this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2025
12 points (92.9% liked)
Casual Conversation
3184 readers
377 users here now
Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.
RULES (updated 01/22/25)
- Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling. To be concise, disrespect is defined by escalation.
- Encourage conversation in your OP. This means including heavily implicative subject matter when you can and also engaging in your thread when possible. You won't be punished for trying.
- Avoid controversial topics (politics or societal debates come to mind, though we are not saying not to talk about anything that resembles these). There's a guide in the protocol book offered as a mod model that can be used for that; it's vague until you realize it was made for things like the rule in question. At least four purple answers must apply to a "controversial" message for it to be allowed.
- Keep it clean and SFW: No illegal content or anything gross and inappropriate. A rule of thumb is if a recording of a conversation put on another platform would get someone a COPPA violation response, that exact exchange should be avoided when possible.
- No solicitation such as ads, promotional content, spam, surveys etc. The chart redirected to above applies to spam material as well, which is one of the reasons its wording is vague, as it applies to a few things. Again, a "spammy" message must be applicable to four purple answers before it's allowed.
- Respect privacy as well as truth: Don’t ask for or share any personal information or slander anyone. A rule of thumb is if something is enough info to go by that it "would be a copyright violation if the info was art" as another group put it, or that it alone can be used to narrow someone down to 150 physical humans (Dunbar's Number) or less, it's considered an excess breach of privacy. Slander is defined by intentional utilitarian misguidance at the expense (positive or negative) of a sentient entity. This often links back to or mixes with rule one, which implies, for example, that even something that is true can still amount to what slander is trying to achieve, and that will be looked down upon.
Casual conversation communities:
Related discussion-focused communities
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm not sure to understand what you mean?
We consume less by doing more. Say, we watch less YouTube about what we want to do and start doing more of what it is we want to do.
And we're less concerned by profit the moment we start doing stuff or going more toward people (spending time with them) without expecting much if anything in return beside enjoying their company and/or enjoying doing that stuff we are doing. Without expecting to be paid anything in return.
As far as being more productive, I'm not sure to understand what you mean either but, here again, doing more is a fine starting point.
It's consumerism that wants us to believe we need to endlessly consume (aka spend more money and time) to do stuff. We don't.
Well, yes, we do need to consume a little resources and we also need to feed/teach our head (ideas as well as art don't come out of nowhere), but we certainly don't need to constantly be stuffing ourselves with new content or tools—think obesity, but for the mind.
So, if we want to be able to do interesting stuff on our own. We start by learning to do (interesting) stuff. Aka, by doing crappy stuff. And that's true for every single things we may wish to do.
We don't need to consume any content to be social. But here again maybe I don't understand the question, what would be a type of 'content conducive to being social'?
BTW, our species have existed (aka being social) for million of years, meanwhile Twitter/X and the others have existed since around 2005. So, we clearly don't need them to be ourselves but they absolutely need and want us to think otherwise so they can sell us more ads and make more money.
@[email protected] Well to be honest, there was a time on the internet that felt like people produced content which was not driven in any way by profit. This content was purely made to socialise with other people who spent a lot of time using the internet.
I think the internet has a lot of potential for being a place for growing ourselves individually and socially, instead of being somewhere toxic or profit driven. That's what I mean by productive: growing ourselves and growing community. Also growing these things without some form of profiting company looming over it.
That's how I view something like the fediverse, or how I view personal blogs like your own blog for example.
I only mentioned social media apps, not the Internet which is much older (I started using BBS in the early 80s and my first web browser was Mosaic). So yeah, the Internet has the potential, and always had. Not sure it will have for much longer though but that's another question.
The issue is that for more and more people 'the Internet' is nothing but an empty space in which they can find their 'app of choice' or their service of choice. And they have no idea there is a thriving world that is well-alive outside of those walled gardens Including the many remaining blogs—like mine, which is tiny, and so many others. A lot of blogs are and non corporate owned websites also try to monetize their content, though, but many, like mine, do not.
Edit: clicked publish too quickly, added the rest of my reply.