4 ms·

I get what you mean. Half way through the piece I couldn't take it anymore. So much eloquent words saying essentially nothing. A name for this? I'm in! Why? Bec

I get what you mean. Half way through the piece I couldn't take it anymore. So much eloquent words saying essentially nothing. A name for this? I'm in! Why? Because this kind of article is extra harmful due to it's covert nature. One needs to read it before one realizes there's hardly an argument. That is, if you want to read a piece with a clear argument. On the other hand, pieces that just take an (opposite) stand and make me think (like this article did) definitely are valuable to me.

mind-blight 5y ago
I'm really frustrated by this article. I spent the first half arguing with my screen and getting more and more irritated at the condescending critiques of people trying to manage unhealthy screen use. And I really liked the second half, which made me even more irritated with the first. Her main argument is that focusing on individuals undermines our ability to change the systemic problems out current technology creates. Leaving social media may help your mental health, but we still live in a world where social media negatively impacts many of the people around us. We're still impacted by that system even if we're disconnected from our screen. The second half argues that we have to look for communal and systemic change to make the systems better, which I agree with. I just disagree that that can't coincide with individuals also choosing to change what they can about their immediate environment