#illusionofcontrol

[lologreenll]

                TRUTH

View On WordPress

[tinezrue91]

The Illusion of Control: Embracing Uncertainty in a Chaotic World

You map out your day, tick off the to-do list, and even check the weather forecast. Everything feels handled. And then—your car won’t start. The project you poured your soul into gets canceled. Or one unexpected text flips your entire mood. 😅We build fortresses of control, convinced that planning equals safety. But life has a way of swinging wrecking balls through our carefully constructed walls.…

View On WordPress

[hey-its-haliee]

[W10: Last Night on TikTok: Like Puppets on a String]

“I may win on the roundabout Then I'll lose on the swings In or out, there is never a doubt Just who's pulling the strings” _Puppet on a string - Sandie Shaw_

Digital spaces sell us the dream of community, but let’s not kid ourselves—social media isn’t a utopia; it’s a battlefield. Conflict isn’t a bug; it’s a feature. Harassment? Profitable engagement. Moderation? A joke. Rules? They bend for the rich, and snap for the rest. Governance is a power play, and we’re just the pawns—outraged, entertained, and utterly powerless. Think you have control? That’s adorable. Now, keep dancing, puppet.

1. All of Us Are Dead: Spoiler - It Was Never About “Us”

_ A Clown Show in Three Acts

Ah, the never-ending TikTok ban saga—back again, like the reboot nobody asked for, or a toxic ex swearing they’ve changed.

The government “threatens” to shut it down (again), TikTok plays the helpless victim who screams about free speech, influencers clutch their ring lights in despair, and users? They’re treating this like the season finale of Twilight - a joke. High drama, no stakes. But here’s the real twist—it isn’t about protecting your data; it was never about protecting YOU.

If governments actually cared about your data, they wouldn’t be singling out TikTok while letting Meta, Google, and basically every other tech giant vacuum up your personal info like a Dyson on steroids (yet, no one’s banning them). 

This is a geopolitical chess match—power-hungry governments using "security concerns" to flex “being caring to online users”, meanwhile, TikTok isn’t some underdog fighting for free speech—it’s a billion-dollar empire using this “ban” drama and chaos as free marketing with great publicity.

And influencers? Please. Their loyalty isn’t to TikTok—it’s to views. A fight for digital rights? More like a power struggle wrapped in a PR stunt—and we all fell for it.

Privacy? Security? Eghhh! (buzzing sound) It’s about control.

_Who Runs Social Media? Not You—THAT’S for Sure.

Social media was supposed to be the great equalizer, a space acting as a global town square where every voice mattered. But let’s stop kidding ourselves—users don’t run these platforms. Governments and corporations do.

📌 Governments want control—bans, regulations, data laws—but only when it benefits them. 📌 Tech CEOs pretend to enforce “community guidelines” on platforms, but their real priority? Ad revenue. 💰 Money over morals all day every day, so look alive people! (Suck it up, they mean) 📌 Users? We think we have power, but in reality, we’re just unpaid content creators feeding the machine. We’re the audience…until we become the product.

Social media “governance” is a rigged system where the rules change depending on who’s in power. The only consistent law? Engagement = money.

Online harassment is so baked into digital spaces that people don’t even bother fighting it.

As Haslop, O’Rourke and Southern (2021) point out, it’s become ‘the norm’—just another part of being online.

And that’s exactly how platforms like it. Less effort on moderation, more engagement from outrage. Profits go up, but user safety? Who cares?

2. The Chaotic Clout Chase of the Mediocre: Just How Desperate Are They?

_Clout-Chasing Carnage

When influencers thought TikTok was on its deathbed, they went FERAL, always in full survival mode. 

I mean, let’s not pretend influencer drama is just “organic chaos.” It’s a game—one that’s strategically played.

Marwick and Caplan (2018) argue that harassment is often “coordinated and organized,” and guess what? So are these influencer meltdowns.

✅ Fake scandals. ✅ Over-the-top meltdowns. ✅ Conveniently timed “brand exposures.

Suddenly, everyone had a crisis to capitalize on.

_The Algorithm’s Freak Show

But let’s zoom out: this wasn’t just influencer nonsense. This was proof that social media “governance” is broken. While real issues like misinformation and privacy violations get ignored, the algorithm prioritizes drama, hysteria, and chaos—because it keeps us watching. 

And the worst part? We enable it. We reward the most toxic behavior with views. We rage-comment, hate-watch, and click “just to see what’s happening.” Every time we think we’re above it, we prove we’re just as hooked as the rest.

Yes, that’s the harsh truth: While creators scramble to survive algorithm shifts, the real decision-makers (platform CEOs, investors, politicians) sit back and profit off our panic.

3. Doxing, Drama, and the Rules? Oh, You Thought There Were Rules?

_Rules for Thee, but Not for Me

Online harassment? Don’t act like it’s a one-way street. Yeah, it’s not just a ‘toxic masculinity’ thing like people love to claim.

In reality, men actually report experiencing it at slightly higher rates than women, with 43% of men and 38% of women saying they’ve faced some form of it (Atske 2021).

Power imbalances exist everywhere online, and women? Yeah, they can be just as vicious. Just look at the SSSniperWolf doxing mess—textbook proof that social media “governance” is a total joke.

🔪 Jacksfilms calls out lazy content. 📍 SSSniperWolf retaliates by literally posting his home address. 🚨 And YouTube? They hesitate. Drags its feet on punishing her, because… money.

If you did this? Instant ban. But when a high-earning creator does it? 

The “investigation” suddenly takes weeks.  The rules suddenly become “complicated.” 

The message is clear: The bigger your platform, the fewer consequences you face.

🎭 Rules exist—but only for small creators.

This isn’t just favoritism, heck, the unfairness is the least on the worry list. This is purely dangerous. If “rules” can be bent for profit, what happens when real harm is done? Who decides which threats are taken seriously and which ones get buried under a PR statement?

Spoiler: Not you.

_“You’re a Monster.” Laughs. Try Looking in the Mirror.

This is where it stings: The real villain isn’t just governments, influencers, or tech CEOs. It’s us.

We reward bad behavior with clicks. We complain about toxicity but can’t look away. We outrageously demand accountability from regulation failures, yet never leave the platforms that exploit us.

We built this beast. Now, we’re stuck, waiting for the fate of being eaten alive.

Oh, You Thought You Could Win? Cute.

Social media should be a fair space where digital citizens have rights, where governance protects users, and where tech giants are held accountable. Instead?

📢 Protecting us? No! Governments use it to push their own agendas - They made the rules. 💰Keeping us safe? Is that even a question? Platforms profit off our addiction and outrage. 👀 Users get the illusion of control—but never the power - We just watch.

Social media isn’t failing us—it’s doing EXACTLY what it was built to do.

This was never a democracy. It’s a dictatorship run by algorithms—and we’re just the fuel keeping the fire burning.

Welcome to the Hunger Games, darling. And spoiler alert? We’re not the winners. We’re the game pieces.

You wanna stop being a game piece? Start questioning the rules. Stop feeding the machine just because it’s the ONLY game in town.

References:

Atske, S 2021, ‘The State of Online Harassment’, Pew Research Center, viewed 21 March 2025, .

Haslop, C, O’Rourke, F & Southern, R 2021, ‘#NoSnowflakes: The toleration of harassment and an emergent gender-related digital divide, in a UK student online culture’, Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 1418–1438.

Marwick, AE & Caplan, R 2018, ‘Drinking male tears: language, the manosphere, and networked harassment’, Feminist Media Studies, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 543–559, viewed .

[lauraisabelart]

🔥 The illusion of control is just another blindfold.

Here’s to taking life in with all of its messy twists and turns, its unrelenting knack for humbling us, and its wonderful capacity for magically turning things around every time, just when we’re about to give up. This one’s a New York babe, for sure. 🗽

[dr-alex-zarifis]

New research: Understanding users’ negative emotions and continuous usage intention in short video platforms

Short videos are very popular but if they take up a-lot of people’s time, they gradually change people’s living habits. Therefore it is useful to understand the negative implications of short videos. The results show that users’ viewing many short videos can have negative emotions, and these negative emotions can affect users’ intention to continue to use short video platforms. The model developed in this research shows that there are three negative emotions caused by six factors. Two of these three negative emotions then influence the intention to continue using short videos.

Fig 1. Model of users’ negative emotions and continuous usage intention in short video platforms

From the six factors that cause negative emotions, the five are related to flow theory. Flow theory is relevant here because watching short videos is a flow experience. Flow theory is a state where someone is fully immersed in an activity, they are enjoying it and other things do not seem to matter as much.

The first of the five factors related to flow theory is the low efficiency the user has in their work and other tasks, due to watching short videos. The second is time distortion, meaning that the users perception of time is not as accurate during this activity. What might feel like a short amount of time can be much longer. The third is the harm to their health. Both mental and physical health can be harmed by spending a long time watching short videos. The fourth is the online addiction they experience, making them want to keep watching the short videos. The fifth is online procrastination, making the user watch more short videos to delay working and making decisions related to their work.

The sixth factor that can cause negative emotions is illusion of control. The theory of illusion of control suggests that in some situations a person can be overconfident about their control of a situation. A person can have a level of optimism that they will get the outcome they want, that is unrealistic. The negative emotions include anxiety, sadness and remorse. The research found strong support that sadness and remorse influence the users intention to continue using the short videos.

Reference: Cheng X., Su X., Yang B., Zarifis A. & Mou J. (2023) ‘Understanding users’ negative emotions and continuous usage intention in short video platforms’, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, vol.58, 101244, pp.1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2023.101244

[lologreenll]

MY PEOPLE

“The father gives me the people who are mine. Every one of them will come to me, and I will always accept them.” (John 6:37, NCV).

View On WordPress

[jendotcohen]

#WednesdayWisdom #quote #control #IllusionOfControl #DailyCalm @calm 💜 https://www.instagram.com/p/ChFlSn4uKhO/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=

[lologreenll]

Open to OUR Spiritual Power

Open to OUR Spiritual Power

Our spiritual power is enhanced with each blessing we give. And as our spiritual power is enhanced, life’s trials are fewer. Our struggle to accept situations, conditions, and other people, or our struggle to control them, lessens every day that we recognize and revere one another’s individualistic existence.

View On WordPress