Natasha Tori Maru

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.

We were asked our opinion. Did you think I was giving dating advice? This was not the intention.

@Eskilon I think your definition can be coherent because: So, if this is how you frame authenticity - it is sound to me. Metaphysical authenticity. My approach was more broad but definitely more psychological. If you use another definition of self - ie the small self - that arises chiefly within the social domain, one's definition may differ. Suddenly you operate from a set of values and incentive structures that you use to define yourself - these pieces act to shape authenticity, which can loop directly back into integrity (I might call this relational authenticity if I want to get really nuanced). I am hedging toward authenticity being domain specific. This feels like a stronger model than authenticity being a single global trait. The dyad @aurum and I engaged in elaborated on this. I think it is a larger and more complex idea than initial inspection might reveal.

@BlessedLion interesting points regarding sexual signalling and dress. When I'm looking for a long-term partner, I want to maximise the quality of information I get about a man's interest, not just maximise the amount of male attention I receive. And while dressing in a standard provocative manner risks attracting a man who might overly value me for my appearance, it isn't a guarantee he doesn't also value other aspects. This is where courtship becomes a second phase of filtering for me. I think presentation can be used as an initial screening strategy without treating it as a definitive character test. This is also why I am not totally averse to being cold approached. The interaction after is just another level of filter.

@Monster Energy cest la vie

I mean, applies to me as well ☺️ That's on you. You either choose to accept or not.