this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2025
1266 points (99.5% liked)

People Twitter

8357 readers
1684 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.
  6. Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician. Archive.is the best way.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old

Aunt Marge now lives in the Whatsapp family chat.

[–] Rcklsabndn@sh.itjust.works 3 points 13 hours ago

My family had a full encyclopedia that they bought one book at a time right around when I was born in the 80s. By the time I was 10 it moved into my bedroom and I'd often stay up too late reading random things.

Downside was that it was already out of date geopolitically by the time I started thinking about politics.

[–] Soktopraegaeawayok@lemmy.world 5 points 14 hours ago

This is the reason a lot of people have got fat, and also died.

[–] Jankatarch@lemmy.world 2 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

There was also that one guy who was 3 years older than you but hanged out with your friend group on occasion and told you things like where kids come from.

[–] uid0gid0@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago

Before there was the Internet there were libraries. Your main reference books were dictionaries for looking up proper definitions of unknown words. Then you had encyclopedias for general topics. To get really specialized you had to consult the Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature. That was an index organized by topic of magazine articles, including scientific ones like Nature. Reference librarians were very helpful in finding specific information in a hurry, and there were some books that couldn't leave the library.

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 16 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

People made a living selling encyclopedias door to door. Just saying.

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 3 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

And encyclopedias before wikipedia had a whole pile of wrong garbage information in them. Because they were compiled quickly by people with little knowledge about the field they were compiling the information for.

[–] Hungry_man@lemmy.world 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Wikipedia is garbage as well when it comes to topic from third class country

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago

Might be. Classic Encyclopedias were worse. Don't know if you ever used one and looked up stuff for a subject where you have above average expertise. They only contained very surface-level information, rarely more than a paragraph or two, and what they contained was riddled with errors.

[–] Hungry_man@lemmy.world 1 points 14 hours ago

Brainrot so high that i thought it was moon is blue smh

[–] yermaw@sh.itjust.works 20 points 1 day ago (3 children)

We got misinformed at a much slower rate though. The newspapers could only tell us so many lies at a time.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] FinishingDutch@lemmy.world 29 points 1 day ago (2 children)

This is actually a pretty interesting topic.

I was born in 1982 and we didn’t get the internet until 1998. Which means I was a kid and teen in a mostly analog world.

Your day to day knowledge was formed by things you were taught in school, the things you saw on the news and the people you were surrounded by. That gave you a fairly broad understanding of the world.

If you really NEEDED a correct answer, you’d use an encyclopedia at school or the library, or any specific book on the topic. But you had to be motivated to do that. And even those resources might be limited in scope or unavailable. My local library in the Netherlands would’ve had some books on US history for example, but you wouldn’t really find say, a biography of Jimmy Carter. So at some point, you’d reach the maximum depth of knowledge to be gained in your particular situation.

The internet really helps us drill down way, WAY deeper than what we could find in the 80’s and 90’s. I can now have in-depth knowledge on the most obscure topic and drill down as far as I want.

It’s unfortunate that a lot of people don’t use the web for that. Or end up actually misinformed because of it.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] JimVanDeventer@lemmy.world 31 points 1 day ago (2 children)

“Why is the sky blue?”

“Because it’s reflecting the colour of the ocean.”

[–] falseWhite@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] theolodis@feddit.org 8 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Because it’s reflecting the colour of the sky.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] nialv7@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago

aunt Marge has been replaced by AI now

[–] redwattlebird 8 points 1 day ago

My biology teacher taught me that peanut oil causes cancer. Can't get that out of my brain 30+ years later.

Encyclopaedia sets were expensive but there were all sorts of things you could subscribe to for facts. My parents subscribed me to an animal fact thing where i got some sheets to collect in a folder every month. I'd read the hell out of it and eagerly wait for the next issue. It allowed me to memorise a lot of information about animals.

I also visited the library a lot more before the internet, and there was also Encarta which died as soon as the internet became mainstream.

[–] Part4@infosec.pub 59 points 1 day ago (17 children)

Now you are permanently overwhelmed by a tsunami of misinformation spewing out of your addictive phone instead. Progress.

load more comments (17 replies)
[–] U7826391786239@lemmy.zip 19 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

"breakfast is the most important meal of the day!"

https://marketingmadeclear.com/kelloggs-marketing-lie/

tl;dr: it's fucking not.

related: you're not going to 100% die (or even get sick. yes really) if you skip a meal (or even 2), fatass.

edit: i have to add another thing

diamond engagement rings are absolute 100% bullshit, which, as a genXer, i only learned later in life. i wouldn't be adding this if there weren't still way too many people who are completely bamboozled by this fake "tradition" invented solely to make obscenely wealthy people even more obscenely wealthy.

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 3 points 14 hours ago

Regarding to the diamond ring thing: Most "old traditions" or "old traditional things" aren't actually old at all. In most cases, something that has been done for longer than you are alive counts as "old tradition", because we don't experience the past through history books and facts, but through our experience and through what adults told us when we grew up.

[–] tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 2 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

There have definitely been studies linking breakfast to various positive lifestyle outcomes, but that doesn't mean you need 9 grapefruits and 4 bowls of kelloggs flakes. I don't eat breakfast much myself but most of what I've run across has shown that it's beneficial.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3737458/

[–] U7826391786239@lemmy.zip 2 points 15 hours ago

for kids i would agree, it makes sense that it's better to have breakfast than not--their brains and bodies are actively under construction and need all the macros. but for the remaining 60+ years of life, there are studies supporting the notion that breakfast is optional: https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/is-skipping-breakfast-bad#TOC_TITLE_HDR_2 all claims are cited

ultimately everyone should do what they want, but be skeptical of the "you must eat breakfast" claims bombarding everything everywhere, made by industries that have much to gain from everyone eating breakfast, and almost as much to lose from not everyone eating breakfast.

[–] Ordinary_Person@lemmy.ca 18 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

I had people arguing with me about blue blood long after the internet was available to everyone. I wouldn't ever tell them they were stupid, but I would say, "I don't think that's right" and they would usually say they learned it in biology or a science class in high school and I would say, "that still doesn't sound right. We should look that up later when get home to our computers" and then They would look at me like I was the idiot for suggesting they were misinformed in school... because you know... school teachers NEVER misinform their students... like ever 🙄

Speaking of misinforming your students; shout out to Miss O'Leary for saying Russia could Invade Canada with Tanks because we were landlocked during the colder months via the arctic.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] RedFrank24@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago (2 children)

It's better than what we have now though, which is going "I think elephants are actually seals that got lost on the way to the south pole" and then going on the internet and searching until you find exactly what you already believe, and then forming a social group around that, then voting in politicians who think that until that stupid belief becomes mainstream and there are politicians debating in congress whether to invade Kenya to transport all the elephants to Antarctica.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] kazerniel@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

shit I still remember a primary school classmate explaining to me:

one sneeze is from dust
two sneezes in quick succession are from cold
three sneezes in quick succession are from allergies

It's been 30+ years, someone pls remove this nonsense from my brain 😩

[–] notarobot@lemmy.zip 1 points 14 hours ago

I've never heard of that, but I've kind of used it for children. If it's winter and you hear you kid sneeze, do not worry. If they sneeze again, they are probably barefoot some something, go check on them. 3 times they are either already sick, or allergies

[–] tetris11@feddit.uk 11 points 1 day ago (5 children)

four sneezes means someone's thinking of you
five sneezes means someone's cutting peppers
six sneezes is anthrax
seven sneezes is the absolute physical maximum

[–] Scavenger_Solardaddy@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

I saw a video of a dog sneezing 30 times in a row

Edit: found it! Glorious video of dogs sneezing https://youtube.com/shorts/4UoFDUbWFHQ

[–] tetris11@feddit.uk 2 points 16 hours ago

that dog is a prophet now

[–] Regrettable_incident@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Eight sneezes is instant death.

[–] Zink@programming.dev 4 points 1 day ago

Nine sneezes means you are in Hell, unfortunately. You have already been dead this whole time, and your torture for this moment of eternity has been temporary amnesia and experiencing the sudden terror of realizing you are sneezing yourself to death. That price of darkness can be a rascal like that.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Hegar@fedia.io 141 points 2 days ago (9 children)

Now instead of your aunt coming at you with misinfo she learned from her aunt, it's your aunt coming at you with misinformation she learned from a russian bot farm.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] wieson@feddit.org 36 points 1 day ago (9 children)

Most people in my life still don't fact check. I'm constantly chasing the truth while the convo runs away full of misinfo

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›