Appstinence is just one of a seemingly growing constellation of groups, mostly led by young people, advocating for reduced reliance on technology, either for one’s own mental health or as a protest against powerful tech companies that have an ever-growing hold on all aspects of our lives.
I’ma be real with you. Choosing to dump technology entirely instead of learning to use it responsibly and finding things that aren’t dominated by corporations looking to control us seems really short sighted and leaning into false promise of things being different at best.
It’s quite like the whole Climate Change movement and how we won’t do anything to constrain giant corporations or billionaires in how they impact the planet, but instead individuals (often poverty stricken) are expected to shoulder the burden through recycling programs that don’t even end up recycling what those individuals take the time to sort.
It’s also eerily similar to the anti-AI movement which focuses on all the most negative aspects of AI generation, ignores the benefits of locally-hosted models as opposed to giant models owned by corporations run out of energy and water hogging data-centers, and similarly ignores that the AI that consistently is a failure is general purpose AI whereas highly specialized AI is often very successful. I am by no means an AI lover, I don’t use it at all in my every day life, but I think it’s foolhardy to write it off entirely instead of making regulations that prevent this kind of environment-destroying investment in endless data centers for profit. Much like the Climate Change issue, it’s the smallest and weakest among us shouldering the burden, making our own lives harder, while nothing materially changes and AI advances anyway.
These modern Luddites are not wrong that some aspects of the modern era are terrible, but some of the things they decry are the same things that are so beautiful about it. When I was a young person, finding LGBTQ+ or atheist groups was basically impossible without the internet. As someone who grew up in a relatively rural area, it was hard to make friends and connections even in a mostly unconnected world (I am in my forties, for reference, so I grew up in the era of CompuServe and AOL being the only “online” options). Having the internet suddenly opened me up to finding people who I could actually be open and vulnerable with, something I couldn’t say was true about most of my IRL peers at the time. Returning to that, especially at a period where Christofascism is taking hold, is asking to let the Christofascists dictate how society looks and functions and removing those footholds of access for people who are queer or atheist or disabled. It returns us to an unconnected world where people suffer in silence for decades not knowing that there is nothing wrong with who they are deep down as they are regularly shamed and abused by their IRL peers for not appearing or acting the “right” way.
Especially with the likelihood of modern communication methods being clamped down upon, embracing the technology and finding ways to use it to benefit humankind instead of deciding it’s all evil is the way forward. The world was, for example, a better place with Fred Rogers in it, who leveraged the technology of television, often villainized as terrible for children, as a way to connect with children and educate them in a healthy, humane, and loving way. I see shades of that type of villainization in this movement, equating screen time with being unhealthy.
All tools are able to be misused. All tools are able to be used positively. It’s all in who is using those tools and what their aims and intents are. A hammer can be used to both create and destroy in positive ways in the trade of construction. A hammer can also be wielded as a violent, dangerous weapon. It all depends on whose hands it is in, and what they aim to use that tool for.
Dropping technology instead of standing for using it in positive ways will always be tantamount to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I think you make a wise point for most people. I’ll bet it’s a pretty cool community, though. You can maybe avoid the worst things about tech through smart moderation but you can’t step back in time to the pre-smartphone era that way. If crowds of young people are rediscovering drugs, card games, and sitting around fucking each other I’d call that good news for the world.
Even bob marley was a small axe.
Excellent, insightful comment and I very much appreciate and resonate with this response.
I do think the protest serves to raise awareness, even if it’s a bit extreme. The desired effect is not really to encourage the complete rejection of tech, but bring attention to the issues and get the average person to think a little more about their usage of it. I’m actually kind of proud of these young folks for being able to snap themselves out of the social media-induced hypnotic state their generation seems to be stuck in.
There‘s a lot of emotions there that lead to irrational decisions. I can‘t really blame them. These tiny slabs robbed them of a childhood that me and many other generations got to enjoy.
Appstinence is something that I couldn‘t imagine doing because it‘s so drastic and I don‘t have that kind of relationship with my phone where that would be preferable or necessary. But they definitely do and maybe they will learn to have a more healthy relationship to technology afterwards. This could be a necessary step toward a better future for them.
Nah, ludditism is the way. Sincerely, a tech bro.
One counter point is young people drive the technology trends. Look at how social media and the Internet in general took off in the early 2000-2010s, it was driven by younger generations using these technologies. Now everyone is on social media after the younger generations at the time pioneered it.
If younger generations do rejected apps, smart phones, and surveillance capitalism, maybe there could be change in the direction.
Holy shit. I think this is the best comment I have ever read in my entire life. I’ve been complaining about the exact same things to my IRL peers and they all think I’m nuts for having these “beliefs”. Especially the one about recycling.
Yeah I think the focus should be on technological sovereignty, not abstinence. We need control over our data, control over our software, control over our devices, control over our hardware, and through these things we can gain control over our lives while still accessing these extremely useful tools. We need our own search engines, our own operating systems, our own applications, our own email, our own social media, our own video hosting, etc etc. We can never go back, the only way out is through.
This is extremely hard and expensive, though. It’ll require mass organization of millions of people, we can’t do it as individuals.
As another LGBT person who grew up during the advent of the internet and learned that there were words for things I had felt for years thanks to the internet (despite living in a very liberal area), I completely agree with both of you.
However, I want to make one counterpoint that reframes these movements to where I think these people are coming from: People like us here on Lemmy, who are aware of FOSS projects and the like are a minority group.
I see these groups as a reaction based on the belief that you either have to deal with the corporations or give it up entirely because nobody else can offer what they do, and the corporations need us a lot more than we need them. They’re effectively a general strike against the nightmare of corporate walled gardens that the internet at large has become in order to force a correction in the ecosystem, and I think if these groups were made aware of the alternatives out there, we’d probably see a large swing in adoption.
This is why I think we need to get organized. There are these spontaneous masses of people who would be very receptive to libreware and federation, but the message isn’t getting out to them. You have to be a turbonerd to even be aware of this stuff, but the outrage is fertile ground if the message could just get out of obscure corners of the internet.
That’s correct. We can’t put the genie back in the bottle. We have to increase our mastery of it instead.
The core relationship is rather simple and needs to be redefined. Remote compute does not assign numbers to any of us, we provide them with identities we create.
All data allowances are revokable. Systems need to be engineered to make the flow of data transparent and easy to manage.
No one can censor us to other people without the consent of the viewer. This means moderation needs to be redefined. We subscribe to moderation, and it is curated towards what we individually want to see. No one makes the choice for us on what we can and cannot see.
This among much more in the same thread of thinking is needed. Power back to the people, entrenched by mastery.
When you think like this more and more the pattern becomes clearer, and you know what technology to look for. The nice thing is, all of this is possible right now at our current tech level. That can bring a lot of hope.
That is actually a really interesting approach to moderation, huh.
That is just the tip of the iceberg with the moderation framework I have in mind.
Anyone can become a moderator by publishing their block / hide list.
The more people that subscribe to a moderator or a moderator team, the more “votes” they get to become the default moderator profile for a topic (whatever that is on the given platform, subreddit for reddit etc).
By being subscribed to a moderation team (or multiple), when you block or hide, it gets sent to the report queues of who you’re subscribed to. They can then review the content and make a determination to block or hide it for all their subscribers.
Someone who is blocked or hidden is notified that their content has been blocked or hidden when it is by a large enough mod team. They can then file an appeal. The appeal is akin to a trial, and it is distributed among all the more active people that block or hide content in line with the moderation collective.
An appeal goes through multiple rounds of analysis by randomly selected users who participate in review. It is provided with the user context and all relevant data to make a decision. People reviewing the appeal can make decision comments and the user can read their feedback.
All of this moderation has a “karma” associated with it. When people make decisions in line with the general populace, they get more justice karma. That creates a ranking.
Those rankings can be used to make a tiered justice system, that select the best representative sample of how a topic wishes to have justice applied. The higher ranking moderators get selected for higher tiered decisions. If a lower level appeal decision is appealed again, it gets added to their queue, and they can choose to take the appeal or not.
All decisions are public for the benefit of users and accountability of moderators.
When a user doesn’t like a moderator’s decision they can unblock or unhide content, and that counts as a vote against them. This is where it gets interesting, because this forms a graph of desired content, with branching decision logic. You can follow that train of thought to some very fascinating results. Everyone will have a personally curated content tree.
Some will have a “cute” internet, filled with adorable content. Some will have a “violent” internet, filled with war videos and martial arts. Some will have a “cozy” internet, filled with non-triggering safe content. And we will be able to share our curations and preferences so others can benefit.
There is much more but the system would make moderation not just more equitable, but more scalable, transparent, and appreciated. We’d be able to measure moderators and respect them while honoring the freedom of individuals. Everyone would win.
I see a future where we respect the individual voices of everyone, and make space for all to learn and grow. Where we are able to decide what we want to see and share without constant anxiety. Where everything is so fluid and decentralized that no one can be captured by money or influence, and when they are, we have the tools to swiftly branch with minimal impact. Passively democratic online mechanisms.
The newer generation of tech users know only of a narrow subset of technology from big tech / ad tech. They know little of anything at all the grassroots era of technology.
Standing ovation 👏
The rare comment that is so good, I upvote all comments that applaud it!
I have no idea what smashing perfectly functional devices is supposed to accomplish. I mean yeah, it’s an anti-tech rally, but creating e-waste is kinda shitty.
Actually, I don’t think I get the point of this whole thing at all. They’re not rallying against climate change or fascism, it’s just “phone bad”. I guess I’m just too old to get it…
Like a pizza cutter. It’s all edge and no point
Can’t open source Apple phones.
So basically, getting rid of tech that spies on you and can’t be used anymore after a certain point I guess.
And unlike books, tech has made some things worse. Job applications for one thing. When we were young, recruiters had to physically read the letters and/or places hiring had to physically see you in person.
Now hiring agencies just use automated tools (even before AI) and you get ghosted constantly.
Renting and housing has gotten more expensive because prices can be changed on the fly based on market data available 24/7 (effigy is illegal in many places, but that law rarely enforced).
And that’s not getting into brainrot AI content and manipulative machinations of social media.
There’s definitely reasons to be frustrated at tech for the younger generation. And even justifiable reasons to destroy closed source tech.
Comparing to book burnings is only a false equivalence, as you’re not destroying information, you’re destroying locks that require special keys, unlike FOSS.
Job applications for one thing. When we were young, recruiters had to physically read the letters and/or places hiring had to physically see you in person.
Now hiring agencies just use automated tools (even before AI) and you get ghosted constantly.
Yeah, job applications haven’t changed that much.
It was still a dismissive black box, it’s just that the process was more manual. Instead of AI tools throwing your application away, someone skimmed it looking for a particular bullet point, if they don’t find it in 10 seconds your resume is tossed in the bin. Whether it was AI or a manager, either way you’re probably not getting a call back to let you know they tossed your application.
Comparing to book burnings is only a false equivalence, as you’re not destroying information, you’re destroying locks that require special keys, unlike FOSS.
I’m totally with you on this. It’s not book burning because this generation doesn’t own anything to burn in the first place. You don’t buy a movie, you “buy” a license to stream that movie for a period of time. Tragic.
Yeah, job applications haven’t changed that much.
It was still a dismissive black box, it’s just that the process was more manual. Instead of AI tools throwing your application away, someone skimmed it looking for a particular bullet point, if they don’t find it in 10 seconds your resume is tossed in the bin. Whether it was AI or a manager, either way you’re probably not getting a call back to let you know they tossed your application.
The manual review though does improve your odds than an algorithm looking for keywords.
Not to mention sometimes you got feedback of what your odds were of getting hired. If you gave someone your physical resumé, and they just laid it down in a random spot and we’re dismissive, you at least knew immediately that you should probably not expect a call back.
The manual review though does improve your odds than an algorithm looking for keywords.
I mean… It’s a human looking for keywords…
Not to mention sometimes you got feedback of what your odds were of getting hired. If you gave someone your physical resumé, and they just laid it down in a random spot and we’re dismissive, you at least knew immediately that you should probably not expect a call back.
Ok, I guess you could just drop off your resume in person, but then what would happen is you give it to the person at the counter/reception desk/front office/whatever, and then you’d have no idea if it ever even get to a hiring manager. More often you’d just email your resume to the manager/HR (yes we had email in the 90s), so you’d know it would get to the right people, but then would have no idea if anyone actually ever looked at it unless you got a call back.
To be fair I was referring to the 80s 👴
So basically, getting rid of tech that spies on you and can’t be used anymore after a certain point I guess.
There are enough people that are perfectly fine with having any phone or any device to do basic stuff like making calls. And besides, if you wanted to get rid of something there are more responsible ways to do that than “me don’t like, me smash” IMO
And that’s not getting into brainrot AI content and manipulative machinations of social media.
It’s very easy to not use social media (in a harmful way) and not consume brainrot AI content in my opinion. Sure, it’s getting more difficult to differentiate I guess, but it’s still not that difficult if you try even a little bit
Comparing to book burnings is only a false equivalence
Which is why I didn’t make that comparison, I guess you wanted to reply to @Buffalox@lemmy.world
There are enough people that are perfectly fine with having any phone or any device to do basic stuff like making calls.
And those people will already have at least a feature phone. The poor don’t stop eating because someone else burns gilded pork fat. In both cases because those things are needed (food, communication in modern society for basic services and work).
It’s very easy to not use social media (in a harmful way) and not consume brainrot AI content in my opinion. Sure, it’s getting more difficult to differentiate I guess, but it’s still not that difficult if you try even a little bit
It actually isn’t. The algorithms for most social media are designed to release dopamine, and humans tend to be social creatures. Sure, if more of society and people knew of the harms it causes, especially particular ones, then it would be easier. But right now? It’s like trying to tell people they shouldn’t smoke in the 1950s.
Btw, we’re using social media right now. Lemmy isn’t immune, and there’s definitely bad actors here that use social media negatively. You either have to avoid All or constantly block communities.
Which is why I didn’t make that comparison, I guess you wanted to reply to @Buffalox@lemmy.world
Whoops yeah, that last part was for them.
It’s similar to burning books IMO.
Buying something just to destroy it will always be moronic no matter what the item is.
It only accomplishes to make the company that makes those items make more money, so they can make even more items.Destroying perfectly functional tech really bothered me too from an environmentalist standpoint. I am always trying to rescue old but working tech and trying to find a use for it or fix it up to pass on to someone in need.
yeah you are very likely too old to get it
Symbolism is a very important aspect of public protest and the consequential reporting on and influence of it.
Actually, I don’t think I get the point of this whole thing at all. They’re not rallying against climate change or fascism, it’s just “phone bad”.
I didn’t read the article in full, but it was pretty clear to me right away from the top. They’re saying: We as a society should prioritize real human connection over consuming big tech platforms.
I might be one of the few in this thread who really empathizes with the perspectives of the protesters here
I’m not in a position to cut tech out of my life, but for people who are and dont need or depend on it for something important, it may do a lot of harm for little benefit.
But whether there’s important benefit will vary from person to person. I have a very isolating sleep disorder, and the internet allows me a little bit more connection than I would get otherwise. And home automation helps shoulder some of the load of managing environmental variables that impact my sleep. And there are also technological things that bring me joy.
But not everyone is in a position where their only connection to others is through the internet (if you’re queer in a small town, maybe it is, if you’re queer in a big city or you’re straight that probably isn’t an issue)
There are ofcourse benefits to technology, some of which you can better access through FOSS software, or community projects, or self hosting. But not everyone needs those things, and even those things can have harmful downsides. I think the hyper convenience that much of tech provides is not exactly great for us. Even the fediverse platforms can be addicting, can prioritize stuff that makes you angry, etc, because they copy the underlying design of proprietary social media (even without recommendation algorithms). I struggle to manage how much time I spend engaging with these platforms. Not as much as with reddit, but I still do, and am now creating structure around engaging more in moderation.
I don’t love creating e-waste though. I get that it’s symbolic, I still think it’s wasteful and has no meaningful upsides. It feels deeply privileged to not grasp how that could be a lifeline for poor people who need a way to connect, keep up with work, handle digital tasks like banking and telemedicine, etc, and to smash it on the ground instead of donating it to someone who couldn’t afford a reliable device.
I think a lot of us empathize with the protesters. I don’t actually see any posts saying “this is dumb”.
I am still confused though. I mean I understand protesting Trump, ICE, and the government in general. I can’t control that, so protest is one of my only courses of action. But with technology… we can just not use it. I think I haven’t used Facebook in over 15 years, I’ve never used Twitter. And I’m happier for it, they’re right, that works. I use a smartphone, but I limit the kind of apps I want to put on it. If I find that something, a phone, app, website, whatever, is impacting my life, keeping me from dealing with daily responsibilities, I know it’s a problem, so I’ll stop using it. My point is, I do have control over my tech use, so why rally about it? After all, all the protests in the world won’t give you better self control, that’s a skill you need to build.
Yeah, I mostly just meant in terms of how much I directly relate with the perspectives of the protesters, it seemed at the time of my comment like most of the commenters looked at things somewhat differently to them (which is fine)
I do think you might really be underestimating how deeply addictive tech can be for many people. For people who grew up on platforms like facebook, Instagram, and twitter, and spent enough time there before reflecting on that pattern, those deeply engrained habits can be difficult to shake to the extent of causing not insignificant anxiety
I had social anxiety as a kid (still do) and so used those platforms almost none because they stressed me out (until I joined reddit in highschool), and even I really struggle with some amount of technology addiction I’m working really hard to replace with better patterns.
I pick my phone up and check all the apps for no reason. I feel a bit anxious if my phone isn’t near by. I run out of time in one app I have a time limit set for and immediately jump to another one. I feel a bit stressed when I have to put it down. Not intensely so, but the more I pay attention the more I can tell it’s there and see how it’s molded my behavioral patterns over time.
I have pretty good solutions to those problems, and think I’m making decent progress, but technology absolutely 1000% has warped my life to be about it. With me often serving it rather than it serving me. I can only imagine how difficult it might be for folks who spent lots of time on those platforms, and are less inclined to tinker with their tech and play with open source stuff, and take alternative technological routes
Tech is good Uber rich tech bros is bad
Throwing the baby out with the bathwater because they think all tech is is walled gardens on toy hardware. Sad. We failed the next generation.
Late stage capitalism is what this is.
The term “late stage capitalism” is not a call to action, it’s a call to apathy. It’s promoted by online influencers to make it permissible to participate in capitalistic endeavors (it doesn’t matter the collapse is inevitable) so they can entice people to buy their merch so they can be rich. It’s a sign that leftism has been successfully captured by capitalism.
I’m a fan of taking back control over my tech, not giving up control. They’re treating it like there’s no other option.
If you listen between the lines we are given by tech companies, right now there is no other option.
Its hard to believe that someone would be aware enough to go to something like this, while not being aware of the existence of alternative solutions that give you more control. But these people do definitely exist. At the same time i think that this group of people is probably quite diverse with some being complete hardliners that want zero tech while others are just against the kind that is extremely damaging to society and the world.
I dunno.
Multiple people in my friend group are aware of the issues with big tech companies.
But the second you bring up FOSS with them, or Linux gets mentioned, they either disengage completely or get angry. One of these people heads an IT department.
I don’t know why they react that way. The weird part is, they’ll happily use FOSS software like VLC or something Minecraft launcher. The second you say it’s FOSS they actually seem less into the software, not more.
Angry about what specifically?
I think it’s a product of having grown up during the time when accessing commercial applications was about as easy as accessing the free ones at a time where many of the free ones were just pale imitations. And before the enshitification had really gotten going.
I think few open source projects enjoy the user satisfaction that VLC does. Even Linux itself is not as friendly to its users.
VLC (by cause or by effect?) also doesn’t have evangelists trying to push it. It doesn’t need them. Contrarianism is a strong motivator in today’s culture.
VLC definitely has evangelists, they have just become the dominant culture so you don’t really notice it. They don’t have an advertising budget, it got popular through word of mouth.
I think Linux enthusiasts appear more evangelical because of the deep entrenchment of Windows; you are noticing the push back and debate, whereas with VLC you just see people recommending it and people being grateful for the recommendation.
It’s the same with vegan food
This comment makes me sad. But I also feel like I’ve seen this. I honestly don’t know where the hate for FOSS comes from. Has this person that hates FOSS ever explained their hatred? Genuinely curious how someone could hate options.
Yeah i know these creatures exist, but i will never understand them. Im always maximally hyped when i see good FOSS alternatives even if they have some minor drawbacks. For example this beautiful app which does OCR and translation completely offline in one app https://f-droid.org/en/packages/dev.davidv.translator/
I get it. My first introduction to FOSS was getting insulted by people for not knowing about FOSS, and it really put me off of things. It was made abundantly clear to me that only smart people know about Linux, and if I didn’t know about Linux, I was too stupid to run Linux and needed to stick to Windows like the loser I was.
So I stuck to Windows because I’d rather be a loser than an asshole. I have since tried linux, but everybody hates that I think Ubuntu is good for n00bs, so there is no winning.
The author works for business inside. He’s 100 % on board with all the heinous shit tech companies are doing
Get out of my head!
misguided. people should be against corporations as they are the ones who make technology a problem.
Removed by mod
This brings person of interest scenario, where someone was using a guy to do protests etc, with messages against the government and AI(the machine). Correct me if I remember wrong.
I would have never guessed the iPad babies would turn on their cyber nannies. Good on you, kiddos.
Fucking conservatives in my opinion. Its not a bad way of spending time, its different. It has a different set of advantages and disadvantages. If you’re too stupid to understand it, just stay away from it. But don’t ruin it for the open minded people who are open to new ideas.
You don’t read a whole lot of scientific articles do you? There is plenty of research (a lot from norweigen studies) that proves you wrong pal. Ipads and phones is a fucking disease for our youngsters, pretty much also for any boomer out there.
Thats because they treat it like a toy, not a tool.
have been using semiconductor based tools for a few decades now. phones and tablets certainly only fit the toy category.
They? We treat it as a toy. All of us. And it’s all because the system is designed that way. Don’t go blaming the young adults, the teens; and the children for something you might also be doing.
Narcissism won’t get you anywhere - our internet is capitalised by corporations and you’re blaming people that are trying to do something about it. To raise some awareness.
Society has to decide as a group how much we will allow people to harm themselves with various addictions. Noone lives alone in this world so why act like it?
I am completely against addictions, including those like algorithmic social media. I am also against people who dont understand tech blaming it instead of blaming the real problem. If we just took a second to understand it we would understand how to use it responsibly.
I’ve spent many hours on this and I still do not understand the real problem. What’s the real problem?
How do you use these devices responsibly?
You could make the same argument about heroin, cocaine, marijuana, pornography, alcohol, video games, etc.
If youll notice, we as a society agree to different levels of restrictions based on the potential harm. Many new technologies cause harm but we find out after the technology is in use, so we need to constantly review and revise things.
Thats a good reason why alcohol is increasingly restricted whole marijuana is decreasingly restricted. New information is available that suggests we adjust our risk assessment.
Which technology are you implying is safer than most people think?
Neoluddites 💅
Heres everyone’s daily reminder that the luddites were not anti-technology.
They were the high-skilled tech workers of their time! They were concerned with the power and wealth concentration that came with industrialists that used automation and abused low skilled labour to make obscene profits. They even proposed plans to phase in the new tech in a humane way before turning to the (ultimately failure of a) strategy to target and destroy specific machines.
Groups like the EFF and tech labour unions have more of a connection with the luddites than people who get together the bust their own iphones.
Being anti AI is one thing. Being anti tech is just stupid. Gen Z really is the useless Generation.
Okie dokie boomer
Remember, no war but class war, stay focused grandpa! Now is not the time for enemies, but for understanding, support and communication.
If you understand tech, computers and the ramifications of how this work, then teach it. Tell them about linux and the libre world of tech they could have. If you’re just here to rant about young people, then you lost yourself.
More like your pissed off older millennial brother who watched Gen Z literally piss everything away by siding with the boomers and Gen X and then act stupid when things went to shit.
As an IT person I get it.
Especially printers.
Cheaper to buy a new one than more ink. Fucking extortionate.
I want this bad boy: https://www.crowdsupply.com/open-tools/open-printer
If it would run a open source firmware or be open source hardware, it would be nice. But they are using a non-OSI/non-FSF license, so it is not open source.
Toner all the way.
Yeah but the cartridges that come with a new printer are usually only 1/3 full. As another guy said, get a printer that uses toner. They’re more expensive (because you’re actually paying for the printer) but you don’t have to worry about ink drying out because it’s toner, it’s supposed to be dry.
Inkjet printers are basically a scam, if you don’t print all that often, the ink will probably be dried up when you go to use it, and if you print frequently, it’ll be cheaper to have a laser printer that uses toner in terms of per page cost.
Refillable inkjets are starting to become a thing. Cool thing about those is that they’re often smaller than a color laser.
Given that I don’t print very often these days. I like having a small printer that I can chuck in a drawer or a closet during the 360 days of the year that I don’t need it.
PC Load Letter?! The fuck does that mean?
That brought back some printer PTSD
It means load Letter size paper. The printer is out of paper.
Haha. I know. 😁
I was quoting Office Space.
Got love the fact that the world both has standardised paper, and predictably the US, exclusively, refuses to use it.
Fuck yes. Especially printers.
But my IT guy advice on the matter is this: ink jet is a scam, don’t buy one, ever; don’t accept one for free. If you print a lot, get a laser printer for home, if you only print a few times a year, get a laser printer for home.
Inkjet printers are good for furry artists who sell prints at conventions. Hmm… that’s actually so specific that it reinforces your point.
I got a 90$ laser printer for home 5 years ago. I’ve printed at least 600 pieces of paper, and have only had to change the toner cartridge once (recently). I can get a 2 pack of toner for about 24$.
This is how i think about printing now: i needed some black paper in a pinch once, so i printed a solid black image on both sides of a sheet of paper.
laser all the way
