Despite not asking for an explanation, I’ll give one anyway since you seem not to have resolved your grievance.
“American” is the correct adjective in English to describe the United States’ people and government. There is simply no equivalent to the Spanish “estadounidense.”
Furthermore, North America and South America are considered to be separate continents, and if you want to refer to them both together, you say “the Americas”, plural.
My first criticism would be that intervening only to restrict Facebook would likely just result in a substitution effect, with instagram, snapchat, youtube, reddit, etc filling the void. Likewise, if I remove cake from my diet for 4 weeks but make no restrictions on all other forms of sugary baked goods, I'm not likely to see the same magnitude of effect as I would've otherwise.
Here's an associational study that found almost 3x odds of having depression between the most and least frequent users of social media sites. This was among US adults aged 19-32 and adjusted for age, sex, race, relationship status, living situation, household income, and education level
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4853817/
I know the media often cites Instagram's internal research saying "we make body image issues worse for 1 in 3 teen girls", but the actual stat is not too damning IMO: 'Among teen girls with body image issues, 32% said Instagram made it worse, 22% said Instagram made it better, and 46% said it had no impact' [1]
So you wouldn't be in favor of a carbon tax? What about a tax on tobacco sales in a universal healthcare system? (to offset tobacco users' additional healthcare costs)
I believe that tobacco use is actually beneficial under a universal healthcare system. Dying early from cancer is a bummer at an individual level, but much cheaper than getting old and the additional care needs that come with that. So you'll be paying almost as much in taxes as someone who doesn't partake,while getting a smaller amount of retiree benefits in return.
Maybe there should be a tax rebate for smokers, so they can buy more cigarettes?
You don’t just drop dead of cancer. There is an extensive treatment process involved which is rather expensive and not guaranteed to work. So this argument doesn’t really hold.
And “sin taxes”, i.e. tobbaco taxes and carbon taxes are a logical fallacy.
Tobacco tax won’t offset the additional healthcare costs for smokers on average, so it ends up just being a penalty for having a bad habit, and carbon tax will simply put a price tag on high carbon emissions.
Kind of tangential - the tobacco tax is a fallacy in another way: without taking into account quality of life adjustments, smokers are actually a net benefit for society in healthcare costs [1]. The simple reason is because they die earlier and most healthcare costs are incurred near the tail end of life, so by shortening those final years it becomes much cheaper for society to pay out.
From another one of their posts: "We are launching a crowdfunding campaign in spring, and we will start production right afterward. Our plan is to begin shipping in late summer or early fall."
Harmful crop breeds would have been selected against over the course of many generations, right? Now we're doing it on a larger scale, so the risks and rewards are greater. What is our knowledge of the risks and rewards? Are the rewards aligned with general human wellbeing, or just a profit motive? I don't know.
“American” is the correct adjective in English to describe the United States’ people and government. There is simply no equivalent to the Spanish “estadounidense.”
Furthermore, North America and South America are considered to be separate continents, and if you want to refer to them both together, you say “the Americas”, plural.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas