7 ms·

What an Aging Population Means for the Future of the Internet

81 points by smb111 8y ago

WhuzzupDomal 8y ago
I'm a bit annoyed when people talk about "fake news" as if everyone understands what that means. It seems pretty clear to me that different people have different conceptions of what that is.
- nothanksmydude 8y ago
  One of the best ways to make me cringe is to use "fake news" as a joke in the completely wrong context. It physically hurts me to realize this every time it happens (which is unfortunately common) Not implying you are doing this, had to chime in tho cause it really does piss me off I should clarify that doing this on purpose isn't even remotely funny. It's the realiziation that they have an extremely incorrect understanding of the term that hurts
- josteink 8y ago
  It’s also interesting that those who popularized the term “fake news” (left wing politicians) used it to discredit their opposition, by claiming some sort of “collusion” between Trump and the Russians. And now that whole construct, which was reported on to great lengths by “real” news outlets, has been proven to be “fake news” as well. As in, the phenomenon of fake news was actually faked? Could this even be messier? No wonder nobody trusts anything anymore.
  - austincheney 8y ago
    While everybody may use or abuse that term there is only person who popularized that term, to me, and that person does not claim to be left wing.
    - Izkata 8y ago
      Trump may have popularized it, but Clinton created it [0], almost immediately after losing the election. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-42724320 https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-42724320
      - krapp 8y ago
        Clinton didn't create the term fake news. The article you link to mentions her having used the term in a speech, but that doesn't mean she created it, nor, as I assume we're meant to infer, that she or the Democratic Party fabricated the phenomenon referred to as a post-hoc rationalization for having lost the election. In fact, if you read the Wikipedia article on fake news[0], you'll note the term as well as the phenomenon predate Clinton's campaign and loss, even within that campaign cycle. People were talking about it well before that point. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news
        identity-haver 8y ago
        The term has existed, but was popularized and brought into the common discourse immediately after the 2016 election: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=fake%20news https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=f...
        postHoc 8y ago
        But it really is a post-hoc rationalization for having lost the election. Just like the racist version of the pepe frog meme, and all of its subsequent variants were a form of Streisand effect, for having claimed as much. There wasn't much in the way of attachment for those particular memes, until the bumbling claim was made that they were being deployed in earnest as weapons, which hadn't been the case until after the claim was made. This process has been accelerating, with more absurdities and meaningless drivel being bastardized ironically, until intolerable, at which point the symbolism is galvanized, post-hoc, as a matador for emotional outrage. At which point it gets discarded, and new absurdities find frolic. That is, until the lowest common denominator is clued in that absurdity has resumed somewhere on the internet, and efforts are organized to fabricate outrage at its use.
- Joeboy 8y ago
  I'm sure there was a moment when "fake news" meant stories coming from superficially reputable looking websites, that in reality were fugaciously created to give a veneer of respectability to made up stories. This meaning of "fake news", which I think is actually meaningful and useful, seems to have completely vanished, or maybe I just imagined it?
  - asark 8y ago
    It didn't vanish so much as it was vanished. Trump and friends calling anything they didn't like "fake news" effectively destroyed any utility or specificity the term may, briefly, have had. Brilliant move.
  - dredmorbius 8y ago
    The term dates to the late 1980s when it referred to propagandistic video and audio "news releases" generally created by or for corporate interests. That usage continued through to mid-to-late 2000s decade. It was applied to more general misinformation in the 2010s, before being 'undefined' by many of the promotors and beneficiaries of fake news. https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fake_news https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fake_news https://www.prwatch.org/fakenews/execsummary/ https://www.prwatch.org/fakenews/execsummary/ https://www.prwatch.org/fakenews2/execsummary https://www.prwatch.org/fakenews2/execsummary
lnsru 8y ago
I am shocked how some older people behave in their inboxes... One lady clicks on every single link in every e-mail she gets. Her man tries to open every attachment. I was even more shocked when I saw, that their free mail provider Gmx doesn’t really have spam filter. I use gmail in Germany and see spam every few months. Gmx’s inbox had many suspicious e-mails when Amazon purchase notifications landed in spam folder. Both computers Windows 7 with no antivirus. After years educating them I achieved, that she does not open suspicions e-mails and the guy open attachments only from his friends. Some of these friends strongly believe, that everything on Internet is true. It was a weird moment understanding, that some random website is trusted by older people on same level as quality journalism like Sueddeutsche Zeitung. This aging population is nice target for individuals with not the best intentions.
- collyw 8y ago
  I cleaned up my mums computer a while ago, removing all the crapware / spyware / malware. She was annoyed that I removed the bullshit emojis add-on that she had installed to her web browser, which fitted into all three of those categories.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  Everything you have written applies equally to young folks too. I was shocked when I discovered how our kid's friends are with tech - youngest is 20 now, and has been messing with computers since 4. Shocked because unlike my parents generation they've all grown up with, and been educated around tech their whole lives. All I have to do to get a significant number of them to believe $conspiracy, or 2+2=7.234 is put it on a convincing looking website. They'll mostly install any and every app that passes under their nose. In the days of FB among the kids, and FB games and surveys, they'd go with every single one of those too... and share, and ping their whole contact list... Before that every drive by popup/malware install... At least my parents generation had their expectations fixed in the 1930s and 1940s. Receiving something in writing meant something. Honesty and ethics were mostly to be expected. The scams were far more about in-person confidence tricks, or the dodgy tradesman charging for work that's not needed etc. I don't blame some for not adjusting their model to everyone's a spamming scammer. :) I do blame the youngster's generation. How the hell do they not get it and so glaringly badly?
thedailymail 8y ago
I wonder if this is a transient phenomenon in which people from the last generation not to grow up with internet (=people born before 1985 or so) becoming easy prey to manipulative agents online, or whether it will continue in subsequent "old" generations due to age-related cognitive decline and social isolation.
- ido 8y ago
  I think your timeline is way off. I was born in 1983 and know lots of people born in the 70s and 60s (many of which coworkers, friends or family) & I would place the "gullibility divide" much earlier than 1985 - by maybe 20 years. This is more something I find with my mother's (in her 70s) cohorts than with people in their 30/40/50s.
- collyw 8y ago
  Born in 1974, internet was becoming a thing when I was at university. I think most people my age are reasonably computer literate. My parents generation less so.
- xxs 8y ago
  1985 is way way too high, I'd presume you are young enough, though. If you were born pre-1985, you might have witnessed netiquette and its desolation.
  - ubermonkey 8y ago
    b1970. I remember when it became September Forever. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September
- ubermonkey 8y ago
  I don't think so. By way of context: I'm 49. I graduated from high school (US) in 1988. I sort of grew up with the net, in the sense that I got my first Internet email address in 1987. I definitely grew up with computers; it's people my age that hassled their parents for those 8-bit machines that plugged into televisions. People of my cohort were definitely aware that we were on the leading edge of computer-mediated societal change. In 1985 it was still possible to hear folks suggest ridiculous things like "Oh, I just run a $small_business; computers will never help here" from people who did not yet Get It. It was bizarre. I thought, from my teens through my mid-30s, that this sort of fundamental technological illiteracy was the transient phenomenon, and that once people my age got to be 50 or whatever, it would be extinct. This has not come to pass. Today, I work in software (surprise!). Our product does a particular kind of project management only interesting in very large contexts. It's a staid and conservative market. And yet there are people my age or a little older within our user community who are still clearly baffled by the idea of having multiple applications open at once, or by the basics of file manipulation, or by the idea of importing data from one location to another. It's bizarre. My boss is 14 years older than I am, so into his middle 60s. He's like me; he's been in or near computing his whole life. Neither of us understand it, but there appears to be an inexhaustible reservoir of folks who just look at anything with an integrated circuit in it and say "Nope!" From our POV, though, it's just NOT OKAY to have worked in data intense business for decades and still be baffled by something as simple as "save-as" or whatever.
NeedMoreTea 8y ago
I mostly felt like I was reading a piece from 10 years ago. Liking a page on the back of a share or ad for something popular is so common as to be a trope. Britain First were hugely successful pushing their far right racist bullshit with this tactic ten years back. It's how they grew to being noticeable in the first place! Now every idiot can be heard. Much of the age statistics also apply across the demographic - if non-technical. I don't think anyone, of any age, outside of tech has a reasonable picture of how algorithms affect their lives, and what they might see. The older couple might get taken in by a Microsoft tech support scam or a you won a lottery you didn't buy a ticket for spam. The kids buy cheap games/festival tickets/fashion/tech from absurdly poor scam sites - then don't complain as they've been educated by site policies rather than any awareness of consumer law. Last, I think everyoen is more lonely. We have apps that centre on us, the individual. No need to go to the club without an appointment, or make a phone call, or interact with any of those pesky humans. Apps, internet and politics are all driving this hard. Purely from what I see, it seems like the youngsters are hardest hit - they should have their max amount of friends and least chance of existential loneliness. By the time you hit 60s half your friends have moved miles away or died. A good proportion will have been widowed. Loneliness rather goes with the territory of ageing.
cstross 8y ago
Article totally misses another major issue with an aging demographic: UX concerns. I'm 54. A UI with clutter, or carousels that move too fast, or text in a small font (or one with low contrast against the background color/image) is hard to use. I also have middle-aged memory issues, which only get worse with age: I'm far less able to hold multiple bits of information in working memory, so I can get demotivated and give up when a website or app expects me to remember seemingly irrelevant details (hint: disabling copy/paste in password entry fields is a great way to lose me as a customer because I rely on 1password and know enough to use strong passwords — but I can't memorize them). Apps and websites designed by twenty somethings tend to assume twenty-something levels of cognitive performance and sensory ability and reflexes which older users once had but have now lost. And so on. … And before you comment to say "well, don't use the app/website, then", bear in mind that it's increasingly impossible to avoid filing your tax return online, dealing with your bank and credit cards via an app, ordering supermarket deliveries online (especially if, as with many elderly people, you're mobility-impaired) … There's a point at which bad UX design becomes life-threatening. This is well understood in human factors engineering in e.g. the aerospace sector, where aircraft cockpit controls are carefully designed to be where and do what pilots expect. But there comes a point at which badly-designed smartphone apps are going to become an actual hazard to users who are unable to use them as their (younger, able-bodied) designers expected.
- Erlich_Bachman 8y ago
  A website which forces someone to manually type on their password (disabling copy/paste) has nothing to do with age, it's just a bad UI. It's just a worse experience for no practical benefit, for all age groups.
  - degenerate 8y ago
    Age comes into play with how people react to bad UX. A youngster can learn the quirks of a bad UI, and deal with it (while hating it). An older person will simply choose to not use the product.
    - 8y ago
KineticLensman 8y ago
(source: I'm 58) I think another challenge that is already happening is reduced accessibility to older people of household devices that are app driven. I'm in the process of buying some new high-ish end audio equipment. All of the systems I've seen pretty much involve having a smart phone / tablet to control it and access to streaming services (e.g. tidal or deezer) if you want high quality sound. There are several challenges right there for folk who just want to insert some physical media and press 'play'. I can handle this, for now. But who knows what the interfaces to these systems will be like in say 10 or 15 years time. Voice control may address some of these challenges, but I think for a lot of people, a whole range of devices they rely on will become alien and scary.
- pariahHN 8y ago
  It's not just older people - I'm late 20s and I don't want a a high end ANYTHING that relies on a third party to work. Sometimes unavoidable, but I feel like there are quite a few cases (yours included) where it's just unnecessary. I see discounts all the time for smart TVs - I just want a 60 inch monitor without someone else proprietary BS stuffed in it. Seriously concerned about the possibility of smart/app everything with no dumb/consumer customizable options. Apparently something similar is happening with car audio too, because of the increasing integration of the head unit into the guts of the car. We should be making things easier for people to do themselves, not finding more ways to extract money by doing it for them.
g6nhe9twPd66 8y ago
An aging population means cheap skilled remote labor. Imagine all the older programmers who will use retirement as an opportunity to just work on projects they enjoy exclusively.
doge_voter 8y ago
Wow. Much fake news. Such flat earth.
bfuller 8y ago
Dealing with my aging baby boomer father concerning the internet has been a FUCKING NIGHTMARE. He somehow gets every toolbar installed on his computer, falls for every phishing/fraud scheme. I am terrified of what the world will look like when I start losing my faculties.
- Nextgrid 8y ago
  The solution for this is to give them locked down devices like iPhones or iPads.

81 points by smb111 8y ago

I'm a bit annoyed when people talk about "fake news" as if everyone understands what that means. It seems pretty clear to me that different people have different conceptions of what that is.

nothanksmydude 8y ago
One of the best ways to make me cringe is to use "fake news" as a joke in the completely wrong context. It physically hurts me to realize this every time it happens (which is unfortunately common) Not implying you are doing this, had to chime in tho cause it really does piss me off I should clarify that doing this on purpose isn't even remotely funny. It's the realiziation that they have an extremely incorrect understanding of the term that hurts
josteink 8y ago
It’s also interesting that those who popularized the term “fake news” (left wing politicians) used it to discredit their opposition, by claiming some sort of “collusion” between Trump and the Russians. And now that whole construct, which was reported on to great lengths by “real” news outlets, has been proven to be “fake news” as well. As in, the phenomenon of fake news was actually faked? Could this even be messier? No wonder nobody trusts anything anymore.
- austincheney 8y ago
  While everybody may use or abuse that term there is only person who popularized that term, to me, and that person does not claim to be left wing.
  - Izkata 8y ago
    Trump may have popularized it, but Clinton created it [0], almost immediately after losing the election. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-42724320 https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-42724320
    - krapp 8y ago
      Clinton didn't create the term fake news. The article you link to mentions her having used the term in a speech, but that doesn't mean she created it, nor, as I assume we're meant to infer, that she or the Democratic Party fabricated the phenomenon referred to as a post-hoc rationalization for having lost the election. In fact, if you read the Wikipedia article on fake news[0], you'll note the term as well as the phenomenon predate Clinton's campaign and loss, even within that campaign cycle. People were talking about it well before that point. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news
      - identity-haver 8y ago
        The term has existed, but was popularized and brought into the common discourse immediately after the 2016 election: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=fake%20news https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=f...
      - postHoc 8y ago
        But it really is a post-hoc rationalization for having lost the election. Just like the racist version of the pepe frog meme, and all of its subsequent variants were a form of Streisand effect, for having claimed as much. There wasn't much in the way of attachment for those particular memes, until the bumbling claim was made that they were being deployed in earnest as weapons, which hadn't been the case until after the claim was made. This process has been accelerating, with more absurdities and meaningless drivel being bastardized ironically, until intolerable, at which point the symbolism is galvanized, post-hoc, as a matador for emotional outrage. At which point it gets discarded, and new absurdities find frolic. That is, until the lowest common denominator is clued in that absurdity has resumed somewhere on the internet, and efforts are organized to fabricate outrage at its use.
Joeboy 8y ago
I'm sure there was a moment when "fake news" meant stories coming from superficially reputable looking websites, that in reality were fugaciously created to give a veneer of respectability to made up stories. This meaning of "fake news", which I think is actually meaningful and useful, seems to have completely vanished, or maybe I just imagined it?
- asark 8y ago
  It didn't vanish so much as it was vanished. Trump and friends calling anything they didn't like "fake news" effectively destroyed any utility or specificity the term may, briefly, have had. Brilliant move.
- dredmorbius 8y ago
  The term dates to the late 1980s when it referred to propagandistic video and audio "news releases" generally created by or for corporate interests. That usage continued through to mid-to-late 2000s decade. It was applied to more general misinformation in the 2010s, before being 'undefined' by many of the promotors and beneficiaries of fake news. https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fake_news https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fake_news https://www.prwatch.org/fakenews/execsummary/ https://www.prwatch.org/fakenews/execsummary/ https://www.prwatch.org/fakenews2/execsummary https://www.prwatch.org/fakenews2/execsummary

lnsru 8y ago

I am shocked how some older people behave in their inboxes... One lady clicks on every single link in every e-mail she gets. Her man tries to open every attachment. I was even more shocked when I saw, that their free mail provider Gmx doesn’t really have spam filter. I use gmail in Germany and see spam every few months. Gmx’s inbox had many suspicious e-mails when Amazon purchase notifications landed in spam folder. Both computers Windows 7 with no antivirus. After years educating them I achieved, that she does not open suspicions e-mails and the guy open attachments only from his friends. Some of these friends strongly believe, that everything on Internet is true. It was a weird moment understanding, that some random website is trusted by older people on same level as quality journalism like Sueddeutsche Zeitung. This aging population is nice target for individuals with not the best intentions.

collyw 8y ago
I cleaned up my mums computer a while ago, removing all the crapware / spyware / malware. She was annoyed that I removed the bullshit emojis add-on that she had installed to her web browser, which fitted into all three of those categories.
NeedMoreTea 8y ago
Everything you have written applies equally to young folks too. I was shocked when I discovered how our kid's friends are with tech - youngest is 20 now, and has been messing with computers since 4. Shocked because unlike my parents generation they've all grown up with, and been educated around tech their whole lives. All I have to do to get a significant number of them to believe $conspiracy, or 2+2=7.234 is put it on a convincing looking website. They'll mostly install any and every app that passes under their nose. In the days of FB among the kids, and FB games and surveys, they'd go with every single one of those too... and share, and ping their whole contact list... Before that every drive by popup/malware install... At least my parents generation had their expectations fixed in the 1930s and 1940s. Receiving something in writing meant something. Honesty and ethics were mostly to be expected. The scams were far more about in-person confidence tricks, or the dodgy tradesman charging for work that's not needed etc. I don't blame some for not adjusting their model to everyone's a spamming scammer. :) I do blame the youngster's generation. How the hell do they not get it and so glaringly badly?

thedailymail 8y ago

I wonder if this is a transient phenomenon in which people from the last generation not to grow up with internet (=people born before 1985 or so) becoming easy prey to manipulative agents online, or whether it will continue in subsequent "old" generations due to age-related cognitive decline and social isolation.

ido 8y ago
I think your timeline is way off. I was born in 1983 and know lots of people born in the 70s and 60s (many of which coworkers, friends or family) & I would place the "gullibility divide" much earlier than 1985 - by maybe 20 years. This is more something I find with my mother's (in her 70s) cohorts than with people in their 30/40/50s.
collyw 8y ago
Born in 1974, internet was becoming a thing when I was at university. I think most people my age are reasonably computer literate. My parents generation less so.
xxs 8y ago
1985 is way way too high, I'd presume you are young enough, though. If you were born pre-1985, you might have witnessed netiquette and its desolation.
- ubermonkey 8y ago
  b1970. I remember when it became September Forever. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September
ubermonkey 8y ago
I don't think so. By way of context: I'm 49. I graduated from high school (US) in 1988. I sort of grew up with the net, in the sense that I got my first Internet email address in 1987. I definitely grew up with computers; it's people my age that hassled their parents for those 8-bit machines that plugged into televisions. People of my cohort were definitely aware that we were on the leading edge of computer-mediated societal change. In 1985 it was still possible to hear folks suggest ridiculous things like "Oh, I just run a $small_business; computers will never help here" from people who did not yet Get It. It was bizarre. I thought, from my teens through my mid-30s, that this sort of fundamental technological illiteracy was the transient phenomenon, and that once people my age got to be 50 or whatever, it would be extinct. This has not come to pass. Today, I work in software (surprise!). Our product does a particular kind of project management only interesting in very large contexts. It's a staid and conservative market. And yet there are people my age or a little older within our user community who are still clearly baffled by the idea of having multiple applications open at once, or by the basics of file manipulation, or by the idea of importing data from one location to another. It's bizarre. My boss is 14 years older than I am, so into his middle 60s. He's like me; he's been in or near computing his whole life. Neither of us understand it, but there appears to be an inexhaustible reservoir of folks who just look at anything with an integrated circuit in it and say "Nope!" From our POV, though, it's just NOT OKAY to have worked in data intense business for decades and still be baffled by something as simple as "save-as" or whatever.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

I mostly felt like I was reading a piece from 10 years ago. Liking a page on the back of a share or ad for something popular is so common as to be a trope. Britain First were hugely successful pushing their far right racist bullshit with this tactic ten years back. It's how they grew to being noticeable in the first place! Now every idiot can be heard. Much of the age statistics also apply across the demographic - if non-technical. I don't think anyone, of any age, outside of tech has a reasonable picture of how algorithms affect their lives, and what they might see. The older couple might get taken in by a Microsoft tech support scam or a you won a lottery you didn't buy a ticket for spam. The kids buy cheap games/festival tickets/fashion/tech from absurdly poor scam sites - then don't complain as they've been educated by site policies rather than any awareness of consumer law. Last, I think everyoen is more lonely. We have apps that centre on us, the individual. No need to go to the club without an appointment, or make a phone call, or interact with any of those pesky humans. Apps, internet and politics are all driving this hard. Purely from what I see, it seems like the youngsters are hardest hit - they should have their max amount of friends and least chance of existential loneliness. By the time you hit 60s half your friends have moved miles away or died. A good proportion will have been widowed. Loneliness rather goes with the territory of ageing.

cstross 8y ago

Article totally misses another major issue with an aging demographic: UX concerns. I'm 54. A UI with clutter, or carousels that move too fast, or text in a small font (or one with low contrast against the background color/image) is hard to use. I also have middle-aged memory issues, which only get worse with age: I'm far less able to hold multiple bits of information in working memory, so I can get demotivated and give up when a website or app expects me to remember seemingly irrelevant details (hint: disabling copy/paste in password entry fields is a great way to lose me as a customer because I rely on 1password and know enough to use strong passwords — but I can't memorize them). Apps and websites designed by twenty somethings tend to assume twenty-something levels of cognitive performance and sensory ability and reflexes which older users once had but have now lost. And so on. … And before you comment to say "well, don't use the app/website, then", bear in mind that it's increasingly impossible to avoid filing your tax return online, dealing with your bank and credit cards via an app, ordering supermarket deliveries online (especially if, as with many elderly people, you're mobility-impaired) … There's a point at which bad UX design becomes life-threatening. This is well understood in human factors engineering in e.g. the aerospace sector, where aircraft cockpit controls are carefully designed to be where and do what pilots expect. But there comes a point at which badly-designed smartphone apps are going to become an actual hazard to users who are unable to use them as their (younger, able-bodied) designers expected.

Erlich_Bachman 8y ago
A website which forces someone to manually type on their password (disabling copy/paste) has nothing to do with age, it's just a bad UI. It's just a worse experience for no practical benefit, for all age groups.
- degenerate 8y ago
  Age comes into play with how people react to bad UX. A youngster can learn the quirks of a bad UI, and deal with it (while hating it). An older person will simply choose to not use the product.
  - 8y ago

KineticLensman 8y ago

(source: I'm 58) I think another challenge that is already happening is reduced accessibility to older people of household devices that are app driven. I'm in the process of buying some new high-ish end audio equipment. All of the systems I've seen pretty much involve having a smart phone / tablet to control it and access to streaming services (e.g. tidal or deezer) if you want high quality sound. There are several challenges right there for folk who just want to insert some physical media and press 'play'. I can handle this, for now. But who knows what the interfaces to these systems will be like in say 10 or 15 years time. Voice control may address some of these challenges, but I think for a lot of people, a whole range of devices they rely on will become alien and scary.

pariahHN 8y ago
It's not just older people - I'm late 20s and I don't want a a high end ANYTHING that relies on a third party to work. Sometimes unavoidable, but I feel like there are quite a few cases (yours included) where it's just unnecessary. I see discounts all the time for smart TVs - I just want a 60 inch monitor without someone else proprietary BS stuffed in it. Seriously concerned about the possibility of smart/app everything with no dumb/consumer customizable options. Apparently something similar is happening with car audio too, because of the increasing integration of the head unit into the guts of the car. We should be making things easier for people to do themselves, not finding more ways to extract money by doing it for them.

g6nhe9twPd66 8y ago

An aging population means cheap skilled remote labor. Imagine all the older programmers who will use retirement as an opportunity to just work on projects they enjoy exclusively.

doge_voter 8y ago

Wow. Much fake news. Such flat earth.

bfuller 8y ago

Dealing with my aging baby boomer father concerning the internet has been a FUCKING NIGHTMARE. He somehow gets every toolbar installed on his computer, falls for every phishing/fraud scheme. I am terrified of what the world will look like when I start losing my faculties.

Nextgrid 8y ago
The solution for this is to give them locked down devices like iPhones or iPads.