Exactly. I've carefully tailored my feed so it provides me with a huge amount of dog photos. Now every time I get on there my mood is usually boosted seeing cute dog photos and videos.
100% agree with this, as do several of my friends. Curated correctly (pretty easy to do), Instagram becomes a place of respite and solace.
And for some, a pleasant peaceful channel before going to sleep for the night. Kind of ironically :)
That's not using Instagram in general anymore though, that's heavily censoring Instagram towards very non-typical streams.
It's as if responding to someone that said that one can never find any positive stream on Instagram, when people actually complained about what Instagram, at its majority, and as is used by most, is.
Everyone's Instagram feed is different and that's by design. Everyone curates differently for themselves. I don't think the point you're making is really that strong.
Media broadly is what you make of it. Turn on the TV and flip to CNN, I'm sure you'll be depressed within a couple minutes. At some basic level the burden of information curation rests on you - the human. You can't keep blaming CNN, Instagram, Facebook, Buzzfeed, etc etc ad infinitum.
At some point you have to step back and take the responsibility of information intake into your own hands.
That's not to say you don't have a valid point. You absolutely do have a valid point. But it's not as useful of a point as you're suggesting imo.
> The median salary for women working full-time is about 80 percent of men’s.
I don't need to read any further because I've read it all before. Women tend do different jobs to men. Easier, safer, less responsibility and less stress. That's not a wage gap, it's just a different choice of career. Which makes the next statement downright offensive:
> That gap, put in other terms, means women are working for free 10 weeks a year.
But that doesn't take into account responsibility or actual job done at all. Organisations only have a limited number of job titles and at higher levels people are not as expendable. They do their own job.
The only thing that does seem to explain a gap---but a much smaller gap---is that men are more likely to negotiate their salaries.
We've banned this account for using HN primarily for ideological battle. That's an abuse of this site, as stated in the site guidelines and illustrated by the tire fire below. Please don't create HN accounts to break the site rules with.
> We've banned this account for using HN primarily for ideological battle.
You seem to only take issue with one side of the "ideological battle", it's almost like you just banned the account because someone said something you didn't like.
If you would really believe what you say, you would not let "gender pay gap" and "women in tech" topics be posted at all.
The key word in your comment is 'seem'. It seems that way not because it's true—we've banned many accounts for abusing HN from the opposite ideological side—but because there's a cognitive bias in such perceptions. People with the opposite ideology have the opposite perception.
People here might be more willing to respond to your question if you didn't refer to a highly researched Washington Post article as a conspiracy theory.
> People here might be more willing to respond to your question if you didn't refer to a highly researched Washington Post article as a conspiracy theory.
People don't have to respond, trying to dodge the question with an appeal to authority proves my point just fine.
Your "highly researched" article doesn't deal with responsibility and seniority(mainly because there is no data for that) and makes funny claims such as "two very similar occupations, janitors (mostly men) and housekeepers (mostly women).", that's the equivalent of me saying "Worpdress development is similar to Enterprise Java Development" and for some reason one pays an order of magnitude more.
You don't understand what a conspiracy theory is. It's when a covert organization covers up a malicious act. You're just using inflated language to describe what's ultimately just a mistaken argument.
If my argument is "mistaken", why are you focusing on the language that I used instead of just disproving my argument?
I would also be interested that if the gender wage gap is real and it is as believers describe it, how would you explain it without going into conspiracy land.
Because your arguments are probably correct. I never claimed otherwise. I took issue with your language. You're contributing to the polarization by using unnecessary, inflammatory, and inaccurate language. That's the problem.
Claiming that across the US women get paid 20% less than men, for doing exactly the same work with exactly the same qualifications with everything aside from genitals being equal is not a conspiracy theory in your opinion? Claiming that society is sexist in that way is not a conspiracy theory?
Even if I grant you that I used harsh language, I take issue with your priorities, I would priorities truth over political correctness.
Are you saying that conspiracy theories are all true?
> I'm not sacrificing truth to point out your mistake.
You are wasting 100% of your effort on arguing semantics instead of engaging with my actual argument, sounds like a tradeoff to me. And no, it's not a mistake, don't know where you got that idea from.
