Inactive On Social Media Quotes

Being nonracist will not change our current situation of racism. It may make you feel like you're a good person. But it, once again, reinforces racism. There is no action in being non-racist. You may be conscious of not saying racist statements and you yourself may feel like you are making a difference by sharing a quote from an African poet on social media. The reality is: inaction will do nothing other than maintain the old normal. Action, being anti-racist, will make change.

Google, he explained, offered its employees a wide range of benefits and programs designed to make their lives and jobs better and to solve such problems as undersaving for retirement, overuse of social media, physical inactivity, unhealthy eating, and smoking.

Just before the world ended, people hated the word moist. Poverty was still a problem. Terrorism was a big issue at the time. Genocide was always happening somewhere. But you had to be careful when using the word moist. It was acceptable if you were describing cake, but if you used it in any other sense you were sure to get a talking to. Most people didn’t know a terrorist personally. If we had, then maybe more of us would have told them off with stern words and clever slogans. You couldn’t yell at poor people at all. It wasn’t acceptable. You couldn’t even wonder out loud why they were poor without being an insensitive ass. You couldn’t even suggest a new solution to the problem without being labeled horrible things. Perhaps it was this lack of outlet that caused so much frustration regarding the word moist. We couldn’t do anything about international terror or rampant poverty, but we could always chastise a friend for using a word that made them uncomfortable. Maybe this is why so much effort was put into hating the word. They scorned their friends whenever it was used and followed the scorning with a two-minute rant about how much they hated the word. They spent time and creative resources developing flowcharts for when the word was appropriate and clever cartoons to express just how much it annoyed them when it was used outside of cake references. They shared all of this on social media and built a wall of criticism that kept people in check. We could shut out what we didn’t want to hear. We felt free to berate anyone who thought different than us. By doing this, we fought the good fight. We were activists despite our inactivity. Moist was a line drawn in the sand and we stood behind our walls daring anyone to cross it. It may seem silly now. It may seem that our outrage was misdirected, but it made us feel safe. We stood behind our walls fighting our own battles against the things that offended us most. Times were good as long as the real problems were well outside our walls.

While our discourse has been shrouded in sensational hysteria, the three primary stakeholders at the center of the controversy—the platforms, the politicians, and the people—have all been pointing their fingers at each other. Social media platforms blame our ills on a lack of regulation. Governments blame the platforms for turning a blind eye to the weaponization of their technology. And the people blame their governments and the platforms for inaction. But the truth is, we’ve all been asleep at the switch. In the end, each of us must take responsibility for the part we are playing in the Hype Machine’s current direction.

According to the segmentation, there is a hierarchy of internet users, including inactives, spectators (people who watch and read online content), joiners (people who join and visit social media), collectors (people who add tags to webpages and use RSS feeds), critics (people who post ratings and comments online), and creators (people who create and publish online content).