We continue to see and hear so many bullshit about socials, even from big brands. Let we compare Reddit, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, Telegram, Twitter and Facebook in proper way. What can we discover? Reddit and Telegram are one of the best socials available. Description: List means you can organise different feed in list (without need to follow / join a community / channel at all!) Topics is more related that a community can be opened about a specific topic. 3 apps means that you can use such service, without need to visit the original website at all! Even if we marked all as possible, social with the red circle are problematic socials where such things work almost bad. This means even be able to check other socials directly using Telegram! No login means that you don't need to login to scroll feed or search things. Or at least you don't see a stupid login popup after 2 seconds.

Why people don't change mind in front of facts - part 1 Well the fact is THAT BOTH ARE AGGRESSIVE, instead of thinking with the brain. Means even Israel, just think this example, but there are many more https://t.me/IsraelWarBullshit/579 It's pretty ridiculous that in 2023 PEOPLE ARE NOT ABLE TO REFLECT ON INFORMATIONS THEY GET OR TO TALK ABOUT ... they need to fight directly. At least Ben did it better in this scene https://t.me/IsraelWarBullshit/753 but such things are not done by many people They have their ideas and they continue to keep such ideas, because reflecting and maybe changing mind is to difficult. Obviously this doesn't happen only with the war, but all things. Just think how many people are still using WhatsApp, even if Telegram is offering more and all things are better. Once people fell "this is perfect" it's difficult to put such people away from their idea "this is perfect", even if in reality "this is not perfect" ... Conclusion (from a research done in 2023): This article (post) may not change your mind As argued above, decades of research in multiple elds have demonstrated the limited effectiveness of scientific evidence for shifting social norms, creating uptake of new behaviors, or even generating effective solutions. Most attitudes and behaviors regarding conservation decision-making are not based on the rational evaluation of evidence, but determined instead by a host of contextual, social, and cultural factors and values. Therefore, providing additional information – even in accessible formats - is not likely to lead to significant changes. Similarly, it is questionable whether an evidence-based article such as this one will serve to change minds, as accepting the claims above may challenge one's prior beliefs about science communication, and perhaps even one's sense of how the world works. Attitudes and beliefs are highly resistant to change, and scientists are as prone as anyone else to “seeing what we believe” (Gorman and Gorman, 2016).