If you haven't noticed, check out my comments in the article. I provide a concerned, critical response arguing for why Signal might not be a good idea. Or in the least, Mr. Shelton should explain the possible risks and dangers.
As someone who's quit social media several times, I can confidently say that my life is far better with it. Saying you never post and rarely look at it is like saying 30 years ago that you hardly ever call your friends and rarely pick up your phone because it's distracting and mentally damaging. And yes, I understand that it's a flawed analogy because social media updates are far more frequent than phone calls, but the analogy is still strong. We can make excuses for why all communication platforms are bad.
At the end of the day, you gotta do what you gotta do. If you have to avoid social media to stay mentally healthy and to get your work done, OK. If you can still do your work and remain mentally healthy while using social media, OK.
I don't see the point in using anecdotal evidence, limited research, and popular myths to prove that social media is bad or that we should delete it. If it doesn't work for you, stop. It's like telling the world that alcohol is bad and that we're better off not doing it because you have a problem with alcohol. I'm not here to defend alcohol. I am here to suggesting considering that alcohol isn't necessarily evil. And I'm also here to say the same about social media.
This idea that social media is inherently evil because of the psychological tactics used is academically interesting but practically just a way for you to get onto your soap box and sound profound. It might also be a way for you to rationalize your choice for having somewhat regretfully deleted your Facebook. I get it. I did that for a long time. I see now that my problems with social media were mostly my own issues; and I see now that I can maximize the benefit of social media without becoming mentally disturbed or financially ruined.
