2030: Cyborg w/AI will fry your brain. Literally though.

Did not miss it just thought you were lazy, and I was right. You’ve never even heard of logical fallacies, have you?

Quick review: I fully understand your point, as demonstrated by you not correcting me, despite being repeatedly challenged to do so. You think you understand mine, but do not. And never have. Which is why you’re so full of yourself here. Again, laughably so.

You couldn’t argue your way out of a paper bag. Proof: this discussion. You don’t even know which way is up.

I do appreciate the fun though.

lol @ copy and paste. You’re committing a second logical fallacy: appeal to authority.

Still so wrong “bro”

You’re out here swinging on a straw man if you can’t restate what you think my position is, and have it be remotely accurate. Which, so far, you’re not even close.

Did I summarize your position well enough? Any clarifications?

How can you be arguing with someone and not even know what their position is? No, none of your prior posts come close.

Naw, screw “know” - you’re fucking clueless. You have no idea and are screaming into the wind.

You got it wrong and aren’t willing to recognize that. The fact that you can’t even paraphrase my point (no matter how wrong you think I am) shows just how out of your depth that you are.

What do you think my original point was?

Yours was essentially “it doesn’t matter if he said addiction or not, he was dodging the question. All the evidence points towards him claiming that much usage is not an addiction.”

You really don’t understand and are just driving the point home the more you post. I feel kinda sorry for you.

You support lying. Good to know.

If you don’t understand the tomato comment, no wonder you’re having so much trouble with the interpretation and lying topics!

Did the douchebag say exactly what the post title said he said?

I recommend a re-read, my good buddy, of all my posts in this thread.

Truth. Not lies. Not conjecture.

This can be the truth that he was dodging the question.

Don’t say people said things they didn’t say. Simple.

Post said he said a thing. He did not say the thing. Not complicated.

Could have worded the post title to be accurate: didn’t. Instead, lied.

Words matter. Truth matters. Interpretation is how you get religious people performing atrocities based on millennia old writings.

“[Asshole] Squirms Under Questioning, Refuses To Admit 16hrs A Day Is Addictive Behavior.”

Not hard.

What editing? Didn’t edit either if those posts.

I just dislike sensationalism.

If the truth isn’t enough, then I don’t want it.

Post headline deserves a downvote. Quote from article:

Lanier asked Mosseri what he thought of K.G.M’s longest single day of use of Instagram being 16 hours.

“That sounds like problematic use,” the Instagram boss answered. He did not call it an addiction.

He also didn’t say it was a tomato. Like wtf do you want, I can’t tell if he was asked specifically if 16 hours a day was an addiction. The prior question was about whether he had known she had a 16hr day, and he had not. (He should have; poor trial prep.)

This is sensationalist BS and I dearly want this platform to be better than that.

Just so we’re clear, Meta can die in a fire and the world would be better off, I’m not defending them in the slightest.