Very next article after the previous one. warning auto-play video, thanks BBC.
The same World Health Organization that is trying to claim being single is a disability and wants to put limits on video game play time, but not TV. What is completely lost in the article is that 16 year olds, boys in particular are not watching television. Old article. Spoiler, TV is for old people If people were playing 4 hour a day of games, and watching 4-6 hours a day of television, I think we would have a problem that needs addressing. Instead we are at the point of the shift where one medium is dying and a new one is replacing it. When I was home, the family watches TV ALL THE DAMN TIME. It's all shit. All of it. And from the commercials, the age they think they can target is 60. I did not see a single ad in two weeks on "normie" TV for people under 30 or so targeted. I know it has to be out there, and my parents watch prime time TV (some crime shows) and I also get that my sample is way skewed off normal. Daytime TV? Ads for Medicare and old people drugs. Fox News? Commercials selling fear, panic and social security. HGTV? Applebees.
Will be interesting to see what Hubski's take on this article is.
This part got me wondering, so I went looking.
This is what the author of the definition has to say:
It's proposed to write infertilty — classified a disability — in such a way that would include any person not able to have children, couples and single people (apparently, because you can't fertilize the egg alone). It tries real hard to sound inclusive, but it seems both an attempt to bend the word of the "law" and a ham-fisted, unempathetic, stereotype-scientist act for equality. It's an inadequate measure to provide same access to in vitro fertilization to both couples and single parents-to-be. A bit of a miss, I would say.
FYI, the WHO online definition of infertility still takes it as a couple thing, for both definitions provided:
Onto the article itself.
...the paper that's both unreliable and heavily misrepresented. Its sample size is a hundred MySpace users (back in 2011, MySpace had [almost 30 million users]), and their cited studies have no more than 250 people of sample size. It's of same veritability as BBC's Twitter poll — which is to say, almost nil. Granted, however: it was born at the time of icebreaking of the unknown social-network addictions seas.
Here's what the paper says on the matter:
Then, citing one of the three SNS-addiction papers:
Uh-huh... no. The paper itself is nothing to reliably use as an argument for SN addiction. The big one that they cite below, however, has 23k+ sample size, which may be a better source of conclusive data.
I didn't bother to dive into the other papers cited.
Like the article says, it's not the frequency or the quantity that matters: it's the context of usage. I could be depressed out of my mind and spend two hours in the "Recommended" part of the social network, absorbing with the morbid pleasure just how little people contact me in any sort of ways online, or I could spend the same two hours throughout the day discussing a project with my class-/group-/workmates. I could be browsing the endless newsfeed made of low-value posts of pictures reposted from Reddit, or I could be conversing with people all over the country and the world because we have no other way to contact each other.