Jump to content

Menu

Checking in... Anxiety about current events


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

His Facebook page has videos titled “Masks do not work,”  “the weird disappearance of seasonal influenza”, “masks are all about submission”.  Without wanting to sit through more hours of that crap (I’ve fact checked enough of those videos) I’d suspect that’s what people are meaning.  
 

however this probably belongs on a politics board at this point.  Because this board also has rules that we have agreed to follow 😉

I don’t see those opinions as being political even though I disagree with them at face value. I still don’t believe it warrants censorship. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 960
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The head company officials at Parler do not have a right to be hosted on Amazon Web Services, nor do they have a right to be hosted as an app by Apple. It is completely within a company’s rights to tu

Which would then be government-controlled media. Really, I'm completely confused when champions of the 'free-market' cry victim when the free market does something they don't like. 

And I’m astounded at people continuing to trying to equate two things that aren’t remotely the same. People not liking the results and/or how votes might have been influenced is not even close to the

I also grabbed this from the last thing he linked on Twitter - I don’t believe this is correct as I’ve seen video of the crowd beating a police officer and of the destruction inside and the crowd chanting “hang Mike Pence” And the last section sounds like approval.
 

“It wasn’t insurrection, despite endless repetitions to that effect by mainstream and left wing media. Insurrection means, “an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government.” What we saw was not a revolt – marchers intended to influence an upcoming actions and decisions by the Congress and the Vice President. It was not a rebellion – marchers went to the accepted headquarters of the legislature to influence them, not to replace or destroy them, or steal their stuff. With the possible exception of the unarmed physical breaching of the facility by a tiny portion of the far larger crowd of demonstrators, there was no resistance to any civil authority or any established government.

If this action had taken place with force of arms, after the Senate and House had accepted the disputed electoral votes submitted by the state legislatures, in an attempt to reverse the decision or take over government, we could call it an insurrection. For those of us watching from the safety of our living rooms, the show of strength of so many Trump supporters, people who more importantly do not trust government, whether it be made up of Republicans or Democrats, was impressive. One imagines that such energy and civil disobedience could be effective in coming years, and one day we could see actual popular insurrections occurring all over the country. But that didn’t happen on January 6th.”
 

 

Edited by Ausmumof3
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I also grabbed this from the last thing he linked on Twitter - I don’t believe this is correct as I’ve seen video of the crowd bearing a police officer and of the destruction inside.   And the last section sounds like approval.
 

“It wasn’t insurrection, despite endless repetitions to that effect by mainstream and left wing media. Insurrection means, “an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government.” What we saw was not a revolt – marchers intended to influence an upcoming actions and decisions by the Congress and the Vice President. It was not a rebellion – marchers went to the accepted headquarters of the legislature to influence them, not to replace or destroy them, or steal their stuff. With the possible exception of the unarmed physical breaching of the facility by a tiny portion of the far larger crowd of demonstrators, there was no resistance to any civil authority or any established government.

If this action had taken place with force of arms, after the Senate and House had accepted the disputed electoral votes submitted by the state legislatures, in an attempt to reverse the decision or take over government, we could call it an insurrection. For those of us watching from the safety of our living rooms, the show of strength of so many Trump supporters, people who more importantly do not trust government, whether it be made up of Republicans or Democrats, was impressive. One imagines that such energy and civil disobedience could be effective in coming years, and one day we could see actual popular insurrections occurring all over the country. But that didn’t happen on January 6th.”
 

 

Clearly there will be those who disagree with this statement. Still, he has the right to express it. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, popmom said:

I don’t see those opinions as being political even though I disagree with them at face value. I still don’t believe it warrants censorship. 

Not political they are Covid misinformation.  I believe the social media sites have all been really not on that because they were being blamed for peoples carelessness and the spread of disinformation resulting in increase of cases plus deaths.  I found also on his page that he was warned by YouTube several weeks ago for sharing Covid misinformation.  But having said that it’s probably easiest is you do your own reading/digging. 
 

ive said on here before that’s it’s a very kind of grey area as to social media and censorship.  What are their rights and responsibilities?  They are private companies so they get to choose what’s published on their forums.  But then they are so commonly used that that makes them quite powerful.  Of course there’s nothing to stop someone setting up a separate platform such as Parler and that seems to be happening.  It’s kind of a market regulating itself maybe.  
 

for one example I can’t sell chickens on Facebook.  So I have ended up with accounts on alternative sites I wouldn’t have gone to otherwise.  Millions of people are quitting Facebook and going elsewhere (and have been for a while) so they are likely losing customers over the decision.  Maybe another example of market regulating somehow?  

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, popmom said:

Clearly there will be those who disagree with this statement. Still, he has the right to express it. 

He has the right to express it but presumably a private company has the right not to publish it.

  • Like 20
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, popmom said:

I don’t see those opinions as being political even though I disagree with them at face value. I still don’t believe it warrants censorship. 

Censorship is done by the government. Facebook is a private corporation and has the legal right to set content standards. If you don't agree with those standards, you're welcome to set up your own site on your own server that you own.

  • Like 15
  • Thanks 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

He has the right to express it but presumably a private company has the right not to publish it.

Oh wow. I can’t go there. Not that I haven’t researched and thought this through. I just can’t go there on this forum. I’ve given up wine, but this is exactly the thing that will drive me to drink lol. 

Edited by popmom
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, popmom said:

Oh wow. I can’t go there. Not that I haven’t researched and thought this through. I just can’t go there on this forum. I’ve given up wine, but this is exactly the thing that will drive me to drink lol. 

Lol it’s kinda complicated hey.  A libertarian who is complaining that a private company is making their own rules and the presumably un libertarians saying that the government shouldn’t step in to regulate them... 

 

realistically one possible outcome from this is that Facebook/Twitter etc lose some of their sway and that might not be the worst outcome.  There are certainly various issues with social media usage. 

  • Like 14
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Lol it’s kinda complicated hey.  A libertarian who is complaining that a private company is making their own rules and the presumably un libertarians saying that the government shouldn’t step in to regulate them... 

 

realistically one possible outcome from this is that Facebook/Twitter etc lose some of their sway and that might not be the worst outcome.  There are certainly various issues with social media usage. 

FYI parler has been completely censored due to Amazon and Apple. I don’t have an account on Parler, but I think it should exist alongside any other social media. Parler doesn’t rely on algorithms to flesh out so called hate speech or inciting violence. They have actual human beings to judge posts that have been reported. Parler welcomes all points of view. That is why it was created. I’m not promoting it. I’m just relaying what I’ve researched about it. I don’t have an account with Parler, and I don’t plan to—ever. But if what society wants is to add fuel to conspiracy theories, then by all means...censorship is the way to go.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, popmom said:

FYI parler has been completely censored due to Amazon and Apple. I don’t have an account on Parler, but I think it should exist alongside any other social media. Parler doesn’t rely on algorithms to flesh out so called hate speech or inciting violence. They have actual human beings to judge posts that have been reported. Parler welcomes all points of view. That is why it was created. I’m not promoting it. I’m just relaying what I’ve researched about it. I don’t have an account with Parler, and I don’t plan to—ever. But if what society wants is to add fuel to conspiracy theories, then by all means...censorship is the way to go.

I think again though this isn’t technically censorship it’s private companies choosing not to host something they disagree with.  Probably there will be a web hosting service that may host Parler or maybe they will build their own.  I guess the alternative is some kind of law that requires web hosting companies to host indiscriminately maybe?  

  • Like 18
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

  I guess the alternative is some kind of law that requires web hosting companies to host indiscriminately maybe?  

Which would then be government-controlled media.

Really, I'm completely confused when champions of the 'free-market' cry victim when the free market does something they don't like. 

  • Like 29
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I think again though this isn’t technically censorship it’s private companies choosing not to host something they disagree with.  Probably there will be a web hosting service that may host Parler or maybe they will build their own.  I guess the alternative is some kind of law that requires web hosting companies to host indiscriminately maybe?  

I’m not going to go there on the “rights of private companies”. That’s a can of worms that I can’t deal with on this forum personally. 

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, popmom said:

I’m not going to go there on the “rights of private companies”. That’s a can of worms that I can’t deal with on this forum personally. 

Fair enough.  It’s not really possible to discuss without that though I don’t think because the subjects seem to be all tangled up together.  You can’t really discuss censorship on social media or boycotts or any of that without discussing rights/responsibilities of private companies.  

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, popmom said:

FYI parler has been completely censored due to Amazon and Apple. I don’t have an account on Parler, but I think it should exist alongside any other social media. Parler doesn’t rely on algorithms to flesh out so called hate speech or inciting violence. They have actual human beings to judge posts that have been reported. Parler welcomes all points of view. That is why it was created. I’m not promoting it. I’m just relaying what I’ve researched about it. I don’t have an account with Parler, and I don’t plan to—ever. But if what society wants is to add fuel to conspiracy theories, then by all means...censorship is the way to go.

The head company officials at Parler do not have a right to be hosted on Amazon Web Services, nor do they have a right to be hosted as an app by Apple. It is completely within a company’s rights to turn away business from another company. 

Suppose someone developed an app called, “InstaKink,” where users could post and seek videos and conversation displaying sexual kinks including bestiality, children, restraints, asphyxiation, etc. Does Amazon have the right to say, “No, we will not host that site; we believe it is harmful to society and some percentage of posts may be illegal activity”. Yes, they have that right. So does any other company of any size. 

Censorship has to do with the government’s restrictions of its citizens. It does not have to do with a non-government company. 

 

  • Like 31
  • Thanks 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Fair enough.  It’s not really possible to discuss without that though I don’t think because the subjects seem to be all tangled up together.  You can’t really discuss censorship on social media or boycotts or any of that without discussing rights/responsibilities of private companies.  

Exactly. I’ll leave it up to you and others who are interested to research the laws. 

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Quill said:

 It is completely within a company’s rights to turn away business from another company.

 

Just as it is completely within a company’s rights to turn away business from another entity that violates said company’s personal religious beliefs? Is that fair? We can’t have it both ways.

Edited by popmom
  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, popmom said:

Exactly. I’ll leave it up to you and others who are interested to research the laws. 

Lol already wasted an hour researching Ron Paul for you.  You could give me a head start by pointing me on the right direction 😆
 

and cause I’m generous I’ll share that it seems that all the Parler folk have moved to gab.  I made an account to check it out and they have a maga forum, a stop the steal forum, several qanon and patriot forums.   There’s also Brexit and Bolsanaro.  I haven’t been game to join any sub groups yet!

Edited by Ausmumof3
  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Lol already wasted an hour researching Ron Paul for you.  You could give me a head start by pointing me on the right direction 😆

Oh goodness! You could have sent me off on that rabbit trail! 😂 I’d be objective somewhat at least. 🙂

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, popmom said:

Just as it is completely within a company’s rights to turn away business from another entity that violates said company’s personal religious beliefs? 

I don't believe a company can have personal religious beliefs. An owner can have personal religious beliefs, but not a company.

However, I admit it is a tangled web of what 'qualifies' as a standard for a business to chose not to do business with others. Most businesses set standards for violent speech or actions due to the immediate risk of escalation of violence. Denying others access to business services when those others are living a non-violent life (I'm assuming you are referring to the whole gay / wedding cake issue) is a more slippery slope, due to the nature of where does the line end up being drawn? Is it just wedding cakes? Hotels? Restaurants? What if an atheist restaurant owner doesn't want to serve Christians? Etc.

I'm not making the argument for why one standard is ok here and another not, as I have *no* interest in spending time and energy arguing this. I'll just end by saying that the intersection of private business and public access *is* complicated and controversial and yes, people hold different opinions.

Edited by Happy2BaMom
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, popmom said:

Just as it is completely within a company’s rights to turn away business from another entity that violates said company’s personal religious beliefs? Is that fair? We can’t have it both ways.

Is this an example from a current event? Or is this a straw man argument? 

*Im going to disappear now cause I have to go get ready for work. But I’ll try to check in here i the evening. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

A private company cannot refuse service to a member of a protected class, if the reason they are refusing service is because the customer is a member of a protected class.

Private companies can refuse to publish others' speech whenever they want to, as long as they aren't discriminating against a protected class.  You can ban all the violent speech in your terms of service.  You can't ban certain violent speech based on the race or religion or ethnicity of the customer.

What is going on now has no equivalence to wedding cakes or photography or any other straw man people might want to bring up.

  • Like 20
  • Thanks 3
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Quill said:

Is this an example from a current event? Or is this a straw man argument? 

*Im going to disappear now cause I have to go get ready for work. But I’ll try to check in here i the evening. 

Recent current events. And I’m disappearing for awhile myself.

Edited by popmom
Link to post
Share on other sites

I recommend that everyone who thinks Facebook shouldn’t kick off people they disagree with think through what an alternative would be. Honestly, I can understand the argument here, since Facebook is so pervasive, but I’d be curious whether people would really be OK with Facebook being required to host anything at all. If not, you should try to come up with a coherent set of standards they should apply, who is supposed to make Facebook do it, and whether this set up would make you happy. 

Otherwise, the discussion is just pointless outrage, and indulging in pointless outrage because it makes one feel righteous is exactly the problem of the moment.

Edited by Not_a_Number
  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

I recommend that anyone who wants to debate about private companies rights to not spread false information take it to a new thread. This is about anxiety about current events, not Ron Paul controversies. 

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Katy said:

I recommend that anyone who wants to debate about private companies rights to not spread false information take it to a new thread. This is about anxiety about current events, not Ron Paul controversies. 

Sorry!

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Katy said:

I recommend that anyone who wants to debate about private companies rights to not spread false information take it to a new thread. This is about anxiety about current events, not Ron Paul controversies. 

Yeah sorry... should have done it several posts ago!

Link to post
Share on other sites

A ton of groups and people are getting warnings and suspensions on Facebook right now.  They seem to have made their algorithm more restrictive or added more "hot topics" to it so its flagging all kinds of memes and stuff.  I'm sure it will settle down soon enough, but its definitely not just conservatives getting flagged. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Lol already wasted an hour researching Ron Paul for you.

I appreciate your research, too. 😉 Ron Paul was the last politician I actually liked, years ago, because he was both pro-life and anti-war. Very disappointing to see his current views. Humans are fallible indeed. 

Sorry, not trying to derail, just wanted to say that the info is appreciated!

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Wheres Toto said:

A ton of groups and people are getting warnings and suspensions on Facebook right now.  They seem to have made their algorithm more restrictive or added more "hot topics" to it so its flagging all kinds of memes and stuff.  I'm sure it will settle down soon enough, but its definitely not just conservatives getting flagged. 

Given the threats of widespread violence for the upcoming two week period, I can see why they are being extra careful. I expect that will mellow when that (hopefully) dies down. 

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Katy said:

I recommend that anyone who wants to debate about private companies rights to not spread false information take it to a new thread. This is about anxiety about current events, not Ron Paul controversies. 

sorry I got off track!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Quill said:

The head company officials at Parler do not have a right to be hosted on Amazon Web Services, nor do they have a right to be hosted as an app by Apple. It is completely within a company’s rights to turn away business from another company. 

Suppose someone developed an app called, “InstaKink,” where users could post and seek videos and conversation displaying sexual kinks including bestiality, children, restraints, asphyxiation, etc. Does Amazon have the right to say, “No, we will not host that site; we believe it is harmful to society and some percentage of posts may be illegal activity”. Yes, they have that right. So does any other company of any size. 

Censorship has to do with the government’s restrictions of its citizens. It does not have to do with a non-government company. 

 

I don't know the details, but I would assume there was some sort of contract or commercial understanding on both sides that when a company spends a pile of time and money setting up on a server, presumably under the then-existing terms of the owner of the server, the owner of the server can't just abruptly cancel without some violation on the part of the other party. 

I mean suppose I owned 10 acres of land, which I leased to a property development company.  Developer spent millions building and equipping structures to contain some content that I reasonably knew about from day one.  Families and businesses have left their previous homes and moved onto my land, as expected.  Suddenly I don't like the way the wind is blowing, so I go and tell everyone on the development that they are evicted effective this instant.  And I'm a private company so I can do it.  Right?

Today I saw an email from my kids' teacher, warning them that if they switched to a new (google-based) account due to changes in the format of virtual school, 100% of their past work would permanently disappear.  They don't have a choice, they all have everything on google.  But, being a private company, I suppose google has the right to shut down tonight and kick everyone off, right?

Anyhoo ... I am not personally invested in any of this, but I don't think the "private company" argument, as stated above, flies.  Especially since "private companies" have been ruined over other, much less damaging choices, such as declining to create certain cake decorations.

I guess it's a positive thing that Americans are now getting serious about media and censorship though.  We've been too complacent about both IMO.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SKL said:

I don't know the details, but I would assume there was some sort of contract or commercial understanding on both sides that when a company spends a pile of time and money setting up on a server, presumably under the then-existing terms of the owner of the server, the owner of the server can't just abruptly cancel without some violation on the part of the other party. 

I mean suppose I owned 10 acres of land, which I leased to a property development company.  Developer spent millions building and equipping structures to contain some content that I reasonably knew about from day one.  Families and businesses have left their previous homes and moved onto my land, as expected.  Suddenly I don't like the way the wind is blowing, so I go and tell everyone on the development that they are evicted effective this instant.  And I'm a private company so I can do it.  Right?

Today I saw an email from my kids' teacher, warning them that if they switched to a new (google-based) account due to changes in the format of virtual school, 100% of their past work would permanently disappear.  They don't have a choice, they all have everything on google.  But, being a private company, I suppose google has the right to shut down tonight and kick everyone off, right?

Anyhoo ... I am not personally invested in any of this, but I don't think the "private company" argument, as stated above, flies.  Especially since "private companies" have been ruined over other, much less damaging choices, such as declining to create certain cake decorations.

I guess it's a positive thing that Americans are now getting serious about media and censorship though.  We've been too complacent about both IMO.

The op requested we get back on topic so maybe start a new thread if you want to continue this discussion.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

The op requested we get back on topic so maybe start a new thread if you want to continue this discussion.

Yeah, I saw that later, but honestly, the mass censorship [or whatever you want to call it] is really creating anxiety in many people right now.

I am fond of saying "you have a right to be wrong."  The 1st amendment is very very dear to the hearts of Americans.  So I think it honestly fits with the topic.

However, I am not interested in arguing further at this point.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

SO ANYWAY....

I have found it helpful to channel my anxiety into things I can get lost in for awhile: a good book, a tv show, a cleaning project, exercise. 

I am also trying to stay offline late at night, because I noticed that my anxiety increases with late night doom-scrolling. 

What is working for everyone else?

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MissLemon said:

SO ANYWAY....

I have found it helpful to channel my anxiety into things I can get lost in for awhile: a good book, a tv show, a cleaning project, exercise. 

I am also trying to stay offline late at night, because I noticed that my anxiety increases with late night doom-scrolling. 

What is working for everyone else?

Besides the prayer that I mentioned earlier in the thread, music, dog and cat memes or videos, walking, gardening. 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MissLemon said:

SO ANYWAY....

I have found it helpful to channel my anxiety into things I can get lost in for awhile: a good book, a tv show, a cleaning project, exercise. 

I am also trying to stay offline late at night, because I noticed that my anxiety increases with late night doom-scrolling. 

What is working for everyone else?

Gardening, gardening and more gardening. 

 I have been focusing intently on gardening since last March. I discipline myself to watch at least 3 YouTube gardening things every evening. I try to spend a Min of 2 hours a day in the gardens. And try to keep all my daydreaming on gardening 

I guess it is a kind of meditation. 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

I *wish* I could be gardening, sigh. Deep dormancy around here. I did order a bunch of seeds a few days ago.  The browsing and choosing hauled me out of my navel for an hour ago, and just thinking about a new growing season feels like an act of heroic hope at the moment.

After a long COVID-driven hiatus, I've resumed teaching ESL and citizenship students, now via Zoom, so I've been working on how to re-configure materials into formats that work virtually. I recently figured out how to make Jeopardy! games, which work *brilliantly,* so I've been having fun with that.

Exercise helps.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Working out is my anxiety relief.  
 

And projects.

 

Oh, and in a moment of inspiration I asked DH if we might turn off the internet (WiFi) at night, to curb the late night doomscrolling.  I thought it was brilliant!  Until it actually shut off, and we realized it meant our cameras were offline, and so much for the internet dependent alarm system.  Oops.  🤣

  • Like 1
  • Haha 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Spryte said:

Working out is my anxiety relief.  
 

And projects.

 

Oh, and in a moment of inspiration I asked DH if we might turn off the internet (WiFi) at night, to curb the late night doomscrolling.  I thought it was brilliant!  Until it actually shut off, and we realized it meant our cameras were offline, and so much for the internet dependent alarm system.  Oops.  🤣

I know doom scrolling is bad... but have you seen the QUALITY of the doom recently?? lol

  • Like 1
  • Haha 23
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve been cooking and learning how to use Plan to Eat. 
 

Organizing costumes for the repertory theater. 
 

Working forward on an annual fundraising event, it’ll happen someday even if not this year. 
 

Reading a lot, decluttering, trying to keep my houseplants happy. 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pam in CT said:

I *wish* I could be gardening, sigh. Deep dormancy around here. I did order a bunch of seeds a few days ago.  The browsing and choosing hauled me out of my navel for an hour ago, and just thinking about a new growing season feels like an act of heroic hope at the moment.

Have you tried hydroponic gardening indoors? We started growing inside during the pandemic and now have more tomatoes, microgreens, and basil than we know what to do with!

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MissLemon said:

Have you tried hydroponic gardening indoors? We started growing inside during the pandemic and now have more tomatoes, microgreens, and basil than we know what to do with!

What sort of system are you using? Did you design it yourself or use a kit?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Seasider too said:

What sort of system are you using? Did you design it yourself or use a kit?

I have two Aerogardens, and 2 Deep water culture tubs with air stones. DH designed them. The Aerogardens have Genovese basil, Thai basil, and mint in one.  I have some lettuces sprouting in the other Aerogarden. The dwc tubs have tomatoes right now, and eventually will have more lettuce and bell peppers. I tried to germinate more lettuce seeds, but I think they got too cold because the little sprouts don't look so great. 😕 I'll have to try again. 

The microgreens grow in coconut coir. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MissLemon said:

I have two Aerogardens, and 2 Deep water culture tubs with air stones. DH designed them. The Aerogardens have Genovese basil, Thai basil, and mint in one.  I have some lettuces sprouting in the other Aerogarden. The dwc tubs have tomatoes right now, and eventually will have more lettuce and bell peppers. I tried to germinate more lettuce seeds, but I think they got too cold because the little sprouts don't look so great. 😕 I'll have to try again. 

The microgreens grow in coconut coir. 

I have been wondering about those aerogardens. Are they worth it?  Pros?  Cons?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...