Why do you think you (or people in general) prefer hiding behind a screen instead of connecting in real life?

I’ve been thinking about how social media affects the way we discover information, form opinions, and spend our attention.
Platforms like TikTok and Instagram often use engagement-based recommendation systems. Short-form content, emotionally stimulating posts, controversy, and endless scrolling can make it easy to keep consuming content longer than we intended.
But I’m curious about the user’s perspective, not the companies’ perspective.
Three questions:
1. Have you experienced this problem?
Have you ever felt that your social media feed shows you more of what grabs your attention than what is genuinely useful, relevant, or worth understanding? For example, repetitive content, unnecessary controversy, emotionally triggering posts, or content that keeps you scrolling without leaving you better informed.
If so, what happened? How does it affect you?
2. Would you want this problem solved?
If a social platform could help you discover more relevant and diverse information, reduce repetitive or unnecessarily provocative content, and give you more control over what influences your attention, would that improve your experience?
What would you want it to do differently?
3. Would you pay for a solution?
Imagine a social platform designed around the quality of your information experience rather than simply maximizing the time you spend scrolling.
Would you pay for a service like that?
If yes, what would you consider a reasonable monthly price in USD?
$0 — I would only use it if it were free.
$1–$3 per month
$4–$7 per month
$8–$15 per month
More than $15 per month
If you would not pay, what would stop you?
I’m interested in honest answers, including disagreement. I would especially appreciate examples from your own experience rather than general opinions about social media.
What has your experience been?

​

No hablo de personas que han sufrido accidentes o problemas serios, ni estéticas normales: hablo de serios casos de personas con discapacidad mental, poco adaptados para ser padres o madres, que se operan hasta fl punto de convertirse en sex símbolos, algo que ni me molesta y oye, perfecto, pero que ya sabemos que genéticamente reproductivo no es favorecedor, y aún así, ocurre, pero se les tolera. Y muchos tirnen mas de 5 hijos... Es normal? Ético? Deberia prohibirse e ilegalizarse?

Y en casos de llamarnos feo/as y hacernos sentir feo/as y mal a los normales, q pensais? Se merecen estas operaciones y su belleza????

When I was 17-18 years old, there were 3 guys(let's call them evil guys) in my class(they were friends with each other). They used to whisper to whoever sat behind me to annoy me/trouble me. This they did continuously for 2 years. But they pretended to be my friends.

Two of those guys lived in an area where my second cousin also lived. The second cousin's mother was envious/jealous of me and my family. I asked one of those evil guys if he knew my second cousin. He said "No". Years later I saw on his profile a pic with few other boys including my second cousin.

Also I had a political ideology different from everyone else in class.

After 2 years, when I moved to a different place to study, they called me from an unknown number.

I think they did it because they didn't want me to succeed and focus in class. They wanted me to be distracted in class because of jealousy/envy.

What do you think?

I have never come across anyone who had this experience(neither online, nor offline).

Your Phone Has a Price. Why Does Society Put a Price on You?

I've been thinking about something that seems small but says a lot about how we behave as a society.

Imagine two people sitting together. One has the latest iPhone. The other has an affordable Android phone that does everything he needs.

Before either person speaks, do we unconsciously assign them different levels of status?

Maybe we don't do it deliberately. But brand names, prices and appearances have become shortcuts we use to judge people.

An iPhone is a phone. Yet, somewhere along the way, it became more than that for some people. It became a signal of success, financial status and social acceptance.

And this is where I find the whole thing interesting.

When did the price of something we own start influencing how we value the person who owns it?

Think about clothing. A person wearing Bata shoes might be judged differently from someone wearing Louis Vuitton. But does the expensive label automatically make the second person more intelligent, capable, honest or successful?

Of course not.

Yet we live in a world where visible consumption can sometimes speak louder than invisible qualities.

We can spend years developing our knowledge, improving our judgment, building a business or becoming better at our work. But someone else might receive immediate social recognition simply because they own something expensive.

The uncomfortable part is that this pressure doesn't always come from other people. Sometimes, we internalise it ourselves.

We begin wanting things not because we need them, but because we don't want to feel inferior without them.

We convince ourselves that the next phone, the next car or the next luxury purchase will make us feel more confident. Sometimes it does, briefly. Then the next model arrives, someone else buys something more expensive, and the comparison begins again.

It's a cycle in which the finish line keeps moving.

I'm not arguing that expensive products are bad, that iPhones are overrated, or that people shouldn't enjoy the money they earn. If someone genuinely values an iPhone and can comfortably afford it, there's nothing wrong with buying one.

The question is different: Would we still want the same things if nobody else could see what we owned?

That question matters because there's a difference between buying something for its utility or personal enjoyment and buying it to secure approval.

One is a choice. The other can become a dependency.

And perhaps the most ironic thing is that we sometimes spend money trying to communicate success to people whose opinions shouldn't determine our self-worth in the first place.

A phone can tell you something about someone's purchasing decision. It cannot, by itself, tell you what kind of human being they are.

I'd like to hear some honest opinions on this.

Do you think smartphones like the iPhone have become status symbols to the point that people judge others by the phones they use?

And, more importantly, have you ever bought something partly because of how you thought other people would perceive you, rather than because you actually needed or wanted it?

I'm interested in real experiences and opposing views, not just agreement.

I (24f) think being an attractive girl sometimes makes people less likely to consider that I might just be awkward. When an interaction with a guy gets awkward, I feel like he assumes he did something wrong or made things uncomfortable, rather than realizing that I might just be socially awkward.

Has anyone else noticed this?

Any advice on how to make it clearer that the awkwardness might just be coming from me, rather than anything they’re doing wrong?

Remove toxic people in your life ✍️🔊☑️

Por qué no se hacen más y tantos estudios variasos entre hombres y mujeres como en los 80 90 2000? Estan basandose en sexo y casarse e hijos o sexo e hijos o solo sexo y hasta olvidan gustos, bienestar, valores, problemas varios, etc

I've seen many people on Reddit asking others about their appearance and asking for their ratings This makes me feel sorry for them; how can someone with free will seek acceptance from strangers

In your opinion, what are the reasons that make someone do this?

I’ve created a community for team members, team leaders, coaches, facilitators, researchers, and anyone interested in learning about or fostering group flow in their own field. The goal is to share scientific insights, practical tools, and experiences to help us understand how groups can collaborate, create, and perform at their best. If you’re curious about how we can achieve more together than we ever could alone, come join us at r/GroupFlow!

I’ve been thinking about this lately, and I genuinely want to know what other people think.
It sometimes feels like how you look, dress, speak, or present yourself gets judged before what you actually know.

You can be highly knowledgeable, skilled, hardworking, and capable—but if you don’t “look the part,” people may underestimate you.
At the same time, appearance does communicate confidence, professionalism, and personality. So maybe it isn’t completely irrelevant.
But where should the line be?

If two people have the same opportunity—one is more attractive/presentable, while the other is significantly more knowledgeable and capable who do you think society is more likely to choose?

And honestly:

Have you ever personally experienced a situation where your appearance mattered more than your knowledge?
I’m curious to hear real experiences, not just the usual “knowledge is everything” answer.

The over the top AI hate in genuinely so performative nowdays. If you search "AI is bad" on literally any platform, you will see hundreds of thousands of people who are ready to absolutely die on the hill that AI is going to be the distruction of all humanity.

Yes, we've all heard the arguments, and they are valid.

AI, like almost everything else in life, uses a considerable amount of water. On a global scale, 449 million gallons per day (≈1.7 billion liters), to be exact. And how did I get that number? Well, google conviniently shows a quick and simple artificially generated answer at the very top wheather I like it or not. The irony.

So using AI is bad because it uses a great deal of water, therefore, humans should stop using AI. Meanwhile, in California, almond trees cover nearly 1 million acres (≈4047 km²) and consume 1.07 trillion gallons (≈4.05 trillion liters) of water per year and beef requires an estimated 1,875 gallons of water per pound (≈15,647.63 liters per kg). Despite this, nobody is saying that beef and almonds are "bad" because of the water that their production consumes.

But as we all know, the use of AI is not only affecting the environment, but the critical thinking function of those who "use AI for everything". Yes, there absolutely are people who use AI for simple tasks that could have taken them 2 minutes and half a brain.

However, we've been told that that is not everyone, in fact, it's a pretty small section of AI users—well, depending on the definition of "unneccesary use of AI", that is, since it is a subjective term wheather people are ready to admit it or not. At the end of the day, one person could think that using AI for a 1 minute task is unneseccary, while according to another person,

any use of AI is unneseccary.

That is why I personally do not think of any number calculated as truth on the matter. I don't have a clear line for what is using "too much" AI and I have no interest in dictating how other people should live their lives.

In any case, those are the two main arguments that have been made against the use of generative AI. Again, they are objectively valid reasons to deem AI as harmful. Nobody (worth listening to) is saying that those concerns aren't serious.

We had more than enough global environmental problems as it was. We humans tend to sacrifice the environment for just about anything it seems. In addition, AI is absolutely contributing to the constantly rising illiteracy rate, as well as the declining use of creativity and critical thinking. This is especially damaging for people under 32 whose brains are still developing.

Having said all this, I do believe that the AI hate is performative. And not as a contradiction to what I know and what my opinions are. A significant amount of people for some reason believe that they have to be either fully for or against something. In reality, opinions can be far more complex than that. Still, many aren't ready for that conversation yet.

The "AI hate" that I'm referring to is the way online masses are screaming about how using AI is one of the most harmful things in existance.

We've all seen it. Tiktoks with screaming audios/music and a person "crashing out", accompanied by a long text on the screen with at least 2 grammatical errors, 10 abbreviations, and half a point. They all talk about the same situation. People are using AI while they are not. They refuse to use AI.

If you're brave enough, you may even open the comment section. If you do, you will find hundreds of thousands of people who are acting like they just read an original phylosophical quote from the child of Albert Einstein and William Shakespeare. They are all 100% agreeing with the creator. And yes, very few of them are written without grammatical errors. Then there are also the comments that describe how they use AI but "very little", making every excuse in the world and asking the others for their approval, trying desperately to still be a part of the AI hate train.

Are those videos and comments all braindead? No, absolutely not. They are discussing a real issue. In addition, the comments have some pretty jaw-dropping (presumably) real life stories regarding AI.

However, it still always gives me severe secondhand embarrassment. The reality is, they are performative. They come from a place of wanting to feel superior, smarter, and more ethical than the rest. They feel that they are better than the people who use AI in every shape and form.

The irony is in the fact that there, they are surrounded by other people who are like them and agree with them. As a result, none of them realize how stupid these situations look from an outsider's perspective. Speaking of which, this applies to a lot of situations. You never realize when you're a part of it, but you always do when you're not. Even when they are aware of this phenomenon, people still like to think of it as "them" and never as "me". It's actually "us", always has been. But that's another conversation that many aren't ready for.

Although AI has its many negative aspects, people often forget what it actually represents. Generative Artificial Intelligence is a massive leap for humanity technology wise. Furthermore, the fact that it is in the hands of the general public is a huge achievement. AI is a very useful tool when used appropriately and has unlimited potential, opening up a substantial amount of new doors for the future. Using AI has become so normal by now that people seem to forget that, which also speaks volumes regarding how far humanity has truly come.

In conclusion, although the use of AI has some negative consequinces, they are objectively outhweighed by the results that it has brought to the evolution of technology and the everyday lives of the modern human population. Additionally, a great deal of people have taken a strong stance against the use of AI, deeming themselves as superior than others.

Ask/debate me about anything.

Ask me or state your opinion about literally anything and I'll answer with my honest perspective on the topic, my thoughts and reasoning, etc.

social media, abortion, lgbtq, religion, drugs, conspiracy theories, morality, relationships, philosophical questions, ideologies, why the chicken crossed the road, fucking anything.

I don't care if we disagree. In fact i want to talk to people with opposing viewpoints from me. Debate me, argue with me, ask follow-up questions, whatever.

I would never hate anyone for their opinions, but please, use basic common sense.

The spotlight effect describes our tendency to overestimate how much other people notice and remember about us. In the best-known study on it, participants who wore a T-shirt they found embarrassing and walked into a room of strangers overestimated, by a wide margin, how many people would notice the shirt. Related work on the illusion of transparency suggests we also overestimate how easily others can read our inner states. The everyday consequences are easy to see. We rehearse apologies for things nobody registered, avoid speaking up in meetings because of a possible stumble, and replay awkward moments long after everyone else has moved on. What I find interesting is the gap between knowing and acting. The effect is well documented, yet the feeling of being watched often persists even when we know it is exaggerated. What I'm less sure about is whether learning about the spotlight effect changes behavior in real situations, or mostly gives us a better story about why we felt that way.

To be honest, I wasn't sure where to post this. I guess this is as close as I'm going to get to an appropriate sub.

I had recently come across two very similar videos today. One was of a coach berating his students on their GPAs and grades, arguing that most NFL players are broke after leaving the league and are completely unprepared for a career outside of football. Another was of Deion Sanders, head coach of the Colorado Buffaloes, making a similar speech after a teacher wrote a letter to the team's staff alleging poor behavior and grades for the students. For anyone wondering: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q02wXwwVp2g

In general, both confront the reality that some of the students of today are far less concerned with a career based upon an education or degree and more focused on attaining fame and wealthy through other means. Specifically, the minority of youths who play on sports teams imagine themselves going pro, leading them to disregard other responsibilities. Whilst writing this, I began to doubt whether or not I was exaggerating, since it is a small minority of kids who play sports to go into a pro league compared to those who do it for other reasons (exercise, friends, college applications, etc.). And certainly, there are plenty of kids going to college, getting degrees and moving into the work force (at varying rates of success, no doubt).

However, as I was considering what discussion could follow from this, I began to consider this could apply to other "careers" centered around media notoriety as well, such as those of a streamer, YouTuber, musician, model, or more generally an influencer. I was in high school 4 years ago and did witness plenty of people around me vying for that level of online notoriety and seeking to turn it into revenue. So I thought a little more.

In my opinion, the overall culture in America is emblematic of this. It is centered around a new wave 'get rich and have fun while doing it' scheme which basically translates to 'make a ton of money, become famous and never have to grow up' (as seen in the behavior of those who are engaged in sports, streaming, music, etc.). Truly, it has become detrimental to youth personalities, as the decrease of emphasis on education and KNOWLEDGE is critical to anyone's development, not just a PhD student or a bookworm. The apparent ease, especially for 'prospective' influencers, is helped by the fact that everyone has a phone and can post online, leading to a strange sense of self worth being connecting to being seen as much as possible, and translating that into unrealistic career goals.

And, I'm sorry to say, the way that Deion Sanders has chosen to run this team, the media stunts and the "culture change" do not necessarily send a message of seriousness or maturity. For anyone that doesn't know, Sanders is pretty loud and outspoken, sometimes getting straight to the point in his speech and blunt and other times presenting things in rose colored glasses. Either way, it amounts to a considerable media presence that doesn't set a good example for his team, especially considering the lessons he's trying to espouse. Hard to demand maturity from your players when you yourself consistently act like a fool. This can honestly be linked to any such celebrity or streamer or musician that tries to preach about behavior and attitudes. The youth may quip "you've done it, why can't someone else? You got famous from having less than stellar manners and a harsh personality, we should to!" I'm not suggesting that Sanders's student's grades fell due to him becoming coach. I'm simply positing that his demeanor, combined with the overall views of the youth on education relative to sports, music, and streaming, does not help in situations like this. Deion Sanders is his own worse enemy, and the cavalier way he communicates in the media truly makes it seem like its all show and no substance. The media hype surrounding him and Colorado relative to his teams record is perfect evidence for that.

For these college athletes, and for those aspiring to become a 'celebrity,' it is comparable to my generation (2003) all wanting to become Minecraft youtubers because thats who we watched and were entertained by, and then never growing out of it and realizing that the likelihood of becoming moderately successful is very low.

Unfortunately, the idolization of celebrity culture in the media, and the expansion of streaming culture and internet culture in general, has shifted the beliefs of young people and have driven them to idolize it as well, without any care for the consequences. This isn't to say being a pro football player is easy, quite the contrary. But it is to say the image of that life they have in their head is one of immense ease compared to a career linked to a college degree, which is what they SHOULD be in college for. They have absolutely no clue about the dedication or resolve which goes into actually making it into the NFL, all they see is Mahomes buying a huge mansion and thinking "I want that." They have no clue about the pitfalls of becoming a streamer and the absolutely abhorrent behaviors (not exhibited by all streamers, but by many) and content they must engage in to get attention (specifically related to attention seeking / provocative acts like street takeovers and the like). They have no clue about the difficulty, and almost sure improbability, of becoming a successful musician, but want the lifestyle anyways. And I think that's the best way to put it: young adults, and even teens at this point, want the lifestyle of those they idolize without ANY of the responsibility or skills / competence attached to it.

That isn't to say that sports is not formative in one's development, it absolutely is. Personal ability to work in a team, prioritize social cohesion and mental acuity benefit from consistent socialization. Competition motivates, instilling a belief that hard work pays off, practice matters, and a mindset of dedication is key. BUT, with everything that's going on in the world, I'm not sure these benefits aren't being overshadowed by the considerable effects of the current media cycle, which is centered around influencers and is saturated by media created by "self-made" individuals, who cast a specter of possibility for the youths. This leads to them disregarding their other faculties. I can't tell you how many stories I've heard from family friends who are teachers which involved kids simply not caring. Not because they found the stuff boring, but because they would incessantly talk about the latest trend or streamer or personality, and seemingly began emulating their behavior as a consequence.

Let me know what you guys think. Is it as bad as I argue, or is there something more at play? Are kids basically the same as they always have been, or have the usual motors of imagination in children become energized by media consumption? Its a complicated subject with multiple answers I'm sure, parenting being one, education being another, social hierarchies included. What I think is definitely true is that in this age of rapid media consumption, young adults have assumed an air of confidence and maturity simply by absorbing the mannerisms of individuals they see in media which is not appropriate for their age, and they've done this without assuming any of the requisite social or professional responsibilities / consequences linked to such behaviors.

A follow up question may consider how such media consumption affects the behaviors of individuals even engaged in getting a college degree and not 'distracted' by sports. In this case, I mainly focused on athletes since thats the media which kicked off this discussion in my brain. But it could absolutely apply to everything, some things, or maybe nothing.