+
“A balm for the soul”
  review on Goodreads
GOOD PEOPLE Book
upworthy
Recommended

Canada has acknowledged its genocide of Indigenous women.

When will the U.S. follow suit?

Canada has acknowledged its genocide of Indigenous women.

After a two-plus year inquiry, Canada has acknowledged that its epidemic of missing and murdered Indigenous women amounts to genocide.

In 2016, the Canadian government launched the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women (MMIW) to examine the disproportionate number of Indigenous women who have been killed or have disappeared in Canada. On June 3, 2019, The inquiry commissioners presented their final report—1,200 pages filled with stories and evidence showing that "persistent and deliberate human and Indigenous rights violations and abuses are the root cause" of this epidemic.

Chief commissioner Marion Buller of the Mistawasis First Nation didn't mince words as she presented the findings to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

"Despite their different circumstances and backgrounds, all of the missing and murdered are connected by economic, social and political marginalization, racism, and misogyny woven into the fabric of Canadian society," explained Buller. "The hard truth is that we live in a country whose laws and institutions perpetuate violations of fundamental rights, amounting to a genocide against Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people."

Trudeau acknowledged the report's full findings at the Women Deliver conference in Vancouver, B.C. the following day. "We recognized the need for a national public inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls, and we have commissioners who came back with findings of fact and with calls to action," he said. "We thank them for their work, we applaud their work, and we accept their findings—including that what happened amounts to genocide."

The report includes 231 Calls to Justice directed at governments at all levels, as well as institutions, organizations, and everyday Canadians. Commissioner Buller says these action calls are not mere recommendations, but "legal imperatives." How effectively and expediently those calls to justice are implemented remains to be seen.

While arguably a step in the right direction, the Inquiry has been beleaguered by disagreements about approaches and distrust from some Indigenous communities.

From its outset, the public inquiry faced challenges. One of the original five commissioners resigned over disagreements over how the inquiry would be conducted. Some Indigenous communities did not feel adequately represented by the commission, and some families complained that their calls to the commission to share their stories went unanswered. The Native Women's Association of Canada issued periodic report cards on which commitments of the commission were being met and which weren't, and each report card was a mixed bag.

Conducting an inquiry commissioned by a colonial government about a deeply painful indigenous reality was never going to be an easy task. The process opened wounds and recalled heinous historic oppression for many. At the same time, having an official record and recognition of the lived reality of Indigenous people is a historic step. It's what comes next that is the question.

"The report has been triggering for many, as have the reactions to it," says Alison Tedford, an Indigenous woman from the Kwakiutl nation who lives in B.C. "There are deep seated feelings that come with these truths and reactions will vary widely because of the diversity of experiences represented. It will take a great many voices to talk this through."

"What resonated for me was the witness concerns about the failure to implement existing recommendations," Tedford told Upworthy, "and how that represents a lack of political will for change. This history of inaction makes it difficult to hold hope that these calls to justice will be implemented either and that is an uncomfortable feeling to have as an Indigenous woman, that those who could contribute to a safer today and tomorrow for you and your family might choose not to, even as they acknowledge this is genocide. There has been an erosion of trust."

Other Indigenous women have expressed similar apprehension about the ultimate outcome of the Inquiry. Indigenous writer and teacher Andrea Landry wrote in a Chatelaine op-ed, "The fact that the recommendations made within the inquiry are not legally enforceable, nor legally binding, goes hand in hand with the reconciliation agenda of the government today; a facade with limited space for permanent social change for Indigenous peoples. It can also be seen as the government using the emotional labour of the families involved that will, in the end, maintain colonial supremacy and the continued exploitation of the land and the bodies of Indigenous women and 2SLGBTQQIA peoples."

The enormity of the report and the sweeping calls to justice speak to the vastness of the issue, as well as what it will take to make real movement forward.

"Our collective history and present reality of trauma is laid bare in this multitude of words," says Tedford. "It is noted there is a role for everyone. Oppression of this magnitude took an immense amount of collaboration and an equal force of sheer will and determination to make this a safe place at last will be needed to effect meaningful change, in my opinion."

"There are calls to justice not just to government agencies, health care providers, educators but also to everyday Canadians. There are ways each person can contribute to the safety and security of Indigenous women, girls and 2SLBGTQQIA people and that's empowering. Immediate, dramatic, paradigm shift—these words are used to describe the urgency and scale of required changes. It will be a challenge, and I hope Canada is up for it."

What does all of this mean for the U.S., which has a similar colonial history and a MMIW movement of its own?

Though Canada is by no means perfect, there's a lot the U.S. could learn from our northern neighbors when it comes to acknowledging Native communities and the impact colonialism has had—and continues to have—on Indigenous communities.

I was struck by how each session at the Women Deliver conference in Vancouver began with an acknowledgment that we were meeting on the traditional, ancestral, and unceded lands of the Tsleil-Waututh, Musqueam, and Squamish Nations people. Then I learned that such land acknowledgments are common in B.C. I've maybe seen that done once in the U.S., and only at a small event. Land acknowledgment is not a huge thing, but it's something. (There's a Native Land App you can use to see whose ancestral lands you're on at any given time.)

Indigenous voices in the U.S. have been speaking out about the MMIW epidemic in our country for years, and it's still unknown to many. We have had no national inquiry commissioned, and it's hard to imagine one coming during the current administration. However, there are a couple of legislative initiatives addressing MMIW that we as citizens can lean on our congressional representatives to support.

The first is Savanna's Act, a bill that bolsters the data tracking of missing and murdered Native Americans, standardizes law enforcement and justice protocols, and requires the Department of Justice to provide training and technical assistance to tribes and law enforcement to implement new protocols.

The second is the Not Invisible Act of 2019, which would increase intergovernmental coordination to identify and combat violent crime on native lands and against native peoples.



Further, we can follow grassroots initiatives like the Red Ribbon Alert Project, which offers an alert system for when a Native American woman goes missing, and perhaps most importantly, educate ourselves on issues Indigenous communities face and the role our institutions and governments play in those issues. We need to understand how the oil, gas, and other extraction industries affect human trafficking in Native American communities, for example.

Historically, our nation has much to atone for, but there are also immediate actions we can take to help eliminate an issue Indigenous women and girls are facing right here, right now.

Sponsored

How can riding a bike help beat cancer? Just ask Reid Moritz, 10-year-old survivor and leader of his own “wolfpack”

Every year, Reid and his pack participate in Cycle for Survival to help raise money for the rare cancer research that’s helped him and so many others. You can too.

all photos courtesy of Reid Moritz

Together, let’s help fuel the next big breakthrough in cancer research

True

There are many things that ten-year-old Reid Wolf Moritz loves. His family, making watches (yes, really), basketball, cars (especially Ferraris), collecting super, ultra-rare Pokémon cards…and putting the pedal to the medal at Cycle for Survival.

Cycle for Survival is the official rare cancer fundraising program of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK). One hundred percent of every dollar raised at Cycle for Survival events supports rare cancer research and lifesaving clinical trials at MSK.

At only two years old, Reid was diagnosed with pilocytic astrocytoma, a rare type of brain tumor.

Pediatric cancer research is severely underfunded. When standard treatments don't work, families rely on breakthrough clinical trials to give their children a real shot at long-term survival.

When Reid’s chemotherapy and brain surgery didn’t work, he was able to participate in one of MSK’s clinical trials, where he’s received some incredible results. “Memorial Sloan Kettering has done so much for me. It's just so nice how they did all this for me. They're just the best hospital ever,” Reid recalls.

And that’s why every year, you’ll find Reid with his team, aptly named Reid's Wolfpack, riding at Cycle for Survival. It’s just Reid’s way of paying it forward so that even more kids can have similar opportunities.

“I love sharing my story to inspire other kids to PERSEVERE, STAY STRONG and NEVER GIVE UP while also raising money for my amazing doctors and researchers to help other kids like me.”

Reid remembers the joy felt bouncing on his father’s shoulder and hearing the crowd cheer during his first Cycle for Survival ride. As he can attest, each fundraising event feels more like a party, with plenty of dancing, singing and celebrating.

Hoping to spread more of that positivity, Reid and his family started the Cycle for Survival team, Reid’s Wolfpack, which has raised close to $750,000 over the past eight years. All that money goes directly to Reid’s Neuro-Oncology team at Memorial Sloan Kettering.

In addition to cheering on participants and raising good vibes at Cycle for Survival events, Reid even designs some pretty epic looking merch—like basketball shorts, jerseys, and hoodies—to help raise money.

If you’re looking to help kids just like Reid, and have a ton of fun doing it, you’re in luck. Cycle for Survival events are held at Equinox locations nationwide, and welcome experienced riders and complete newbies alike. You can even join Reid and his Wolfpack in select cities!

And if cycling in any form isn’t your thing, a little donation really does go a long way.

Together, let’s help fuel the next big breakthrough in cancer research. Find out more information by checking out cycleforsurvival.org or filling out this interest form.

Education

Why didn't people smile in old photographs? It wasn't just about the long exposure times.

People blame these serious expressions on how long they had to sit for a photo, but that's not the whole picture.

Public domain images

Photos from the 1800s were so serious.

If you've ever perused photographs from the 19th and early 20th century, you've likely noticed how serious everyone looked. If there's a hint of a smile at all, it's oh-so-slight, but more often than not, our ancestors looked like they were sitting for a sepia-toned mug shot or being held for ransom or something. Why didn't people smile in photographs? Was life just so hard back then that nobody smiled? Were dour, sour expressions just the norm?

Most often, people's serious faces in old photographs are blamed on the long exposure time of early cameras, and that's true. Taking a photo was not an instant event like it is now; people had to sit still for many minutes in the 1800s to have their photo taken.

Ever try holding a smile for only one full minute? It's surprisingly difficult and very quickly becomes unnatural. A smile is a quick reaction, not a constant state of expression. Even people we think of as "smiley" aren't toting around full-toothed smiles for minutes on end. When you had to be still for several minutes to get your photo taken, there was just no way you were going to hold a smile for that long.

But there are other reasons besides long exposure times that people didn't smile in early photographs.

1800s photographsWhy so serious? Public domain

The non-smiling precedent had already been set by centuries of painted portraits

The long exposure times for early photos may have contributed to serious facial expressions, but so did the painted portraits that came before them. Look at all of the portraits of famous people throughout history prior to cameras. Sitting to be painted took hours, so smiling was out of the question. Other than the smallest of lip curls like the Mona Lisa, people didn't smile for painted portraits, so why would people suddenly think it normal to flash their pearly whites (which were not at all pearly white back then) for a photographed one? It simply wasn't how it was done.

A smirk? Sometimes. A full-on smile? Practically never.

"Mona Lisa" by Leonardo da Vinci, painted in 1503Public domain

Smiling usually indicated that you were a fool or a drunkard

Our perceptions of smiling have changed dramatically since the 1800s. In explaining why smiling was considered taboo in portraits and early photos, art historian Nicholas Jeeves wrote in Public Domain Review:

"Smiling also has a large number of discrete cultural and historical significances, few of them in line with our modern perceptions of it being a physical signal of warmth, enjoyment, or indeed of happiness. By the 17th century in Europe it was a well-established fact that the only people who smiled broadly, in life and in art, were the poor, the lewd, the drunk, the innocent, and the entertainment […] Showing the teeth was for the upper classes a more-or-less formal breach of etiquette."

"Malle Babbe" by Frans Hals, sometime between 1640 and 1646Public domain

In other words, to the Western sensibility, smiling was seen as undignified. If a painter did put a smile on the subject of a portrait, it was a notable departure from the norm, a deliberate stylistic choice that conveyed something about the artist or the subject.

Even the artists who attempted it had less-than-ideal results. It turns out that smiling is such a lively, fleeting expression that the artistically static nature of painted portraits didn't lend itself well to showcasing it. Paintings that did have subjects smiling made them look weird or disturbing or drunk. Simply put, painting a genuine, natural smile didn't work well in portraits of old.

As a result, the perception that smiling was an indication of lewdness or impropriety stuck for quite a while, even after Kodak created snapshot cameras that didn't have the long exposure time problem. Even happy occasions had people nary a hint of joy in the photographs that documented them.

wedding party photoEven wedding party photos didn't appear to be joyful occasions.Wikimedia Commons

Then along came movies, which may have changed the whole picture

So how did we end up coming around to grinning ear to ear for photos? Interestingly enough, it may have been the advent of motion pictures that pushed us towards smiling being the norm.

Photos could have captured people's natural smiles earlier—we had the technology for taking instant photos—but culturally, smiling wasn't widely favored for photos until the 1920s. One theory about that timing is that the explosion of movies enabled us to see emotions of all kinds playing out on screen, documenting the fleeting expressions that portraits had failed to capture. Culturally, it became normalized to capture, display and see all kind of emotions on people's faces. As we got more used to that, photo portraits began portraying people in a range of expression rather than trying to create a neutral image of a person's face.

Changing our own perceptions of old photo portraits to view them as neutral rather than grumpy or serious can help us remember that people back then were not a bunch of sourpusses, but people who experienced as wide a range of emotion as we do, including joy and mirth. Unfortunately, we just rarely get to see them in that state before the 1920s.

Sascha Kohlmann

Headphones can protect you from the annoying noises of the world, but they come with their own risks.

There was a time not too long ago when teens blasting music too loudly was everyone’s problem. Parental cries of “Turn down that damned music!” seemed to punctuate every day. But with the advent of tiny, high-performance headphones, the volume battles have become personal and much more challenging to monitor. Now, as more people are plugging into music anywhere and everywhere with what experts call personal listening devices (PLDs), alarms are being raised about a new trend: unsafe listening practices that could lead to widespread hearing loss in young people.

A recent global study conducted by researchers from the Medical University of South Carolina and colleagues worldwide examined the listening habits of people aged 12 to 34, focusing on exposure to loud sounds from earbuds and headphones as well as at entertainment venues like econcerts, clubs, and festivals. The findings reveal that unsafe listening habits aren’t isolated; they’re a global issue affecting millions of young ears worldwide.

Loud music, quiet consequences

The study collected data from over 19,000 individuals across 33 studies and found that roughly 24% of young people are likely using their PLDs at unsafe volumes. When it comes to loud entertainment venues, that number rises significantly, with around 48% of attendees exposed to potentially harmful sound levels.

Key Findings:

  • Personal Listening Devices: 23.81% of young listeners engage in unsafe listening practices via headphones and earbuds.
  • Entertainment Venues: 48.20% of young people attending concerts or clubs are exposed to volumes that can damage hearing over time.

The World Health Organization’s guidelines indicate that listening above 85 decibels for long periods can cause irreversible hearing damage, and many concerts and clubs easily exceed this threshold. With more young people tuning in to louder sounds, often for extended periods, the cumulative impact could be life-altering.

"Unsafe listening practices are highly prevalent worldwide and may place over 1 billion young people at risk of hearing loss."

— Lauren K. Dillard, lead researcher

A hidden health crisis affecting over a billion people

The most striking takeaway from this study is the sheer number of young people at risk. The researchers estimate that between 670 million and 1.35 billion adolescents and young adults worldwide could be on a path toward hearing loss due to unsafe listening practices. This staggering number makes hearing damage a serious, though often overlooked, global health issue.

Hearing loss often progresses gradually, with early symptoms easy to miss. Many don’t realize they have hearing issues until the damage has already affected their quality of life, including their ability to understand speech in noisy settings or fully enjoy music at safer volumes. Dr. Lauren Dillard, the lead researcher, highlighted the urgent need for action, emphasizing that unchecked, this issue could affect a generation.

Tech steps in: New solutions to address unsafe listening

A pair of Apple AirPods.New features might turn the source of this problem into one of its solutions. aconcagua

Recognizing the growing concern around hearing damage, some tech companies are stepping up with innovative solutions to help protect users. Apple, for instance, has recently introduced new hearing health features in its AirPods and iPhones that focus on reducing noise exposure and enabling easy hearing checkups.

  • Hearing Test in iOS Health App: Apple now offers an in-app hearing test available on the iPhone, allowing users to assess their hearing from their device, with results saved in the Health app. Users can even upload professional hearing test results for comparison. Designed to prevent gaming, the test uses randomized tones for accuracy, helping users better understand their hearing health over time.
  • Hearing Protection with AirPods Pro 2: With the recent iOS 18.1 update, AirPods Pro 2 offers hearing protection across all listening modes, including Noise Cancellation, Transparency, and Adaptive Audio. These settings help reduce exposure to overly loud sounds, adding a layer of defense for users in noisy environments. However, extreme sounds like fireworks or gunfire are still beyond its intended scope.

As Apple introduces these features, other manufacturers are likely to follow suit, with industry experts suggesting that hearing protection technology will soon become a common offering across high-end audio devices. These developments are a promising step, as technology starts to play a more active role in helping individuals protect their hearing.

Protecting your ears in a loud world

With sound technology getting smaller, sleeker, and more powerful, it’s easy to slip into unsafe listening habits. But a few small changes can go a long way toward protecting your hearing. Taking regular breaks, lowering the volume slightly, and considering noise-canceling headphones are all small steps with significant benefits.

This study’s findings are a wake-up call. Hearing loss is often preventable, but once it sets in, it’s challenging to reverse. By spreading awareness, encouraging policy changes, and practicing safe listening, we can help protect our ears and preserve the music we love—at safer volumes—for years to come.

Christie Werts and her son, Levi

Christie and Wesley Werts have taken the idea of a blended family to the next level. When the couple fell in love five years ago and married, they brought together her children, Megan and Vance, and his children, Austin and Dakota.

As of January, the Ohio family has five children after adopting young Levi, 2. Levi is the son of Wesley’s ex-wife, who passed away four days after the child was born. The ex-wife had the boy prematurely, at 33 weeks, and died soon after from drug addiction and complications of COVID-19.

When Levi was born, he was a ward of the state with no first name or birth certificate.

“When I heard about Levi, without hesitation, I said we should take him,” Christie said, according to The Daily Mail, and her reason went far beyond the fact that the child was the half-brother to two of her recently adopted children. “I myself was a foster kid and, although for the most part, I had a great experience, I did not want him going to foster care,” Christie said.

@cjthemom5

Replying to @Journey♥️ Yes, they will always know of her and ill be there for every emotion good or bad. But im also mom, ive been to every game, every doctors appt, sat with them if they needed an ear loved unconditional . I am mom also. #adoption #srorytime #siblings #foryou #loveislove

Before the family knew of Levi’s birth, Christie had a recurring dream about a blue-eyed, blonde-haired boy.

"Before Levi, we had wanted to try to have a child of our own," she told Newsweek. "I'm in my forties, so we knew that we would probably need fertility treatment, so I thought let's just think about it and what will be will be."

The problem was that Levi was in Texas, so the family sold their house and moved to the Lone Star State to go through the arduous adoption process. The situation was further complicated because Levi’s biological father had parental rights even though he had substance abuse problems. The family couldn’t move out of Texas until his rights were legally terminated.

But after a 16-month process, in January 2023, Levi became a legal family member. Christie understands that adopting her husband’s ex-wife’s baby may seem unusual to some people. "It's a lot to process for a lot of people, but honestly, it seems a lot crazier than it was. At the time, it just made sense," she said.

@cjthemom5

Our adoption is official !!! after 17 months!!! #adoption #son #loveyou #ourstory#foryou #fyp

Even though Christie knew in her heart that she must adopt Levi, she wasn’t without reservations. “'If I said I did not [have concerns beforehand], that would not be honest,” she told The Daily Mail. “This was different—I was going to walk into a child I never met and was worried the circumstances would hinder this instant love. But [...] he stole my heart. I also felt this intense need to protect him.”

These days, Levi fits right in with the family, and the rest of the kids are happy to be back to living an everyday life without any caseworkers or inspections.

“He's great, he is the king of the house! We are all very close. He won't understand the journey right now, but someday, I will let him know we fought for him!” Christie said.


This article originally appeared 1 year ago.

via Ruth Watts (used with permission) and Canva/Photos

A mother takes a photo of her child for her Instagram feed.

A recent study by Data Recovery found that 68% of parents admit to making posts and sharing photos about their children, and 73% of people don’t personally know everyone who looks at their page. This can be a big problem. While most parents think that “sharenting” is harmless, some real dangers can happen to children whose photos are shared online.

Should parents post photos of their kids online?

According to NPR, sharing photos of your children could result in them being bullied by other children, or they could have their photos digitally “kidnapped” and used by fake accounts. In some cases, the photos could wind up on child pornography sites.

Ruth Watts (@ruthwattshv on TikTok), a British family health worker, recently posted a viral TikTok about parents who overshare about their kids and she makes a point that everyone should hear. After scrolling through a typical parent's page, anyone can learn more about a child’s life than the parents would ever intend to share.

Watts says that by knowing a child only through social media, she can figure out their full name, date of birth, parents' names, birthday, where they live, the foods they like and dislike, the toys they play with, their diagnosis, the parks where they like to play and so much more.

@ruthwattshv

What’s your opinion on this? Let me know in the comments ❤️ #parenting #parentsoftiktok #parentingtips #mumsoftiktok #mumlife #mum #healthvisitor #responsiveparenting #gentleparenting #parentingtips #parentingrules #babytok #babyhacksandtips #gentleparentingtips #wholesomemomcontent #mumcontent #momcontentcreator #healthvisitor

We may not think we’re giving out much information about our children. Still, when you add up all the posts year after year, plus the comments, it would be pretty easy for a predator to learn a lot about a child based solely on social media posts.

“Can you guess how I know this child? I purely know them through watching them on social media,” Watts says in a video with over 500,000 views. “I purely know all of your information because the parents have chosen to share that private, confidential information about their child. And yes, a story here, a story there and upload here and upload there. It all creates a picture. It is a jigsaw that people notice. People pay attention to and the wrong people pay attention to.”

Watts also adds that when parents share pictures of children online, they put their children in a vulnerable position without asking for their consent. The video inspired over 500 comments, many from parents who thanked her for her brutal honesty and others who shared why they don’t share photos of their children online.

sharenting, parenting, kids onlineA mother takes a photo of her child for her Instagram feed. via Canva/Photos

“This is exactly why the majority of people have no idea I even have a child. The people that matter will see him grow up in person, not fake friends through a screen,” Mikita Blackmore wrote. “This is why I don’t post my daughter on social media; it’s so scary what people can do these days,” Clara Marie added.

“I always say if you wouldn’t go to the effort of printing the photo and handing it to that person, then they shouldn’t have access to that image,” Soph wrote.

Why shouldn't parents post photos of their kids online?

Watts says she created the video because she has 2 children and feels that kids everywhere deserve a voice. “I feel it’s important to advocate for children who are vulnerable and unable to consent to posting the images. Let alone the parents and children having no understanding of internet risks and security,” she told Upworthy. “How would people feel if I started posting pictures of them without consent? I’m sure they wouldn’t like it. So why is it ok for us to post our children?”

You can follow Watts on Instagram @RuthWattshv.

Health

Here's the big reason why you're probably feeling bored all the time

There's a strange connection between overstimulation and chronic boredom.

A woman who is very bored.

How can anyone feel bored in a world with social media, streaming movies, TV shows on-demand and the ability to download just about every book in the world? It may sound paradoxical, but according to a study published in Communications Psychology by Katy Y.Y. Tam and Michael Inzlicht, digital media makes us more bored.

Studies show that since 2010, the amount of time people report feeling bored has increased dramatically and the trend has intensified over the years. Interestingly, people began reporting greater levels of boredom shortly after we all started using social media on our new smartphones.

Why am I bored all the time?

According to researchers, here’s what’s happening. Given that we have access to entertainment whenever we like, the bar for what we consider entertaining or stimulating has increased. It’s like when someone is an addict and they keep needing more and more of the same substance to get the high they crave.

Further, when we engage in less stimulating activities, such as reading a book or attending a class, we feel even more bored than before the digital revolution because we have become accustomed to heightened levels of stimulation.

boredom, psychology, social mediaA woman who is very bored.via Canva/Photos

Another reason flipping through TikTok leaves you feeling bored and listless is that digital media fragments our attention, making it hard to focus on the activity at hand. We quickly switch between videos and activities, our phones pulse and beep with notifications, and texts pop up on the screen, so it’s hard to engage with the content deeply. Also, knowing that we can be distracted at any moment makes it harder to focus. “Digital devices intensify boredom by disrupting attention,” the researchers explain.

“Digital media increases boredom through dividing attention, elevating desired levels of engagement, reducing a sense of meaning, and serving as an ineffective boredom coping strategy,” Tam and Inzlicht argue in their paper.

These findings are supported by a report from the Netherlands’ Radboud University, which recently found that “phone usage wasn't an effective method to alleviate boredom and fatigue and even made these feelings worse in many cases.”

boredom, psychology, social mediaA man who is very bored.via Canva/Photos

As we pointed out with the Dorito Theory a while back, sometimes experiences that aren’t fulfilling can still be maximally addictive. As we scroll and scroll and scroll, trying to come across something that cures our boredom, it’s time to ask ourselves how we feel after the experience. Did logging in deliver the experience we thought we’d get? Or, did the frantic search for content keep us occupied until the boredom crept in again?

Tam says that we can have more meaningful and less boring experiences with digital media if we find longer-form content that we can immerse ourselves in. However, this may prove more complicated than years ago, as our attention spans are much shorter.

“If people want a more enjoyable experience when watching videos, they can try to stay focused on the content and minimize digital switching. Like paying for a more immersive experience in a movie theater, more enjoyment comes from immersing oneself in online videos rather than swiping through them,” Tam writes.