For anybody else looking for the source of this quote: https://archive.md/RyZI0

Well well well, if it isn’t the consequences of my own actions!

It’s not like I’m a scholar on the subject or anything, but to my mind the key thing you said is “changing the system”. That’s the prerequisite for achieving a more just society. You can hate on the owner class all you want, simply getting rid of them will not necessarily overthrow societal power relations. New billionaires will rise, capitalism will not die along with the last rich white dude.

I would even go so far as to say that hating on the owning class kind of deflects from analyzing the contradictions and ideologies produced by capitalist societies themselves. This especially shows in certain sorts of reactionary political movements, who have no problem with capitalism as long as it feeds their nationalist ambitions instead of some globalist billionaire jet-set often described as Jewish.

My comment wasn’t really aimed at humanizing him, I only wanted to poke fun at him although I can see where you’re coming from.

I’m more on the side of Marx’s character mask argument on people like Bill. That’s why I can make shitpost comments like mine even without liking him all too much.

I love that this headline let’s ole Bill sound like a zoned out stoner college freshman.

Miss me with that Mises shit.

This hits way too close to home.

Gird your loins, people running Friendica instances!

Wow I gotta stop hanging out exclusively in Rust communities. When I read the headline I was expecting much more drama.

This point is actually acknowledged in the study findings under “Strengths and Limitations”:

A limitation is that the information we collected did not allow us to separate educational screen time from other types of screen time. Doing so may have helped us in examining the association between screen time and child development while considering both positive and negative aspects of screen time.

The original data used in the study did not allow this differentiation but these findings can be used as a starting point for further research.

Ah ok, I thought you were insinuating kids were being excessively exposed to screens for the sake of research, which wasn’t happening here. But yeah, I agree feeding your toddler 4+ hours of digital media a day is very depressing.

I do not understand the amount of uninformed objections to the presented results in a number of comments here … you can’t just discount the results of a peer-reviewed study with some generic knee-jerk interjection off the top of your head. Read the original article here. It details which covariates were considered and how they were taken into account. Income bracket, educational background, gender, … all this shit is not new to researchers.

Don’t get me wrong: JAMA Pediatrics being a reputable journal shouldn’t lull you into complacency, but JFC, just because you don’t agree with the findings of a study doesn’t mean you have to dismiss it completely on first glance.

What are you talking about? This data was collected in a field study, not in a lab.

This is actually an incredibly poor take. Why do you think self-reported data has no scientific value?

Regarding your last sentence: Are you suggesting insincere motives behind this study?

There is an argument to be made about how studies like this underpin technology averse boomers trying to vilify modern social life. OTOH, studies like this, correctly implemented, are utterly important. It wouldn’t be the first time science has proven something very popular (e.g. smoking) is actually also very harmful.

The article is a bit too nostalgic for my tastes, and hyping 4chan or Web 1.0 surrogates is not going to put the Internet back into users’ hands.

Everybody should rather take a look at what Ari Balkan is doing with the Small Web concept over at his blog. He’s also on Mastodon and generally seems like a great guy.