The real question is whether the benefit of better access to scientific research offsets the detriment of social media. Unfortunately, I think social media use is much, much more widespread, and is thus having a significantly stronger detrimental effect than scientific research access and every other benefit combined.
It’s really only just a few platforms that are more toxic than average. “Social media” includes things like WhatsApp and Signal, which are functionally similar enough to email threads that they don’t compare to Twitter where everything is public-facing.
Fair, I used the term as a catch-all that ends up inadvertently catching less-harmful sites as well. However, while there are only a few toxic sites, they’re the most popular, and even when they fade into obscurity, they’re replaced by other new toxic sites. They’re designed to draw people in, so it doesn’t really matter how few there are, they’re always among the most popular websites on the internet.
The real question is whether the benefit of better access to scientific research offsets the detriment of social media. Unfortunately, I think social media use is much, much more widespread, and is thus having a significantly stronger detrimental effect than scientific research access and every other benefit combined.
It’s really only just a few platforms that are more toxic than average. “Social media” includes things like WhatsApp and Signal, which are functionally similar enough to email threads that they don’t compare to Twitter where everything is public-facing.
Fair, I used the term as a catch-all that ends up inadvertently catching less-harmful sites as well. However, while there are only a few toxic sites, they’re the most popular, and even when they fade into obscurity, they’re replaced by other new toxic sites. They’re designed to draw people in, so it doesn’t really matter how few there are, they’re always among the most popular websites on the internet.