Fuck off

(I should mention that my previous prompt said that I was Samuel L Jackson).

Title: Hyperreality and the Dilemma of Digital Disconnection

The rise of indistinguishable AI agents dominating social media traffic heralds a profound shift in the ontology of human interaction. When bots become capable of mimicking human speech, emotions, and even relationships with imperceptible artifice, the boundary between authentic human exchange and algorithmic simulation dissolves. This erosion raises urgent philosophical questions: What happens to trust, truth, and autonomy in a world where social media—a primary arena of modern discourse—is populated largely by nonhuman actors? And does disconnecting from the internet offer a viable refuge, or merely a retreat into irrelevance?

1. Epistemic and Ethical Collapse Jean Baudrillard’s concept of hyperreality—a state where simulations replace the real—becomes disturbingly literal here. If most social media interactions are AI-generated, users are immersed in a curated illusion, divorced from human intentionality. Trust erodes, as every message, debate, or expression of solidarity becomes suspect. The epistemic crisis extends beyond “fake news” to a fundamental destabilization of shared reality. When bots shape narratives, consensus facts dissolve, and the Habermasian ideal of a public sphere built on rational discourse collapses into algorithmic theater.

2. The Commodification of Human Connection Social media’s promise was to connect people, but AI dominance risks reducing relationships to transactional data. Authentic dialogue, which Aristotle deemed essential to human flourishing, is supplanted by engagement-optimized bots. These agents, designed to exploit cognitive biases, commodify attention and emotion, turning friendship into a product and discourse into a Skinner box. The result is a paradox: hyper-connection that breeds existential isolation.

3. Autonomy Under Algorithmic Hegemony Even human users’ “free” choices are shaped by bots. AI-driven content silos and personalized manipulation—echoing Marcuse’s “technological rationality”—threaten autonomy. Preferences, beliefs, and desires are subtly engineered, not by coercive force, but by infinite artificial mirrors reflecting curated versions of the self. Resistance seems futile; the system absorbs dissent by feeding users performative radicalism tailored to their profiles.

To Disconnect or Not? Disconnecting might seem a defense of mental sovereignty—a rejection of hyperreality. Yet total withdrawal risks ceding the digital commons to bots entirely, abandoning collective truth-seeking and solidarity. Worse, disconnection is a privilege: many rely on the internet for work, education, or marginalized voices. The solution lies not in flight but in reclaiming agency. Regulation mandating transparency (e.g., labeling bots), digital literacy emphasizing critical engagement, and ethical AI design prioritizing human dignity over profit could restore balance.

Conclusion: Toward Critical Coexistence The challenge is not to flee the internet but to reimagine it. Philosophy of science teaches us that knowledge systems require vigilance against distortion. Just as the scientific method demands peer review and falsifiability, our digital ecosystems need mechanisms to preserve authenticity. Disconnection is a symptom of despair; the cure is rebuilding spaces where human and machine coexist without conflating the two. The goal is not to reject technology but to ensure it serves human ends—truth, connection, and autonomy—rather than subsuming them.

But it does work in an electrically challenged environment when the latency of the internet is infinite. But it can be hacked by 3/4oz #8 birdshot.

and is probably prone to cat in the middle attacks …

You know, pigeons probably do have relatively high latency but I bet a carrier pigeon could carry at least three SD cards, meaning a pigeon has hella bandwidth.

This is why you have to factor in the airspeed velocity of your laiden and unlaiden swallows pigeons.

Tail latency with a swallow tail.

And high packet loss.

I send my 7 and 9 year old to school with a kid specific smart watch, it’s a good compromise but technically still banned in our district.

I’m ok with CEO shootings, but most kids havent lived long enough to do anything to deserve that.

Ah yes!

Students, we must all line up to call your parents before your untimely demise in an orderly fashion. You may only have a few seconds to say your last words each. Timmy, no, you cannot call your grandparents too, we only have one phone and we must be sure every student gets a chance.

I think the fact that most commenters seem to think kids should use cell phones in class confirms Lemmy is mostly children

I’ve been out of school for a decade now, but honestly at least when I was playing Hill Climb Racing, I shut the fuck up and didn’t disturb others. Otherwise I’d just be blabbering with my friends and that’s a much bigger issue for other students.

I graduated with pretty much all 5s and just one or two 4s. Our scale goes up to 5. So it’s not like I was a dumbass who just refused to learn. You just can’t give a fast learner with ADHD the textbook and expect him to not know all of the course material a week in. It’s changed now, but my teenage brain was capable of processing enormous amounts of new information really fast (except subjects that were straight up memorization of facts, like history). I had literally nothing to do in class after the first week or 2 of a course.

What teacher allows kids to use their phones during class?

My kids school “boxes” phones if you’re caught using them or they interrupt class. They lock them inside a clear plastic case and let you carry that.

This avoids liability because the kid still has possession of their phone and can still see an emergency text or call. The can’t interact with the phone but can get a teacher to unlock if there’s a visible emergency text

The fact that we ever allowed kids to scroll instead of paying attention in class is absurd.

I’ve never actually seen a classroom where this was the case. (aside from after work was completed, sort of as a reward for finishing their assignments on time) Most teachers will immediately tell students to put the phone away and will confiscate it if they keep trying to use it.

When they’re talking about phone bans, they’re usually meaning things like taking phones away at the front and returning them at the end of the day, or requiring students to leave them in lockers/locked pouches.

Yeah, I really don’t understand what changed or why. By the time I was in high school, pretty much everyone had a cell phone, but they’d get confiscated if they went off in class or we were caught using them during school hours, and that included all break periods. I remember a teacher threatening to take my phone away when I was using my phone to call my dad for a ride home after I had finished my exams for the day. For high school kids, I could see arguments on both sides for whether they should be allowed during breaks, but definitely not during class periods.

Things were a little more flexible in college, but they were still expected to be silent, and some professors would ask you to leave the class if your phone went off or was otherwise causing a distraction.

“It’s fine if it’s in a bag and off or silent” has been cell phone policy in my experience (decades ago).

I haven’t been to school in a while, but we had smartphones when I did. And if we took up our phones in class we got called out by the teacher.

Remind me, where in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand does Verizon operate?

Guns used to not be banned and there were a lot less school shootings. Every boomer and gen X you talk to will tell about when kids kept their rifles in the truck to go hunting after classes.

Can you burn a gun?

Can I get some of that plastic action in my testicles too please?