Good thing I never asked them eh?

I think that you mentioned that the application might be narrow, and they wanted to chime in on how it might personally have helped them.

That is how they took it regardless of how explicit I was with my language.

OK so I can definitely see why it would seem pointless or really narrow, but I think this would have actually been very helpful for me and people like me.

They responded to “… it doesn’t seem like something that will have much use…”, ignoring the rest of the sentence “While it has the potential to be a great therapy tool, it doesn’t seem like something that will have much use beyond that.”, in order to tell me I am wrong about it not having therapeutic uses by using their issues as supporting evidence.

Which is an argument, not an addition. There is also nothing wrong with arguing either, I was simply asking why they posed that argument to me.

Why are you arguing that it would be a good therapy tool with me when I stated that already?

While it has the potential to be a great therapy tool, it doesn’t seem like something that will have much use beyond that. It is a cool idea though.

I don’t consider society in such ways because what we are seeing now is not a natural state of being. The global population is under educated, and that is by design. No one is taught how to think critically when it matters and then they are thrown into a world of non sense. Made worse by modern communication tools because people don’t know how to process information and communicate.

It is not about learning to handle new tech responsibly. If we focused on educating our population social media wouldn’t be so damaging.

AI already exists and is being used as a tool to further extract what is left by the people claiming it will be a good thing for the masses. It is not being made in a way to benefit everyone, and it is being built by people who want money and power. No average person will have a better life because AI is running more things, but a select few will be ever richer.

Exactly like what happened when mass production became a thing.

That is the thing that fear mongering against the Government always fails to address.

Yes, banning one thing out of ten that all do the same thing is wrong. Yes, we do not want to give the Government the ability to ban specific sites because history.

But banning or regulating algorithms, which are the actual problem, does not stop social media sites from existing. It just stops them from being able to manipulate massive groups of people by hiding/pushing the information the company wants one to see.

Unfortunately, the majority doesn’t see algorithmic social media as a bad thing because they really do like echo chambers, and politicians don’t ever seem to understand what a “root issue” is.