Topic: This is ridiculous...
Anonymous A started this discussion 15 years ago #3,519
Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later[^] [v] #63,777
The rules or the claims that they'll do more harm than good?
I think it's a fucking stupid law, myself. Phones are personal effects, and teachers really have no right to use them at all. This is nothing short of an invasion of privacy, and is no doubt meant to set up the new generation for even more stupid and invasive legislation (like internet police - for realz). Teachers shouldn't have that seperation of power. There will be no increased respect for teachers, and it will perhaps even make them resented.
It would be smarter to teach children the dangers of cyber-bullying, rather than impose this hyper-invasive lack of privacy on them. If it were absolutely necessary for them to check someone's phone, the power should be given only to a principal, and only in extenuating circumstances. Jesus christ, what is this world coming to?
I think it's a fucking stupid law, myself. Phones are personal effects, and teachers really have no right to use them at all. This is nothing short of an invasion of privacy, and is no doubt meant to set up the new generation for even more stupid and invasive legislation (like internet police - for realz). Teachers shouldn't have that seperation of power. There will be no increased respect for teachers, and it will perhaps even make them resented.
It would be smarter to teach children the dangers of cyber-bullying, rather than impose this hyper-invasive lack of privacy on them. If it were absolutely necessary for them to check someone's phone, the power should be given only to a principal, and only in extenuating circumstances. Jesus christ, what is this world coming to?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #63,778
> delete pictures as necessary
> delete all porn
> delete all porn
EH joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #63,779
Doesn't surprise me. We lost most of our freedoms a long time ago.Anonymous C double-posted this 15 years ago, 50 seconds later, 19 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #63,780
What's ridiculous? The rule they want to introduce or NASUWT's claims?
Tekamine !AnRbswGQv. joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 45 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #63,785
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #63,790
I'm OK with this.
In fact, I support it.
In fact, I support it.
The Editor !FuckWtfW8M joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #63,791
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #63,792
I agree with the searching for a phone part, but the ability to search the phone itself part is retarded. I wouldn't want a middle-aged man trawling through my private texts. Even the justification they give is shite. This won't stop "cyber-bullying", they'll just go home and keep doing it anyway.
God fucking damn it, David. Just when I start to like you again, you bring in pure bullshit.
God fucking damn it, David. Just when I start to like you again, you bring in pure bullshit.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #63,794
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #63,797
@previous (A)
Urrgh. All the worse. What does that even have to do with "cyberbullying"? This is blatant invasion of privacy for the most retarded reasons. Glad I'm past school now.
Urrgh. All the worse. What does that even have to do with "cyberbullying"? This is blatant invasion of privacy for the most retarded reasons. Glad I'm past school now.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #63,799
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
I know. If I had my phone searched, and all my porn deleted, there would be a headless headmaster.
I know. If I had my phone searched, and all my porn deleted, there would be a headless headmaster.
Triptych !!DP4/G/5A6 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 35 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #63,802
That's just moronic.
I'll be pissed if that ever happens here.
I'll be pissed if that ever happens here.
psychopath !PAHVpsycho joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #63,805
I'm sick of this paedophilia and cyberbullying witchhunt the media pushes with its propaganda mill.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #63,807
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #63,809
psychopath !PAHVpsycho replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #63,811
@previous (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
> Teachers need more authority
Eat shit. Authoritarianism is but a slippery slope to Totalitarianism.
> Teachers need more authority
Eat shit. Authoritarianism is but a slippery slope to Totalitarianism.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 34 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #63,812
@63,809 (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
In case you get in an accident. Or a pedo tries to abduct you. Oh wait...
In case you get in an accident. Or a pedo tries to abduct you. Oh wait...
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #63,813
@63,809 (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
I agree with the being able to search/confinscate part, teachers should be allowed to do that, but searching the phone itself? There's no real reason to do that. It's not going to have a slight effect on bullying (cyber or not) and will just cause needless unrest in the classroom.
I agree with the being able to search/confinscate part, teachers should be allowed to do that, but searching the phone itself? There's no real reason to do that. It's not going to have a slight effect on bullying (cyber or not) and will just cause needless unrest in the classroom.
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #63,815
Glad to see Europe is so free.
The Editor !FuckWtfW8M replied with this 15 years ago, 40 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #63,816
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 14 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #63,817
I think this is also a children's rights issue. If the phone belonged to an adult (and many of these phones technically are owned by adults, since they're given to the children by their parents) it's obvious that a warrant should be required to confiscate the phone, to look at anything on the phone, delete anything on the phone, or use anything on the phone as evidence. I dunno how warrants work in the UK, but over here that's how it works, or at least how it should work, as students have their privacy violated over here all the time too. But since these are children and teenagers, and the school is usually run by the state, it is assumed that children don't have rights.
psychopath !PAHVpsycho replied with this 15 years ago, 40 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #63,818
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk replied with this 15 years ago, 33 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #63,819
@63,812 (A)
Way to discredit someone else for their opinion, bro.
Anyway, after reading the article a second time, I'm not sure where I stand. It woul teachers a responsibility they don't want.
@63,813 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
This is probably best. Be able to confiscate the phones, but going through it should be up to the parent.
Way to discredit someone else for their opinion, bro.
Anyway, after reading the article a second time, I'm not sure where I stand. It woul teachers a responsibility they don't want.
@63,813 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
This is probably best. Be able to confiscate the phones, but going through it should be up to the parent.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ replied with this 15 years ago, 45 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #63,820
@63,816 (The Editor !FuckWtfW8M)
;)
Edit: I figured I would do something to get shot going. This fucking place is less active than Terry Shaivo playing solitaire.
;)
Edit: I figured I would do something to get shot going. This fucking place is less active than Terry Shaivo playing solitaire.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Ph !5pM9NZR/l6 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #63,823
I see no issue with teachers being able to confiscate a student's phone as it is a disruptive little device. I don't agree that teachers should be able to go through the contents though. That's a step too far.
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #63,824
@63,819 (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
Flip-flopper. Way to stick to your guns. Also the fact that you read it even one time before forming your opinion is pretty lame. I scanned one word in the headline before deciding that I am qualified as an expert in this field.
Flip-flopper. Way to stick to your guns. Also the fact that you read it even one time before forming your opinion is pretty lame. I scanned one word in the headline before deciding that I am qualified as an expert in this field.
(Edited 56 seconds later.)
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #63,827
@previous (Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ)
lol. Nothing wrong with debating the issues and hearing other perspectives to help you refine your own position.
The major problem here is that parents aren't being parents enough, the responsibility then falls on the school to sort behavioural issues out (that should have been the responsibility of the parents), and then the parents complain cos they disagree with the school's methods.
lol. Nothing wrong with debating the issues and hearing other perspectives to help you refine your own position.
The major problem here is that parents aren't being parents enough, the responsibility then falls on the school to sort behavioural issues out (that should have been the responsibility of the parents), and then the parents complain cos they disagree with the school's methods.
psychopath !PAHVpsycho replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #63,828
@63,823 (Ph !5pM9NZR/l6)
This. Here in the states, the issue would be justified by screaming CHILD PORN OMG
We have terrible sex laws here in the states.
This. Here in the states, the issue would be justified by screaming CHILD PORN OMG
We have terrible sex laws here in the states.
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #63,829
Ph !5pM9NZR/l6 replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #63,830
@63,828 (psychopath !PAHVpsycho)
We are still hiding behind that puritan facade. It's wild that we have the largest porn industry in the world, but sex scenes on television shows are still taboo.
We are still hiding behind that puritan facade. It's wild that we have the largest porn industry in the world, but sex scenes on television shows are still taboo.
psychopath !PAHVpsycho replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #63,832
@previous (Ph !5pM9NZR/l6)
It's funny how the government would try to dissuade unsupporters by telling them "it's not like you have anything to hide" while at the same time the government freaked out over the wikileaks shit.
It's funny how the government would try to dissuade unsupporters by telling them "it's not like you have anything to hide" while at the same time the government freaked out over the wikileaks shit.
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #63,833
@63,827 (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
Yes! Parents should be parents and teachers should be teachers. Good point. I don't know where it started that teachers should be parents but it is a horrible idea.
Yes! Parents should be parents and teachers should be teachers. Good point. I don't know where it started that teachers should be parents but it is a horrible idea.
Ph !5pM9NZR/l6 replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #63,835
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #63,836
Ph !5pM9NZR/l6 replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #63,837
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Not just chavs though. Any parent that lets the television do the majority of the parenting is like this.
Not just chavs though. Any parent that lets the television do the majority of the parenting is like this.
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #63,838
@63,835 (Ph !5pM9NZR/l6)
@previous (Ph !5pM9NZR/l6)
Yes... and that started with parents being too busy and both being expected to work because of economic reasons.
@previous (Ph !5pM9NZR/l6)
Yes... and that started with parents being too busy and both being expected to work because of economic reasons.
(Edited 31 seconds later.)
Ph !5pM9NZR/l6 replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #63,839
@previous (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
I can understand that, but being from a family in which both parents worked full time I don't understand how a parent can't set aside time for their children. Too many parents expect the schools to teach their children more than just academics.
I can understand that, but being from a family in which both parents worked full time I don't understand how a parent can't set aside time for their children. Too many parents expect the schools to teach their children more than just academics.
Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6 replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #63,841
I don't like what it means by searching, either. That's like, if a student says "I don't have a phone", the teacher can say, lolstripsearch and find it.
The law is too vague and empowering. Mind you, british kids are right shits.
The law is too vague and empowering. Mind you, british kids are right shits.
Ph !5pM9NZR/l6 replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #63,842
@previous (Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6)
Could you imagine the ire that would raise? 30 something male teacher stripsearching a 15 year old girl. Ohhhhh man I can't wait to read that headline.
Could you imagine the ire that would raise? 30 something male teacher stripsearching a 15 year old girl. Ohhhhh man I can't wait to read that headline.
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #63,843
@63,839 (Ph !5pM9NZR/l6)
I completely agree. It's just one of many factors. You should really check out this book if you can.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Spoilt-Generation-Restoring-Authority-Children/dp/0749941480
> In the space of a few decades the way we parent has changed dramatically. Something we once did intuitively has become the subject of political fashion, guided by experts. As parents we are older and more time-poor than ever before, with the highest proportion of single-parent households in history. Our children are now spoiled in ways that go far beyond materialism. But they are suffering to a degree we never anticipated: we now have the highest rates of child depression, underage pregnancy and violent and anti-social behaviour since records began. Yet adults, at every level, have retreated from authority and in doing so have robbed our children of their basic supporting structures.
I completely agree. It's just one of many factors. You should really check out this book if you can.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Spoilt-Generation-Restoring-Authority-Children/dp/0749941480
> In the space of a few decades the way we parent has changed dramatically. Something we once did intuitively has become the subject of political fashion, guided by experts. As parents we are older and more time-poor than ever before, with the highest proportion of single-parent households in history. Our children are now spoiled in ways that go far beyond materialism. But they are suffering to a degree we never anticipated: we now have the highest rates of child depression, underage pregnancy and violent and anti-social behaviour since records began. Yet adults, at every level, have retreated from authority and in doing so have robbed our children of their basic supporting structures.
Nega !34Kas0OdzM joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #63,845
Ph !5pM9NZR/l6 replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #63,851
@previous (Nega !34Kas0OdzM)
There is also always the possibility of the teachers sending themselves select pictures from the student's phones.
There is also always the possibility of the teachers sending themselves select pictures from the student's phones.
Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6 replied with this 15 years ago, 31 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #63,853
@63,845 (Nega !34Kas0OdzM)
Don't thank me, thank the British Legal Systemâ„¢ :D
> "I was just looking for her phone, and her snatch was the only place I hadn't searched!"
Don't thank me, thank the British Legal Systemâ„¢ :D
> "I was just looking for her phone, and her snatch was the only place I hadn't searched!"
Nega !34Kas0OdzM replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #63,855
@63,851 (Ph !5pM9NZR/l6)> mfw /rs/ "Middle-school photo pack"
> mfw "Ooooops, maybe that wasn't such a good idea after all"
> mfw the law gets raped and beaten to death in supreme court
> mfw political careers ruined all across the map
(Edited 1 minute later.)
dreamworks4mayor '11 !xPoNIEsltA joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #63,857
Ph !5pM9NZR/l6 replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #63,860
@previous (dreamworks4mayor '11 !xPoNIEsltA)
It can be extremely disruptive if a phone starts ringing in the middle of class, or if students are texting back and forth to each other. It's just digital note passing, and note passing has never been allowed.
It can be extremely disruptive if a phone starts ringing in the middle of class, or if students are texting back and forth to each other. It's just digital note passing, and note passing has never been allowed.
SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN. joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #63,865
I don't see the big deal. Teachers can already confiscate phones, and if your phone has a password they can't get into it anyway. So nothings really changed.Nega !34Kas0OdzM replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #63,868
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 49 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #63,869
@63,857 (dreamworks4mayor '11 !xPoNIEsltA)
Nothing in itself, just if they openly use it to disrupt the lesson, e.g playing games on it or openly texting.
@63,865 (SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN.)
Not everyone has a password, though. If teachers actually start trying to search phones, they should get them.
Nothing in itself, just if they openly use it to disrupt the lesson, e.g playing games on it or openly texting.
@63,865 (SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN.)
Not everyone has a password, though. If teachers actually start trying to search phones, they should get them.
totoforhire !!pNz4kjfeW joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #63,872
I think that checking the phones is a violation of rights and will only result in more children being tried on child pornography charges.
Prospera !!yATo95sQF joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #63,961
@63,843 (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
That's total bullshit.
> we now have the highest rates of child depression
We now have the highest rates of treatment for child depression (which was barely recognized before the 70s). Large-scale longitudinal studies like Monitoring the Future show that today's adolescents are actually happier and less stressed than previous generations. "When concurrent assessment rather than retrospective recall is used, there is no evidence for an increased prevalence of child or adolescent depression over the past 30 years." Most cross-sectional studies are useless due to poor recall of past depression, among other things.
> underage pregnancy
Bzzt. Rates of underage pregnancy have been PLUMMETING for DECADES in the US.
> and violent and anti-social behaviour since records began.
Violent and anti-social behaviour among youth is at an all-time low in the US according to the National Crime Victimization Survey.
BTW, Google the author's name. He's a pop-psych scaremonger who cashes in by playing to fear of any sort of progress. He told The Daily Mail that Facebook causes cancer (no, seriously).
That's total bullshit.
> we now have the highest rates of child depression
We now have the highest rates of treatment for child depression (which was barely recognized before the 70s). Large-scale longitudinal studies like Monitoring the Future show that today's adolescents are actually happier and less stressed than previous generations. "When concurrent assessment rather than retrospective recall is used, there is no evidence for an increased prevalence of child or adolescent depression over the past 30 years." Most cross-sectional studies are useless due to poor recall of past depression, among other things.
> underage pregnancy
Bzzt. Rates of underage pregnancy have been PLUMMETING for DECADES in the US.
> and violent and anti-social behaviour since records began.
Violent and anti-social behaviour among youth is at an all-time low in the US according to the National Crime Victimization Survey.
BTW, Google the author's name. He's a pop-psych scaremonger who cashes in by playing to fear of any sort of progress. He told The Daily Mail that Facebook causes cancer (no, seriously).
(Edited 41 seconds later.)
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #63,965
@previous (Prospera !!yATo95sQF)
http://www.aricsigman.com/
> Note: This paper has been misrepresented by some news reports as claiming that social networking causes cancer or disease. This is not true. The paper addresses the extent to which time online may be displacing face-to-face contact, and that lack of social connection is associated with physiological changes, increased incidence of illness and higher premature mortality.
Do you disagree with that?
http://www.aricsigman.com/
> Note: This paper has been misrepresented by some news reports as claiming that social networking causes cancer or disease. This is not true. The paper addresses the extent to which time online may be displacing face-to-face contact, and that lack of social connection is associated with physiological changes, increased incidence of illness and higher premature mortality.
Do you disagree with that?
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #63,967
Prospera !!yATo95sQF replied with this 15 years ago, 37 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #63,974
@63,965 (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
> The paper addresses the extent to which time online may be displacing face-to-face contact, and that lack of social connection is associated with physiological changes, increased incidence of illness and higher premature mortality.
The article itself is in much less tentative terms than that disclaimer. It says: "Time that was previously spent interacting socially has increasingly been displaced by the virtual variety." Not "may be displacing", but "has displaced". Apparently, there's no solid evidence for that.
> The paper addresses the extent to which time online may be displacing face-to-face contact, and that lack of social connection is associated with physiological changes, increased incidence of illness and higher premature mortality.
The article itself is in much less tentative terms than that disclaimer. It says: "Time that was previously spent interacting socially has increasingly been displaced by the virtual variety." Not "may be displacing", but "has displaced". Apparently, there's no solid evidence for that.
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk replied with this 15 years ago, 24 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #63,996
@previous (Prospera !!yATo95sQF)
Are you honestly trying to tell me that you believe that since the rise of online socialising, people socialise face to face just as much?
I can understand that Facebook etc can help people who are lonely find friends, but for people that already had friends IRL, surely being able to socialise online has caused many people to stop seeing each other as often in real life. SURELY.
Are you honestly trying to tell me that you believe that since the rise of online socialising, people socialise face to face just as much?
I can understand that Facebook etc can help people who are lonely find friends, but for people that already had friends IRL, surely being able to socialise online has caused many people to stop seeing each other as often in real life. SURELY.
(Edited 45 seconds later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #63,998
@previous (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
Or it might let people socialize in time they'd normally spend not socializing. Saying "It must be this way" without providing any data is kind of silly.
Or it might let people socialize in time they'd normally spend not socializing. Saying "It must be this way" without providing any data is kind of silly.
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #64,000
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
This is true, but at what expense? What effect do you think socialising online (exclusively) has on your real world social skills?
This is true, but at what expense? What effect do you think socialising online (exclusively) has on your real world social skills?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #64,004
@previous (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
The effect it's had on my life in particular isn't incredibly interesting. The question is, as a whole, do people socialize face-to-face more or less often since the invention of social media sites?
I don't have an answer, but I'm not saying it's definitely one way or the other. Find some credible research on the issue and then form your opinion.
The effect it's had on my life in particular isn't incredibly interesting. The question is, as a whole, do people socialize face-to-face more or less often since the invention of social media sites?
I don't have an answer, but I'm not saying it's definitely one way or the other. Find some credible research on the issue and then form your opinion.
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #64,005
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> The question is, as a whole, do people socialize face-to-face more or less often since the invention of social media sites?
To me that answer is common sense. But I might run an informal minichan poll :)
> The question is, as a whole, do people socialize face-to-face more or less often since the invention of social media sites?
To me that answer is common sense. But I might run an informal minichan poll :)
Prospera !!yATo95sQF replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #64,006
The Mindhacks post I linked shows that the evidence is mixed.
Participants who used the Internet more had larger increases in the sizes of their local and distant social circles and their face-to-face interaction with friends and family, increased. They also became more involved in community activities and felt greater trust in people
Common sense?Anonymous S joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #64,008
@63,961 (Prospera !!yATo95sQF)
> He told The Daily Mail that Facebook causes cancer (no, seriously).
lol he must be a channer
> He told The Daily Mail that Facebook causes cancer (no, seriously).
lol he must be a channer
The Owl !yshAAUvyds joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #64,254
@63,996 (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
> surely being able to socialise online has caused many people to stop seeing each other as often in real life. SURELY.
Nope. It just means I can talk to them when I'm not seeing them as well as when I am.
> surely being able to socialise online has caused many people to stop seeing each other as often in real life. SURELY.
Nope. It just means I can talk to them when I'm not seeing them as well as when I am.