Nobody clicks your share buttons By Derek Hanson

Read original post →

I saw this blog post on bubbles.town, and the title caught my attention, so I clicked through to read it. It was also timely because just a few days earlier I had added share buttons to my own site.

I don't know if I agree with the conclusion of the post. If share buttons are done tastefully, selectively, and with privacy in mind, I think they're perfectly okay.

We're seeing a trend toward making websites personal again, a little like they were in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Social sharing buttons started becoming common as services like Twitter and Facebook (UGHHH!) grew in popularity. Email, of course, has always been around.

I think the more ways people have to share something, the better, as long as those options are implemented tastefully and don't track visitors. Especially today, when people may prefer one platform over another, whether that's Mastodon, Bluesky, Twitter (I still can't bring myself to call it X), Threads, or something else.

So when Derek says:

I don’t click share buttons. I never have.

When I find something worth sharing, I tap the share icon in Chrome on my phone. That’s it. On my desktop I click the little link icon in Arc’s browser bar, or I just double-click the address bar and hit command-C command-V. I’ve never once looked at a row of branded social icons at the bottom of a blog post and thought, “Oh good, there’s the Facebook button.”

— By Derek Hanson · Nobody clicks your share buttons

I don't know that most people necessarily behave the same way. Derek does cite data showing very low usage of share buttons. But I also think the type of website, the audience, the content, and even the way the sharing options are implemented matter.

Especially within IndieWeb circles, share buttons can be implemented without the tracking and third-party scripts that caused many of the problems associated with older social-sharing widgets. A simple link doesn't have to phone home to Facebook or another large platform every time somebody loads the page.

There is even some evidence that the implementation makes a difference.

Google's Santa Tracker team had previously removed its individual social-sharing buttons from mobile because they took up too much space. In 2016, though, they added a single Share button using the Web Share API, which opens the device's native sharing interface. According to Google's web.dev documentation, users who had that option available shared about 20% more than users without it.[1]

That was a mobile experiment, so I wouldn't use it as proof that a row of sharing buttons on a desktop blog is going to suddenly make everyone share your posts. It does suggest to me that the conclusion shouldn't simply be that share buttons don't work. How they're implemented seems to matter too.

Maybe people don't want a row of intrusive Facebook and Twitter widgets. That isn't necessarily the same thing as not wanting an easy way to share something.

I do agree more with this part:

This idea has been rattling around in my head for years. Back when I was deep in my PhD research at Iowa State, I came across Andy Crestodina from Orbit Media writing about things you should remove from your website. One of them was social icons in your header. Not even the share buttons; the plain follow-us icons. His argument was simple: those icons are exit signs. You spent all this effort getting someone to your site, and the most visually prominent element on the page is an invitation to leave.

— By Derek Hanson · Nobody clicks your share buttons

That's one reason I think putting share buttons at the end of a post makes sense. They seem natural there. How do you know whether you want to share or save a post until you've read it?

I also think the type of site makes a difference.

Derek cites GOV.UK's experiment showing very low overall usage of its sharing buttons. During the ten-week experiment, visitors used the buttons 14,078 times across roughly 6.8 million pageviews.[2]

But when you look at GOV.UK's own report, things get more interesting. Sharing varied depending on what people were reading. World-location pages had a sharing rate of 0.58%, while consultations were only 0.06%. Individual news stories varied even more, with sharing rates ranging from 0.18% to 1.6%.[2]

GOV.UK's own researchers said there was more work to do. They wanted to compare their numbers with other types of websites and test things like button placement.[2]

That seems important to me. Someone visiting a government website to complete a form, check a regulation, or find information about a government service may behave very differently from someone browsing personal blogs because they're interested in what people are writing.

The GOV.UK results are useful. I don't think we can automatically assume people behave exactly the same way on every kind of website.

There is another issue with some of the evidence being used here and it is its age.

The GOV.UK experiment ran from December 2013 through February 2014. Just look at the social-web landscape represented in the original article itself.[2] This was the era of Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo, Pinterest, Blogger, RSS, and rows of branded social icons everywhere (evidenced by the own articles feature image).

GOV.UK's actual experiment measured Facebook and Twitter sharing, and the researchers themselves said more comparison with other kinds of websites was needed. Their conclusion was also qualified as applying “at least on desktops.”

That matters because the web of 2026 is not the web of 2014. Today we have native operating-system sharing, the Web Share API, Copy Link buttons, email sharing, new platforms like Mastodon, Bluesky, and lightweight links that don't require loading third-party tracking code.

So I don't think a study of Facebook and Twitter buttons from more than a decade ago should be treated as the final word on whether a privacy-respecting share option belongs on a personal website today.

I would concede that bookmarks, RSS readers, copying links, browser sharing features, and private sharing through email or messaging are probably doing much more of the heavy lifting than share buttons. But I don't think that makes share buttons useless.

There's also an interesting overlap here with Derek's own recommendation. He says people already have a Share button built into their browsers and operating systems. That's true and the modern Web Share API lets a website put a simple Share button on the page that opens that same native sharing interface. The website doesn't have to decide whether you use Mastodon, Bluesky, email, Messages, or something else. Your device handles that.[3]

To me, that's quite different from the old Facebook and Twitter widgets.

On a personal website, if a sharing option adds almost no additional load, doesn't track visitors, and stays away from those old FAANG-style embedded widgets, I don't see much harm in offering it.

Then there's this:

And here’s the thing that should settle this for good: in November 2025, Meta announced it was permanently discontinuing its external Like, Share, and Comment buttons for third-party websites. The shutdown date was February 10, 2026. Meta’s own words were that the plugins reflect “an earlier era of web development” and that usage had “naturally declined.” When the company that invented the Like button walks away from it, that’s the signal.

— By Derek Hanson · Nobody clicks your share buttons

I actually see that as more of a win for the web than a loss, rather than confirmation that sharing buttons themselves need to disappear. Good riddance to the giant third-party widgets that tracked people across the web.

But a small, privacy-respecting link that says “Share on Mastodon,” “Share on Bluesky,” “Email,” or “Copy Link”? Or even one simple Share button that hands things over to your operating system?

I think there's still room on the web for that.

As you can probably tell, Derek's post really hit a nerve with me, probably because I had just finished putting the share buttons and other sharing options on one of my websites and making them look tasteful and modern when I came across his post.

That's my two cents on the matter. What's yours?

1. Google, ["Web Share API"](https://web.dev/articles/web-share), web.dev. The Santa Tracker team reported that users with Web Share enabled shared about 20% more than users without it. ↩
2. GOV.UK, ["Social sharing buttons: the first 10 weeks"](https://insidegovuk.blog.gov.uk/2014/02/20/gov-uk-social-sharing-buttons-the-first-10-weeks/). The experiment ran from December 2013 to February 2014 and found substantial variation in sharing rates between different types of content. ↩
3. MDN Web Docs, ["Navigator: share() method"](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Navigator/share). The Web Share API allows a website to invoke the operating system's native sharing mechanism rather than embedding third-party social widgets. ↩

#blogging #opinion #technology

💬 Discuss... ✉️ Email 🦣 Reply on Mastodon

Automattic confirms Mullenweg has returned as CEO after attempted ouster by board By Sarah Perez

Read original post →

I have been holding off on writing about Matt Mullenweg and everything happening around WordPress because I wanted to make sure I wasn't just reacting to the latest round of drama.

I don't know Mullenweg personally, just like I don't know Elon Musk. But the more I watch his public actions and statements, the more I see a similar pattern.

That pattern is what bothers me.

It is the attitude of: “I built this, I know what is best, and if you don't like the way I run it, there's the door.”

With Musk and Twitter, at least the situation is fairly clear. Musk bought the company, took it private, and Twitter is a closed commercial platform. I may not like what he does with it, but there isn't much ambiguity about whose platform it is. So I left.

WordPress is different, but increasingly it feels like it is being treated the same way. So I left that too.

Automattic is privately owned, but WordPress is open source and surrounded by a much broader community of developers, hosting companies, businesses, nonprofits and ordinary users who have spent years building on top of it.

That is why Mullenweg's recent behavior bothers me more.

The public message says openness, community, stewardship and democratizing publishing.

The behavior increasingly looks to me like: “My way or the highway.”

That contradiction is what feels fishy.

I don't know Mullenweg personally, and I can't know his private motivations. But I can look at his public actions, the fight with WP Engine, his control over WordPress.org, the failed attempt by Automattic's board to put him on leave, and the concentration of control that remains around him.

Taken together, it increasingly looks less like a healthy open ecosystem and more like an ecosystem that still revolves around one founder.

And I am tired of that model.

I am tired of wealthy founder-entrepreneurs building something people come to depend on and then acting as if everyone else is merely a guest in their house.

“This is mine. These are my rules. Do it my way or leave.”

That may work for Twitter.

I don't think it fits nearly as comfortably with something that presents itself as an open-source community project.

I had already left WordPress long before most of this drama.

I left because I never really enjoyed using it. It had become too complicated. Plugins, themes, updates, security, compatibility problems and the learning curve all piled up until maintaining WordPress started to feel like a job in itself.

Eventually I noticed something more important: I was posting less.

The software that was supposed to help me publish was making me less likely to publish.

That was enough reason for me to leave.

Now, watching everything happening around Mullenweg and Automattic just reinforces that decision.

And for me, this doesn't stop with WordPress. Automattic also owns Pocket Casts, which I actually liked, Gravatar, and now Beeper. The more uncomfortable I become with the direction and leadership of Automattic, the less interested I am in depending on more of its products.

There are simpler tools today. There are static-site generators, lower-dependency publishing systems and other ways to put words on the web without carrying all of WordPress's technical complexity and, increasingly, its organizational drama.

So maybe the real question isn't whether WordPress can survive all of this. It probably can.

The question for me is simpler:

Is WordPress, with all of its complexity and the drama surrounding its founder, still worth using?

And beyond WordPress, do I really want to keep investing my time in other Automattic products? For me that answer is NO!

#internet #opinion #technology

💬 Discuss... ✉️ Email 🦣 Reply on Mastodon

Bloggers, can we make better titles for our posts? michaelharley.net By Michael Harley

Read original post →

I came across this blog post by Michael Harley. I started following him after I came across some of his blog posts on bubbles.town (I want to call it button.town every time I type it, and I don't know why 😀).

But he does have a point, and I am guilty of making bad titles too. In fact, if it were up to me, I probably wouldn't have any titles. But I think most things in writing do deserve titles and subjects. Even emails, although I don't like filling out the subject line most of the time.

He argues:

Use descriptive titles #

Please for the love of god, give me some idea what your blog post is about. I'm interested in a wide range of topics. So even if your post is about something obscure, give me something other than Recent Thoughts... or So Far, So Good. Recent thoughts on what?! What is good so far??? Especially on Bubbles, but maybe even on other blog aggregators, the title is the main signal so pause for a beat and try to come up with a decent title for your blog post.

— By Michael Harley · Bloggers, can we make better titles for our posts? michaelharley.net

I think he's right about that. A title doesn't need to be clever or optimized for search engines. It just needs to give people some idea of what they're about to read.

But I have to disagree with his other point:

Avoid bucket posts

I think this one might be a bit unpopular but I do not like the round-up posts. You know the ones. They're titled Week Notes, Week in Review, Weekly Links and the like.

I think these kinds of updates are totally acceptable, and I learn a lot by reading them. In fact, I am long overdue for a subscription update myself.

I have also been trying to do more of his next item: writing posts in reply to other people. Especially since I am using webmentions everywhere I can and self-hosting and publishing the replies myself.

In the end, I enjoy reading Michael's posts, and he usually, like Kev Quirk, gives me ideas about how to shape my blogs and my posting, and even how to practice replying to other blog posts.

So go check out Michael Harley and bubbles.town.

#blogging #opinion #writing

💬 Discuss... ✉️ Email 🦣 Reply on Mastodon

Read on ign.com · View original Mastodon post

Here is another example of what I was talking about in a recent blog post TV Isn't What It Used to Be. According to IGN, the first season came out 3.5 years ago. That is a long time to wait for a second season.

I will watch it because the first season was good. But if I miss it, I won't really care. By this point, I would have to rewatch Season 1 just to remember what happened before starting Season 2.

You're telling me it took them 3.5 years to make a second season, and it will probably only have 10 episodes? Even though they already knew the first season had done so well?

If this is the new trend, television execs need to be fired. Hire unknown actors and make series faster. If the series does well, the actors will become known.

This line in the article stood out to me:

Disney has scaled back its live-action Star Wars show production over the past couple of years, following a splurge on limited series such as Obi-Wan Kenobi and The Book of Boba Fett, both of which landed to mixed reviews. Neither Skeleton Crew nor The Acolyte made much of an impression either, with no second season planned for either series.

Skeleton Crew had potential and could have opened up a side story for Star Wars. The Acolyte, though, did deserve to be killed off, in my opinion, unless it was willing to go back to Jedi canon or fix its story.

We need better from the entertainment industry and the news industry as a whole. YouTube is doing well because it has fresh, exciting, varied content that interests people. Old TV is doing well because people can count on what they grew up with.

Rant over and out!

#entertainment #opinion #streaming

💬 Discuss... ✉️ Email 🦣 Reply on Mastodon

Read on ign.com · View original Mastodon post

I don't watch this series, though it has interested me. Still, its general theme fits what I want to talk about here.

People wonder why TV viewing and TV series are dying. Well, when you have to wait a couple of years for 8 to 10 episodes, maybe 12 if you are really lucky, that is ridiculous. From an outsider's point of view, something is clearly wrong with the TV industry.

I have said this a hundred times, and I will keep saying it: when I was growing up, TV had an actual season. You knew roughly when it would start and end, within plus or minus a week or two. There were holiday specials, and every “TV season” usually had anywhere from 18 to 30 episodes. Of course, there were exceptions, like first seasons with fewer episodes to test interest and ratings.

Now, there is no set schedule. You get 8 to 10 episodes every couple of years, and by the time a new season finally comes out, you have already lost interest. You have forgotten what happened, stopped caring, and moved on.

Then, on top of everything else, they do not even drop all the episodes at once. Come on! That is frustrating.

So I would rather wait until every episode is available, even if I have to wait a couple of years before watching something new. In the meantime, I have been watching more old TV shows. I barely get invested in new ones anymore because of these shenanigans.

#opinion #streaming #tv

💬 Discuss... ✉️ Email 🦣 Reply on Mastodon

A thoughtful couple contemplates the evolving intersection of creativity and technology, symbolized by a brain merging artistic tools with digital circuitry under a spotlight.

I was browsing topics and titles on bubbles.town when I came across a post by Panagiotis Vryonis, AI-generated blog post images are not cool any more. It reminded me of another post I read a few months ago, On AI Images and Feature Images in General by Kev Quirk. I have been meaning to respond to his piece.

Last year, I wrote a post about using featured images called To Feature Image or Not. That post surprised me by getting a couple of responses. I usually get almost no feedback, so the email replies were unexpected.

The readers who responded basically said the same thing: It is your blog. You can use featured images if you want.

When I first started using Blogger back in 2001, finding images for posts was a real chore. You had to search for them manually while being careful not to use someone else’s image from their site without permission. Using pictures was not very convenient.

I later used WordPress for quite a few years. During my last couple of years with it, I learned that it had a featured-image function and started using it.

Two things almost always draw me in when I am deciding whether to read something, even though I know they probably should not: the title and an image that goes with it. That seems to be true for most people I know. Not everyone, but most.

Then AI came along and made it easy and affordable to create an image from a prompt. I could describe what I wanted, or I could say, “Read this blog post and provide me with an image.”

That was amazing to me because I really like having featured images.

I compare this to using Typora to help write my blog posts. I also had AI help me create a homegrown program that formats, edits, and publishes posts to several blogs at the same time. I designed a featured-image routine as part of that program.

I still create and shape the post. The thoughts, opinions, and meaning are mine. AI acts more like an editor. It helps make sure the post is formatted correctly for publishing, and it creates the featured image.

Vryonis writes:

But AI-generated images in blog posts are no longer cool. Everyone does it. And with the exception when an image is a really good fit, it looks like a 2000 PowerPoint using animated transitions and WordArt.

I disagree. Some of the images AI creates look fantastic. Many of them seem unique to me, although I admit that I am not an art expert.

He advocates using an Open Graph card style, like the type of card you might see when a link is shared on social media. It could include the post title, summary, date, tags, and blog name. That is certainly one way to present a post, but I still prefer a featured image.

Kev Quirk, as usual, takes something closer to the middle road, which is where I tend to be as well.

He writes:

Like I said in my previous post about AI, I don't think it creates art, but it can be useful for diagrams and some imagary. I listed some examples of my usage in that post, go take a look.

He continues:

For feature images, I think it's fine, I suppose. I don't think it has a bearing on the writer's ability to write good content thought. I think most people can spot AI-generated prose these days. If my spider-sense starts tingling, I'll close the tab. But if I only see an AI-generated feature image, it's fine.

I agree with that distinction. An AI-generated featured image does not determine whether someone is capable of writing good content.

Gordon McLean of Happily Imperfect makes a similar point in his post When is AI image slop ok?.

He writes:

I have also been using AI to create the featured image for many of my posts here. I like having a featured image, I think from a purely visual point of view it helps make the blog post look better.

That sums up much of my position.

I do not understand why an AI-generated featured image automatically turns some people away. As long as the author of the blog post is a human, what is wrong with using AI to help create the image?

In his post, Gordon mentions reconsidering his use of AI images after reading Rhys Wynne’s Your crap is more memorable than your slop.

Rhys’s main argument is about AI-generated posters and designs. He believes imperfect human creations can be more distinctive and memorable than polished but generic AI-generated material. He also applies that concern to blogs, suggesting that AI-generated featured images may make readers question how much of the rest of the post was created by a person.

I understand that concern, but I do not think one necessarily follows the other.

Using AI to create an image does not prove that the words were also written by AI. A lack of artistic ability does not mean someone lacks creativity in every other area.

Someone may be a talented writer while having little ability to draw, paint, take photographs, or design graphics (personally I don't think I am any of them). As Kev says, a lack of creativity or skill in one area does not prove a lack of creativity in another.

I can tell you firsthand that the two do not always go together.

I am generally pro-AI, although I would not call myself an AI apologist. I think AI has useful purposes, and I believe it makes certain things more accessible to people like me. I like this democratization.

I am also upfront about what I do and do not use AI for. That is all I can reasonably ask from another blogger. Tell me how you use it, particularly when it has played a major role in creating what I am reading.

When I can hire a human, I do. I hired a contractor through Fiverr to create the avatar I use on certain social-media platforms and websites. When I want that human quality and can afford it, I am willing to pay a human creator.

Paying someone to make a new featured image for every blog post would be a different matter. If I post frequently, I could not afford to commission a human artist for every article.

Without AI, I probably would not replace those images with commissioned artwork. I would simply stop using featured images.

I do think we need controls on AI. Just because an AI can do something does not mean it should.

If we eventually let AI do everything, what will people do?

We have not yet reached the Star Trek ideal of a society where no one needs money, everyone has access to the same basic necessities, and people are free to pursue exploration, knowledge, and personal growth.

Even in Star Trek, computers are generally meant to augment and assist human beings, not replace them or make humanity unnecessary.

The danger comes when greed enters the picture.

Companies may try to use AI to replace as many people as possible, but they have to walk a fine line. If AI does everything, or almost everything, and most people no longer have jobs or money, who will be able to buy what those companies are selling?

Taken far enough, that could set the stage for a deadly future for human beings.

Here is some final food for thought.

At what point will AI be able to write entire blog posts without readers being able to tell?

Today, we can often recognize certain AI habits and patterns. There are still tells. Over the next few years, those systems will probably improve. Eventually, readers may not know whether a post was written by a person unless the author discloses it.

Will it even matter if the information or point of view in the post is one we agree with or one that confirms our own biases? Or will what matters most be whether it is factually correct, clearly presented, easy to understand, and able to survive a fact-check?

When that time comes, the featured image may be the least important part of the discussion.

#ai #blogging #opinion

💬 Discuss... ✉️ Email 🦣 Reply on Mastodon

Star Trek: Outposts Unknown – Official Announcement Trailer – IGN To boldly go… and build in Star Trek: Outposts Unknown. Check out the Star Trek: Outposts Unknown announcement trailer for this upcoming narrative-driven outpost builder game set in the Star Trek universe. Build complex research facilities through the mysterious X’Lehari System. Explore strange new worlds, guide your crew through dangerous encounters, and uncover a cosmic force threatening all life in the system. Set alongside the era of Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, your journey will take you across hostile environments, abandoned ships, ancient ruins, and a fragile civilization in desperate need of aid. Star Trek: Outposts Unknown will be available on PC. A demo is out now on Steam.

— @video-game-and-movie-trailers-ign on mastodon via Video Game and Movie Trailers

This looks very interesting. I will be following this closely.

#opinion #gaming #StarTrek

💬 Discuss... ✉️ Email 🦣 Reply on Mastodon

Why Gen X is the real loser generation Don’t cry for millennials or Gen Z. Save your pity for those in their 50s

— @daily-reads-TheEconomist on mastodon via Daily Reads

I am a Gen Xer, and I do not consider myself part of a loser generation.

I do think my generation came up during a time when the family was under assault from companies, the economy, and a culture that made it harder and harder for one parent to stay home. I know my mother and father resisted that pressure for as long as they could.

My mother was a stay-at-home mother for most of my childhood, and I am grateful for that. I also get to spend time with her now in her 70s, and I appreciate every bit of that time. My father worked and was the primary breadwinner for our household.

But after I graduated, my parents took on two more mouths to feed. My aunt on my mom’s side died young, and her two kids, my cousins, were being raised by my maternal grandmother. When my grandmother died, my parents took over raising them. That, along with other factors, eventually led to my mom entering the workforce.

So no, I do not think of Gen X as a loser generation.

We saw the birth of some amazing things, and we helped bring some great inventions into the world that today’s generations benefit from. I guess every generation can claim that in some way, but we were there for the rise of the personal computer, mobile phones, the internet, and so much more.

The things I do think Gen X lost out on were more serious. We saw the rise of latchkey kids. We saw families stretched thinner. And now, many of us are facing a retirement system that is much less secure than the one our parents expected.

We will probably have to work longer. We have less retirement security because corporate pensions largely disappeared and were replaced by 401(k) plans that many employers under-fund. The responsibility shifted from companies to workers, and a lot of people were not prepared for that. Social Security in a death spiraled only expected to pay full benefits until 2033 right when I will be drawing on it.

The article argues that Gen X has had slower income growth than other generations at similar ages, and I believe that. Even now, I am making the most money I have ever made, yet it still does not feel like enough. My spending is not up. In fact, it is down. But the cost of everything keeps climbing, and it feels like we are always trying to catch up.

So while I do not think my generation, or my siblings’ generation, are losers, I do think we have been more disadvantaged than people realize.

Gen X is not the loser generation.

We are a disadvantaged generation that has not been given the respect it deserves.

And there is a big difference.

#family #opinion #retirement

💬 Discuss... ✉️ Email 🦣 Reply on Mastodon

People of all ages and backgrounds come together outdoors, connecting ideas and technology to illuminate the diverse and collaborative nature of AI innovation.

Okay, this will probably sound controversial, but that's not my intent. I'm just sharing my thoughts because AI is everywhere right now, especially on social media and in blog posts.

These views range from fairly neutral:[1] – Manton Reece – Tom Casavant – Paul Thurrott – Richard Campbell

To fairly positive, with the idea that you need to learn or use AI because... – Jim Mitchell – Numeric Citizen – Leo Laporte – Hey Loura – Ricardo Mendes

To more negative views, often focused on whether AI's value proposition can actually justify the money being spent: - Ed Zitron

People tend to frame the debate as two opposing camps: camp 1 wants nothing to do with AI, and camp 2 wants to hand it control over everything. I live in a quieter third camp. Most people are actually somewhere in the middle, but we don't shout as loudly. I see both the risks and the benefits. AI has let me try things I never would have had the courage to try, and it's helped me grow and learn about technology in ways I likely wouldn't have otherwise.

The loudest voices are camps 1 and 2, yet it's usually the middle camp that makes the real decisions when it counts. So maybe camps 1 and 2 should learn a little from us: camp 1 could be a little less rigid, and camp 2 could be more realistic and grounded.

AI is not going away. It may become less democratized. We are already seeing token, credit, and time limits, but those feel like temporary bumps. Many limits are at least partly artificial, and they may ease as the tech and business models evolve.

Given current politics here and abroad, tearing people down doesn't help. If AI isn't being used to create false narratives or spread “fake news,” people should be free to use it or not. I don't support blanket punishments for anyone who used AI to edit, help, or build something. That kind of hard-line stance, and labeling anything non-factual as “slop,” isn't productive.

The larger economic issue is real and has been building for decades. Automation started with the paperless office and industrial robotics. Robots and AI will continue to displace jobs, and that's a societal and political problem we need to solve now, not shrug off with “it's not my problem.” It's not necessarily tomorrow's crisis, but it's coming in the not-so-distant future.

Job losses mean less tax revenue, and corporations and wealthy individuals are skilled at finding legal ways to reduce taxes, wages, and benefits. We should rethink corporate structures and the single-minded focus on shareholder value. A shift toward an employee-and-business-first model would make more sense. After all, without a functioning business, you don't have shareholder value, and without employees, you don't really have a business unless you fully automate. If companies replace workers with machines and still expect high shareholder returns, they may under-invest in the equipment and long-term stability that would make that strategy sustainable.

That's my two cents. I don't think we should be tearing people down for using technology that helps them, that they pay for themselves, and that helps them communicate and complete their vision.

For full transparency, this post contains my thoughts and my opinions, and it was edited and proofread with AI. I made, directed, and approved the changes. AI helped organize my wording and corrected my spelling and grammar. It did not write this post, create the ideas behind it, or shape my feelings or thoughts. That, to me, is responsible AI usage.

I could not afford to hire an editor or an artist for this post, or every other post, to make a feature image. I told the AI what I wanted for a feature image, and it made it. I think it did an amazing job bringing my prompt alive.

1. I am using “views” broadly here. Some examples come from specific blog posts, while others come from podcasts, videos, comments, or general public statements I have seen or heard. ↩

#ai #opinion #technology

💬 Discuss... ✉️ Email 🦣 Reply on Mastodon

I love her work and wish I could do, or get an AI to do, what she does. I have tried. I am still working on a 4th of July theme, but I can't get it to see my vision.

Anyways, great job, Loura! I can't wait to see what you come up with next.

#opinion #webdevelopment

💬 Discuss... ✉️ Email 🦣 Reply on Mastodon