this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2026
1 points (100.0% liked)

Showerthoughts

40907 readers
677 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.

Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. No politics
    • If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
    • A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS

If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.

Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The internet runs on ads.

Ad companies pay for all the “free” popular social media we use. Ad companies dictate to social media what their clients want their ads to be associated with, not associated with, and drive media of all kinds to push inflammatory and click-bait content that drives engagement and views. It’s why you indirectly can’t swear, talk about suicide, drugs, death, or violence. Sure, you technically can unless ToS prohibits it, but if companies tell their ad hosts they don’t want to be associated with someone talking about guns, the content discussing guns gets fewer ads, fewer ads = less revenue, low-revenue gets pushed to the bottom.

So lowbrow political rage bait, science denialism, and fake conspiracies drives people to interact and then gets pushed to the top because it gets ad revenue. Content that delves into critical thought and requires introspection or contemplation languishes.

Ads are destroying society because stupid and rage sells views.

top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] choui4@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 week ago (1 child)

I think the answer always comes down to capitalism

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (1 child)

Capitalism does play a part, but it’s more the lack of hard rules to curb it rather than the economic method itself. You want to make an even broader claim, just say “greed.”

[–] choui4@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 week ago (1 child)

This is where we disagree. What are the fundemental tenants of capitalism vs say, communism?

(Just doing a thought experiment with you, in good faith)

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 child)

Respectfully I am not willing to get into this debate. If communism worked, we’d be doing it. Unfortunately so far it seems to have incredibly weak protections against authoritarian takeover despite its overall egalitarian appeal.

E: triggered .ml?

If communism worked, we’d be doing it.

Oh you sweet summer child.

Respectfully I am not willing to get into this debate.

And this is why you believe that. Head, meet sand.

Props for being polite about it though.

[–] ptz@dubvee.org 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Agree. Which is why I get so irrationally annoyed when sharing a good piece of journalism that's not catering to ad-clicks and the peanut gallery here grabs their torches and pitchforks while shouting "PaYwALL!" despite me posting the gist of the article in the post body (enough to get the gist but not the full article for copyright reasons). It's one of several reasons why I don't even bother anymore.

Like, good journalism costs money. That money's gotta come from somewhere if you want good journalists to be able to eat and keep doing what they do.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

How can I tell they’re good journalists without reading their stuff first?

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 0 points 1 week ago (1 child)

By reading the gist that OP provided and deciding if you want to read more.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

What if I want to read more but not enough to go find my wallet and hand over personal information?

[–] PoastRotato@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (1 child)

What if you want a cookie, but not enough to go to the grocery store and buy some cookies?

Then you don't get any fucking cookies.

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 week ago

What if you want a cookie, but not enough to go to the grocery store and buy some cookies?

I fixed that for you:

What if you want a cookie, but not enough to go to the grocery store and buy some cookies, after showing your ID card for its number to be written up?

[–] ieGod@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 week ago

That's all well and fine but if you're presenting the topic for discussion on a public forum you're limiting the audience. The gist isn't enough for complete discussion. So the cries about it being paywalled are completely justified.