat significantly less meat, so I think you're wrong.
Eating less meat would most likely improve health for most people, so that's not really lowering standards of living
There's more to living well than health, and there's a huge range of how much meat people eat.
Unfortunately using Messenger and Facebook is nigh mandatory in Philippine schools.
What is even the connection between those things at all? This is bizarre. Facebook and instagram have their own real problems, but spending time using online services requires less resources than virtually any other form of entertainment out there.
This is not really true. It's lying with statistics. It assumes that we are unable to change what we consume, such as red meat, fossil fuels, excessive waste, etc.
wasnt that a republican saying it, i believe trump or one of his leeches said that.

all 30 comments