Natasha Tori Maru

And it is usually only one half of the story. It isn't genuine as half the persons life (the shit parts) are completely omitted. It's a curated avatar. A simulacrum. I cannot connect.

Interesting. This contains a useful principal but if taken literally it is false. Yes, inputs strongly influence outputs. But it smuggles in some bullshit - you can put in the same effort and get radically different outputs. Could be because of luck, timing, socioeconomic circumstances, illness/disability, genetics (this is your main point), random shit, starting conditions etc Your "inputs" influence outcomes for sure, but they do not fully determine them. You wont necessarily get what you put into life, however, what you repeatedly put into life has the propensity to shape what you become and the opportunities that may arise... universe does not guarantee fairness.

I call this "dirty fuel". It can suffice for a while - but it is never as good on the system/engine as positive motivation. In some ways I think it can be a necessary part of growth to use dirty fuel prior to finding authentic clean sources from within.

This is not a certainty. There are myriad other avenues in life that result in power and agency. And those myriad other avenues bring about the possibility of not having the associated negative consequences that social media can smuggled in.

I raised the effect of "psychologically inferring" in dialogue earlier in this thread, actually: I am surprised an example played out directly in the same thread. Mechanistically trying to explain, infer or "psychoanalyse" a person's state in argument is a failure to relate to the person and just turns them against us. Which is exactly what happened here. When someone is related to, via questions around their meaning, experience and views they feel understood. And end up much more receptive to alternative views and theories. A possibility the assumption underneath (when there is some sort of negative inferred state) is that "this person doesn't agree with me, therefore there must be something defective in their state". I used to do this all the time in dialogue and it really soured my relationships.

https://metasinternalresearch.org/ Curated repository and analysis of Meta's leaked/disclosed internal research, not itself the primary research. But if anyone is interested. @Lyubov I am keen to hear back after sometime of having no access to Instagram. I found that, despite me thinking I was relaxing or unwinding, I was left feeling slightly empty, numb and seeking further stimulation. It really disrupted my wind down routines.

But how do you determine those constants and know them for sure?

Haha - HAL 😈

@LordFall KEEN

Attention is a trainable behavioural resource - so algorithmic short form media isn't just this innocent entertainment source - the environment is deliberately curated to provide you with novelty & emotional salience. It ends up a its own personalised reward stream. Meta deliberately removed natural stopping points and created an almost frictionless environment to leverage continued engagement - good or bad. For anyone curious you should look into the recent lawsuits from late 2026 + internal research Meta performed themselves. It is becoming harder and harder for them to pretend they were ignorant to potential harm. The lawsuits do not mean they are admitting liability or are guilty. Meta has argued they performed research to identify and mitigate problems (compulsive use and harm) from features such as infinite scroll, autoplay and notifications. They reject the interpretation from the recent 2026 litigation (still contested I believe) they knew about the harm that could be caused. I removed the apps from my phone - I occasionally browse on a terminal. It was one of the best things I did for wellbeing, happiness and attention.

Can't AI just do the dishes, fold the laundry and do the crap I don't want to, instead of do that crap I do want to do? I don't want AI to do the shit I often enjoy or find interesting. 😈

What did you eat?

To clarify - I am not objecting to the quality of your reasoning. You are correct that speculation isn't inherently illegitimate. I am objecting to the fact that you apparently presented an inference about OP's internal state with more certainty than the available evidence warrants. It remains that you speculated - "educated guess". This is unnecessary and weakens your argument because it's another speculation. There is zero evidence for this. ____ Obviously you don't have to take this on board, but attributing an internal psychological state to someone and then building a question around that inference sort of shoots you in the foot if you want to engage in charitable, good faith conversation. It is a failure to relate to the person and can polarise them against you (put them in the defensive). And if they reply with some charged emotional defence at being "psychoanalysed" (or state inference), it can be very easy to use the defensive posture as more evidence for your inference (closed loop, self sealing model). It is a huge caveat to approaching interactions without asking neutral, open ended questions prior to labelling someone as emotionally compromised/jealous/envious/feeling negative or what-have-you. I just wouldn't personally prematurely convert a psychological hypothesis into the premise of your interaction for the above reasons. I make this mistake very often myself, which might be why I saw it when you posted.

@LordFall you are speculating. You even gave evidence for your speculation. Do you know OP was triggered? No. Hence, speculation.

This is framed upon a purely speculation based psychoanalysis with very little basis of evidence based on what OP stated.