Avtomatk

Believe me that Wikipedia is light years away from being "The library of human knowledge", it is more like an encyclopedia of "general culture" that "scratches" the surface of multiple topics so that you can find your answer quickly, but there you cannot find technical information , because much of the technical or "scientific" information is monetized .... (I am not an academic researcher, I am a simple teenager, so my answer is open to correction)

Your second condition has to do with one of my biggest dreams: "to create a digital library of Alexandria, full of scientific and cultural information, moral debates with their solutions and projects at the planetary level, all open to the public, open to contributions, corrections, debates and with an excellent presentation of the information in all languages "

I always think reddit is full of immature kids, bored "IQ" teens and old idiots. Those "trends" (which do not exceed 50k people on average) include the 3 mentioned categories

Ok I also agree with that, but what I mean is that in my opinion, nobody is an expert in everything, right? ... and if someone is wrong about something, they deserve to know the reasons and not just reject their opinion and leave ... then everybody ask why social networks become toxic ... here's the reason

I do not understand why this comment has a bad vote, hackernews looks like reddit, if a comment goes against your opinion, downvote without explaining the reasons.

The only thing I disagree with is that Facebook does make big profits from its ads, in fact it does a tough competition to google and amazon... the rest of your arguments seem correct to me... facebook doesn't feel like the home that it was before... it feels more like a newspaper, full of ads, debates, news and toxic people

I appreciate it, it really is something worth investigating because it is a problem that affects the entire planet basically (looking at the amount of active users that social media have).

The most fundamental questions I could find are:

Loneliness occurs only in logical intelligent beings or also in animals?

Loneliness is something created by our mind or is it something physical like the lack of a resource such as water, food, air? (maybe some of our organs release some harmful chemical when we are alone for a long time, I don't know, something similar to adrenaline)

How long is the maximum time that a person spent alone and what symptoms did he present? (This could guide us if loneliness causes physical damage)

If loneliness does not cause physical damage, then do we do the damage ourselves? Why? Perhaps our sexual reproduction cycle is related to this? But then, Why do the elderly also suffer from loneliness if they have already passed their reproductive stage? And what about children?...

But the fundamental question: Can someone survive alone? If the answer is yes, I immediately leave my city and go to live in the forest, it is not a joke.

Those applications will be a great waste of time, but they are there to solve the problem behind all social media: loneliness and seeking care. You can distract your mind with other things for a while, but sooner or later you will fall back on social networks, unless you stop being alone or have enough attention.

I think that living beings do not know how to survive alone, so being alone is something bad biologically and arouses something in us that makes us feel bad ... call it "loneliness" or whatever you want, but that thing kills you if you stay alone