Avoiding outrage fatigue while staying informed(scientificamerican.com)
scientificamerican.com
Avoiding outrage fatigue while staying informed
https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/how-to-avoid-outrage-fatigue-and-tune-in-without-burning-out/
973 comments
I quit reddit too recently, I still look at it for info but I'm not logged in/scrolling through it
I find myself reaching for something when I have YouTube/chilling at my desk at the end of the day, can't code anymore/make something just on till I sleep. Sometimes have the desire to play a video game (I have a gaming rig too funny how that works)
I've been trying to read HN or IEEE, TechCrunch stuff like that as my "lazy fun"
I will miss posting stuff like "what is this car" or being part of the car talk for a sporty car I drive but idk kind of want to just live too
It's unfortunate people expect you to have social media like a girl asks me if I have Instagram and I'm weird to not have one, I get it they can scope you out too for safety but when I tried using that stuff I felt this pressure to post about something
Anyway my main goal in life right now is getting out of debt/staying fit and work on projects
I find myself reaching for something when I have YouTube/chilling at my desk at the end of the day, can't code anymore/make something just on till I sleep. Sometimes have the desire to play a video game (I have a gaming rig too funny how that works)
I've been trying to read HN or IEEE, TechCrunch stuff like that as my "lazy fun"
I will miss posting stuff like "what is this car" or being part of the car talk for a sporty car I drive but idk kind of want to just live too
It's unfortunate people expect you to have social media like a girl asks me if I have Instagram and I'm weird to not have one, I get it they can scope you out too for safety but when I tried using that stuff I felt this pressure to post about something
Anyway my main goal in life right now is getting out of debt/staying fit and work on projects
I checked reddit recently for the first time in a while, and I was shocked by how radicalized its become. An echo chamber of hateful people and perhaps GPTs that are agitating the big subreddits. The contrast is stark with all the "no place for hate" in the rules and endless banning of microaggressions.
I saw dozens of death threats. Even an explicit death threat thread with over 40,000 upvotes before reddit stepped in and shut the whole subreddit down.
It reminded me of Ghostbusters 2 with all the aggressively angry people and the ooze pouring out of the sewers, all building upon itself.
I saw dozens of death threats. Even an explicit death threat thread with over 40,000 upvotes before reddit stepped in and shut the whole subreddit down.
It reminded me of Ghostbusters 2 with all the aggressively angry people and the ooze pouring out of the sewers, all building upon itself.
This is just the consequence of the API protests. Despite people claiming it had no lasting impact, admins coming in and making sweeping changes to mod teams replacing them with loyalists, alongside ramping up centralized feeds to serve more ads onto meant content quality took a nosedive. This is obvious in most subs if you actually look at who is submitting the threads (something the app and All/Popular pages hides in several views), most of these subs are dominated by a handful of accounts. It's a cycle too, because often they'll continue spamming subs in order to get on All/Popular, or make up weird stories to do so, effectively karma farming taken very seriously, with mods encouraging it because of the aforementioned loyalists.
It's all just driveby anger and reposts. Maybe some smaller subs with good communities here and there, but that often requires a mod team putting in substantial hours and remaining under the radar from All/Popular in any shape.
Forgot to mention, Reddit also started paying these accounts for posting. So a literal financial incentive to ragebait. It' called the "Contributor Program".
It's all just driveby anger and reposts. Maybe some smaller subs with good communities here and there, but that often requires a mod team putting in substantial hours and remaining under the radar from All/Popular in any shape.
Forgot to mention, Reddit also started paying these accounts for posting. So a literal financial incentive to ragebait. It' called the "Contributor Program".
RDDT was a good buy, but the site is absolutely going to be destroyed. That’s what’s valuable. I’m not selling until Reddit is Facebook-tier garbage.
This behavior has been going on long before the API protests.
It's wild how bad it has gotten since the election. It's important to remember that free speech does not protect directly inciting violence and it does not protect advocating for the murder of anyone, even a politician. These are generally illegal
So what Reddit has morphed into, is an illegal content factory - there has already been a comment or two about it from the government and the Trump admin is not one that is likely to sit on my sidelines over this.
Whatever your politics may be, I'm just saying this is going to burn Reddit bad.
So what Reddit has morphed into, is an illegal content factory - there has already been a comment or two about it from the government and the Trump admin is not one that is likely to sit on my sidelines over this.
Whatever your politics may be, I'm just saying this is going to burn Reddit bad.
> It's important to remember that free speech does not protect directly inciting violence and it does not protect advocating for the murder of anyone, even a politician. These are generally illegal
Under US first amendment rights, it's actually sometimes legal.
For example, "Watts v. United States" established that if an anti-draft speaker tells a crowd "If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is LBJ" that's political hyperbole.
So if a crowd were to set up a guillotine outside congress and chant "hang mike pence" it's not necessarily illegal.
Under US first amendment rights, it's actually sometimes legal.
For example, "Watts v. United States" established that if an anti-draft speaker tells a crowd "If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is LBJ" that's political hyperbole.
So if a crowd were to set up a guillotine outside congress and chant "hang mike pence" it's not necessarily illegal.
The only thing not covered by the concept (and law) of freedom of speech with regard to violence are direct, clear incitements to immediately commit violence. E.g. egging someone on to go lynch another person right now is not legal.
Saying “I think this person should be killed” is legally free speech.
Saying “I think this person should be killed” is legally free speech.
I don’t know if you’ve noticed but respect of law and norms is being thrown out of the window. That was the old USA and the paradigm is wildly shifting.
Reddit, by far, is one of the worst echo chambers on the internet. I've seen hundreds of death threats at one political group on there, but if any veiled threat is made against the "reddit approved party" it is instantly removed or accounts suspended. This really peaked during 2020, when open calls for violence stayed up, some with reddit admin approvals.
It used to be a good site, but that was many years ago.
It used to be a good site, but that was many years ago.
Did people forget the_donald?
What do people think others will do, when they see that the_donald behavior gets rewarded by electoral and political support?
If its not clear, everyone is going to radicalize, because its getting success.
What do people think others will do, when they see that the_donald behavior gets rewarded by electoral and political support?
If its not clear, everyone is going to radicalize, because its getting success.
'thedonald' was not violent are even hateful by Reddit standards. Banning it was a big mistake and gave fringe supporters headroom.
Reddit has in general got way worse since 2016. The amount of bloodthirst and hate is very unsettling.
Reddit has in general got way worse since 2016. The amount of bloodthirst and hate is very unsettling.
the_donald was very hateful but I wouldn't call them violent. They were a cultish meme sub like /r/Conservative is. They got banned was for brigading not for being violent and hateful.
I would go as far as to say it was a childish meme sub (edit: and cultish, ye). I wonder if it was like that Flat Earth Society started. Once the "Qanon" type of guys turn up the memes become dogma.
I might have a different threshold for hateful on the internets or I didn't look closely enough.
I might have a different threshold for hateful on the internets or I didn't look closely enough.
Likely take a break from social media and talk with some real people. Lots of people voted for trump aren’t radical actually none that i know are. I come from a small town in a red state and yes they completely disagree with democrats on pretty much everything but the stuff you read on reddit is so far fetched and extreme I don’t know how anyone would take it seriously.
They believe people hate Americans and everyone should be ashamed traveling overseas. As someone who travels all the time to multiple continents not just Europe i have never encountered anyone who asked or even cared. Most people don’t live in a political bubble where they need to stop being friends with people over politics.
Anyway a lot people are choosing to live in an angry little bubble. It is really sad to see.
They believe people hate Americans and everyone should be ashamed traveling overseas. As someone who travels all the time to multiple continents not just Europe i have never encountered anyone who asked or even cared. Most people don’t live in a political bubble where they need to stop being friends with people over politics.
Anyway a lot people are choosing to live in an angry little bubble. It is really sad to see.
You realise this works both ways? The average left leaning person doesn't have 700 pronouns and isn't calling for a communist revolution. They're not paid by Soros. They don't have blue hair and have a meltdown at the slightest upset.
The online charicatures are just that. In both directions.
Real talk though: the US, via the current administration, is trashing its international reputation. With tariffs and lashing out at (former?) allies. Or with Musk demanding regime change in the UK, for instance. On a personal level people will still be chill no doubt, but you should be prepared for some negative attitudes towards the US if things continue unabated.
The online charicatures are just that. In both directions.
Real talk though: the US, via the current administration, is trashing its international reputation. With tariffs and lashing out at (former?) allies. Or with Musk demanding regime change in the UK, for instance. On a personal level people will still be chill no doubt, but you should be prepared for some negative attitudes towards the US if things continue unabated.
I was in Europe for a while starting right after 9/11 and there was a lot of shame and no lack of pointed questions. The locals didn’t hate us, but there was a decent amount of “what the hell is wrong with you guys?” It was not uncommon for American travelers to put Canadian flag pins on their backpacks to try to deflect attention or curry favor.
It’s surely ten times worse now. Trump makes W look like a statesman, and we could at least plead that W didn’t win a majority and only became president because the system is stupid.
It’s surely ten times worse now. Trump makes W look like a statesman, and we could at least plead that W didn’t win a majority and only became president because the system is stupid.
I remember the anti-US sentiment among people at the time of the invasion of Iraq as way harsher than now during Trump. Like not even close.
It seems to be mainly European neoliberals that are more upset about Trump.
It seems to be mainly European neoliberals that are more upset about Trump.
I think it's more that there is nothing to be gained about asking an American in Europe about Trump. Most likely, they think he's a douchenozzle too so why bring him up and ruin a vacationer's day. On the off chance they are a Trump supporter, now the European has to listen to an idiot spout Newsmax nonsense until they can get away.
Hey, this is a PSA: this was going to happen.
I’ve seen this sequence of events play out before.
In many was ‘go outside’ is dismissive of what many people feel is happening, that to within 15 days of this new presidency. This is a low key way of saying you don’t like people protesting.
While at the same time others are saying people aren’t protesting enough.
If you aren’t ok with all of this, I strongly suggest deleting all social media, including hacker news. Take your advice and go outside. Be good to your neighbors and your mental health.
There is zero space for passive consumption when one of the biggest cultural and economic forces in English speaking Internet land is dismantling itself.
There is going to be very little space for any tolerance of nuance - because Trump is going to continue to escalate. He is going to follow a plan which was known, and it aims at gutting the US, and justifying it with DEI or whatever the cassus belli of the month is.
This is eventually going to result in ‘riots.’
Which will feed the righteousness of the conservatives, which will result in a new round of “well you were so happy when the year started, where are you now.”
It will escalate into attacks on democrats as the devil. And HN will swing from left outrage to right outrage.
At that time the roles will be reversed, and the positions will switch.
Again - If you or anyone reading these comments is tired on Feb 6th - leave the internet right now. This is your tornado / natural disaster warning.
This isn’t meant to be hurtful to you, or to be any defense of anything.
I always assume I am wrong, and I hope I can look back at these comments with embarrassment over what looks like histrionics.
The problem I have is that i deal with social media and online safety as work and as research. Papers on this topic are my fun reading when my brain isn’t fogged up.
This is going to be worse than brexit. And that’s if we are all lucky.
I was asking bankers if there’s any slack in the financial system in November - and I asked this in multiple countries.
The answer was no. So when the trade shocks start hitting the system, expect a downturn.
This is aside from the walking dead syndrome which america will face after gutting multiple systems in-flight.
I wish you luck and the very best. Sorry.
I’ve seen this sequence of events play out before.
In many was ‘go outside’ is dismissive of what many people feel is happening, that to within 15 days of this new presidency. This is a low key way of saying you don’t like people protesting.
While at the same time others are saying people aren’t protesting enough.
If you aren’t ok with all of this, I strongly suggest deleting all social media, including hacker news. Take your advice and go outside. Be good to your neighbors and your mental health.
There is zero space for passive consumption when one of the biggest cultural and economic forces in English speaking Internet land is dismantling itself.
There is going to be very little space for any tolerance of nuance - because Trump is going to continue to escalate. He is going to follow a plan which was known, and it aims at gutting the US, and justifying it with DEI or whatever the cassus belli of the month is.
This is eventually going to result in ‘riots.’
Which will feed the righteousness of the conservatives, which will result in a new round of “well you were so happy when the year started, where are you now.”
It will escalate into attacks on democrats as the devil. And HN will swing from left outrage to right outrage.
At that time the roles will be reversed, and the positions will switch.
Again - If you or anyone reading these comments is tired on Feb 6th - leave the internet right now. This is your tornado / natural disaster warning.
This isn’t meant to be hurtful to you, or to be any defense of anything.
I always assume I am wrong, and I hope I can look back at these comments with embarrassment over what looks like histrionics.
The problem I have is that i deal with social media and online safety as work and as research. Papers on this topic are my fun reading when my brain isn’t fogged up.
This is going to be worse than brexit. And that’s if we are all lucky.
I was asking bankers if there’s any slack in the financial system in November - and I asked this in multiple countries.
The answer was no. So when the trade shocks start hitting the system, expect a downturn.
This is aside from the walking dead syndrome which america will face after gutting multiple systems in-flight.
I wish you luck and the very best. Sorry.
xvector(3)
It optimizes for echo chambers. You see what gets upvoted the most.
That particular subreddit isn't shut down, it was temporarily suspended as the moderators simply got overwhelmed. There's no indication of bad faith from either the mod team nor the reddit admins, the floodgate was just too much for them to handle. It pretty much says so in the ban message, admins are gonna help them take back control and it will be up within a couple of days.
To be even more precise, here's the message from the source;
> This community has been banned
> This subreddit has been temporarily banned due to a prevalence of violent content. Inciting and glorifying violence or doxing are against Reddit’s platform-wide Rules. It will reopen in 72 hours, during which Reddit will support moderators and provide resources to keep Reddit a healthy place for discussion and debate.
> This community has been banned
> This subreddit has been temporarily banned due to a prevalence of violent content. Inciting and glorifying violence or doxing are against Reddit’s platform-wide Rules. It will reopen in 72 hours, during which Reddit will support moderators and provide resources to keep Reddit a healthy place for discussion and debate.
> I checked reddit recently for the first time in a while, and I was shocked by how radicalized its become.
Reddit has always had these elements, but they were previously isolated to certain subreddits.
I noticed the biggest change when the app and website became aggressive about getting people to join other subreddits and inserting posts from other subreddits into people's feeds. Suddenly the isolated subreddits I followed were full of low effort content and angry comments.
Reddit's front page is shockingly bad. The amount of misinformation and ragebait that gets upvoted to the front page is almost hard to believe.
It's also interesting that many subreddits have embraced the ragebait. Subreddits like /r/AITA have been clear about how they don't care if stories are real or not, but legions of Redditors engage with obvious ChatGPT spam as if it was a real situation they need to weigh in on.
Reddit has always had these elements, but they were previously isolated to certain subreddits.
I noticed the biggest change when the app and website became aggressive about getting people to join other subreddits and inserting posts from other subreddits into people's feeds. Suddenly the isolated subreddits I followed were full of low effort content and angry comments.
Reddit's front page is shockingly bad. The amount of misinformation and ragebait that gets upvoted to the front page is almost hard to believe.
It's also interesting that many subreddits have embraced the ragebait. Subreddits like /r/AITA have been clear about how they don't care if stories are real or not, but legions of Redditors engage with obvious ChatGPT spam as if it was a real situation they need to weigh in on.
I just stick to the niche subreddits (games, interests, whatever). The main subreddits have been especially aggressive echo chambers for a long time now.
I tried that with work. I created an account where I can just follow a few things related to my job. The problem is that reddit will start showing you things you didn't subscribe to. It's a battle to keep them at bay. If you look at my work account feed it's all mycology, bad tattoos, what-is-this-thing. I never subscribed to any of them. Yea, they are interesting but that's not what I wanted or need at work.
Old Reddit still doesn't have any suggested posts. Also, the Reddit API works just fine within limit. It's unusable for scraping but as a single user it works fine.
/r/worldnews is one of the most astroturfed places on the internet. Some of those commenters are so nationalist and bloodthirsty they unnerve me. The ban hammer is extremely active on this sub, and for saying completely innocuous political statements about personal preference. I'm absolutely sure this is broader than just that sub but I've probably heard this specific complaint from probably a dozen other people too.
I will say, the subreddit system does a decent job of quarantining the dysfunction to that sub. The mod quality is everything and the mod drama is an absolute dumpster fire. (Extremely curiously, Ghislaine Maxwell seems to have been one of the most prolific of the mods, and one of her suspected accounts may be one of the most successful (karma-wise) posters of all reddit.) But on the flipside, /r/askhistorians is still one of the best resources on the internet. Many of the specialty subreddits I frequent (Aviation, UkraineRussiaReport, video game subs, several miscellaneous african subs) are still functioning fine.
I will say, the subreddit system does a decent job of quarantining the dysfunction to that sub. The mod quality is everything and the mod drama is an absolute dumpster fire. (Extremely curiously, Ghislaine Maxwell seems to have been one of the most prolific of the mods, and one of her suspected accounts may be one of the most successful (karma-wise) posters of all reddit.) But on the flipside, /r/askhistorians is still one of the best resources on the internet. Many of the specialty subreddits I frequent (Aviation, UkraineRussiaReport, video game subs, several miscellaneous african subs) are still functioning fine.
_DeadFred_(3)
> The contrast is stark with all the "no place for hate" in the rules and endless banning of microaggressions.
Please be specific.
Please be specific.
Agreed. There is exactly one way to think and believe on Reddit. The "outrage" might be tolerable or even informative in some cases if it was equally distributed.
It's disheartening when the one-track politics infects every square inch. It's a good point about bots because 1) they can be sold or rented to advertisers, 2) they are more valuable with higher karma, and 3) the easiest way to get a bot to harvest karma is by agreeing with the hive. So they're amplifying "the message" without even intending to.
It's disheartening when the one-track politics infects every square inch. It's a good point about bots because 1) they can be sold or rented to advertisers, 2) they are more valuable with higher karma, and 3) the easiest way to get a bot to harvest karma is by agreeing with the hive. So they're amplifying "the message" without even intending to.
> I will miss posting stuff like "what is this car" or being part of the car talk for a sporty car I drive but idk kind of want to just live too
I used to waste so much time posting about cars on Reddit. I'd open my computer at 11pm, reply a few times to a single post on Reddit, and before long, I'd see 1:45am on the clock.
Not posting anything has been a massive time saver.
I used to waste so much time posting about cars on Reddit. I'd open my computer at 11pm, reply a few times to a single post on Reddit, and before long, I'd see 1:45am on the clock.
Not posting anything has been a massive time saver.
Same, except i reply on the drugs and harm reduction subreddit trying to help kids make decisions that dont destroy their lives. It's really difficult to leave because i remember when i needed those people and sometimes it feels like all the adults left the room and I'm the only one left. Who's gonna help these kids? Seems futile to attempt to stem the tide of gen alpha tiktok brainrot idiocy but sometimes people actually listen to me and their life improves. I've given myself a time that I'll work down to 15 minutes a day to try to consolidate that extra time. Recently I've been using some of my addiction advice on myself to quit reddit
One healthy way to consume Reddit that I recently learned about is creating a "custom feed" (see left margin of new UI).
You can just add subs that are of interest that lack the torrent of bad news and only ever visit that custom feed. It doesn't ever algorithmically add posts from subs you don't manually include, as far as I've seen.
You can just add subs that are of interest that lack the torrent of bad news and only ever visit that custom feed. It doesn't ever algorithmically add posts from subs you don't manually include, as far as I've seen.
> You can just add subs that are of interest that lack the torrent of bad news and only ever visit that custom feed.
I still use old.reddit and this is the only way I've ever used Reddit. My homepage only shows me posts from Reddits I follow and nothing else. I don't see all the craziness people here are talking about.
I still use old.reddit and this is the only way I've ever used Reddit. My homepage only shows me posts from Reddits I follow and nothing else. I don't see all the craziness people here are talking about.
Yes, that's exactly the same as what I do. When I tried new reddit, it looked awful to use and look at, so I always stayed at old reddit. Like you I don't see any of the crazy stuff. Just discussions in the subreddits I follow.
User groups you would be interested in get hijacked by whatever the overall sentiment of Reddit is. Threads that aren't political suddenly get political for no reason. It's completely dead in there - content quality is brutally low.
The wave of X bans was so frustrating. Particularly for sports subreddits where that’s where all of the breaking news and team announcements happen.
In fact NFL teams are specifically banned from having bluesky accounts as an official media channel, and r/nfl still banned X/Twitter.
sigh
In fact NFL teams are specifically banned from having bluesky accounts as an official media channel, and r/nfl still banned X/Twitter.
sigh
Why are NFL teams banned from having an official account on Bluesky?
It’s not an “approved social media site”:
https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/new...
Presumably there’s some money that needs to change hands between the NFL and a social media site.
https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/new...
Presumably there’s some money that needs to change hands between the NFL and a social media site.
I just bookmark subreddits for things I'm interested in, and visit them individually. I hardly ever see any political content doing that.
Politicisation happens, though slowly. Therewasanattempt used to be funny pictures/videos and is now purely TDS. My city's sub used to have useful local content and is now about 50% national politics.
The key is to stay in smaller, dedicated subreddits and avoid anything remotely popular or generic.
r/localllama, r/bambulabs ... Politics has a way of creeping in.
Yeah I just use old Reddit, which still works like that.
Cannot stand unsolicited content.
Cannot stand unsolicited content.
My suggestion: music! Give the eyes a break.
I have music/noise on all the time, rarely in silence. I play the same playlist/song over and over when focusing. Unfortunately working in an open office it sucks people having conversions (to each other or to computer)
If I don't have music playing, a song will play in my head. Over and over....
I'm always growing my "playlist" though. One room of the house is where I auditioning new music. Another room plays my entire music catalog on shuffle.
I'm always growing my "playlist" though. One room of the house is where I auditioning new music. Another room plays my entire music catalog on shuffle.
I feel that, can't play something new if trying to focus, but if doing chores/physical task can do new music passively in the background
Man, I hope you wear headphones.
Fun fact: No one is impressed by your "sports" car, but I'll bet 100% don't want hear it and wish the worst upon you.
I know some places are testing sound ticketing, which I cannot wait to see implemented everywhere.
https://www.autoweek.com/news/technology/a39906304/californi...
I hope you get over your noise addiction sooner than later. Or, go broke in the process.
Fun fact: No one is impressed by your "sports" car, but I'll bet 100% don't want hear it and wish the worst upon you.
I know some places are testing sound ticketing, which I cannot wait to see implemented everywhere.
https://www.autoweek.com/news/technology/a39906304/californi...
I hope you get over your noise addiction sooner than later. Or, go broke in the process.
They're clearly not talking about their car, let's chill out. They're just saying they're always listening to their own music or (white?) noise, because their open office is noisy from conversations.
Also, books. Books are amazing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-Le9SH4mvU
I read on and off, have a kindle, read through the whole Bobiverse series for ex
> It's unfortunate people expect you to have social media like a girl asks me if I have Instagram and I'm weird to not have one, I get it they can scope you out too for safety but when I tried using that stuff I felt this pressure to post about something
I actually feel really good when people expect me to be on social media and I tell them Im not.
Kind of similar to the feeling when I say that I quit cigarettes. Im still surprised by it and talking about it makes me feel very blessed to be free of it.
I actually feel really good when people expect me to be on social media and I tell them Im not.
Kind of similar to the feeling when I say that I quit cigarettes. Im still surprised by it and talking about it makes me feel very blessed to be free of it.
>It's unfortunate people expect you to have social media like a girl asks me if I have Instagram and I'm weird to not have one
Outside of reddit/discord/hn, I haven't had any social media since roughly 2010, and I don't use reddit or discord for anything remotely "social media"-ish.
While I still get the occasional look as if I'm wearing a tinfoil hat when I say "I don't have FB. No, no insta either. No... not snapchat either", I find it's a lot less common now, thankfully. When I first left social media in ~2010, it was rough. Not only dating scene wise, but I lost out on a few job opportunities (at least a few, probably more than I know) as well.
Now you're just considered kind of weird/fringe, instead of being borderline insane. Moving (slowly) in the right direction, I think.
Outside of reddit/discord/hn, I haven't had any social media since roughly 2010, and I don't use reddit or discord for anything remotely "social media"-ish.
While I still get the occasional look as if I'm wearing a tinfoil hat when I say "I don't have FB. No, no insta either. No... not snapchat either", I find it's a lot less common now, thankfully. When I first left social media in ~2010, it was rough. Not only dating scene wise, but I lost out on a few job opportunities (at least a few, probably more than I know) as well.
Now you're just considered kind of weird/fringe, instead of being borderline insane. Moving (slowly) in the right direction, I think.
I wouldn't care a whole lot if someone told me they weren't in IG, FB, Snap, Twitter, etc. However, if someone told me they never bothered with Linkedin, it would be hard for me to resist bowing at their feet.
I know that people here on HN love to dump on LinkedIn. That said, for some industries, it is the primary way to connect with headhunters and future employers. For me, I don't use any of the social aspect. I only post my CV details and wait for headhunters to contact me directly. It works well.
Are there any women (in highly developed countries) under 40 who aren't on some form of social media? I never met any. I think it would be more difficult than men for social reasons.
Are there any women (in highly developed countries) under 40 who aren't on some form of social media? I never met any. I think it would be more difficult than men for social reasons.
I have no idea how. But after I quit social media I managed to convince my wife to give it a go. That was 4 years ago. Has linkedin for work, and goes to a couple of sports related subreddits, but that's it.
I deleted my LinkedIn several years ago.
I can only recommend it if you are independently wealthy, want to become an ascetic, or more broadly, your goal is to never be hired or really even evaluated for much in the business world again.
None of the rest of the social networks serve as a sanity check on your resume/application/meeting.
I can only recommend it if you are independently wealthy, want to become an ascetic, or more broadly, your goal is to never be hired or really even evaluated for much in the business world again.
None of the rest of the social networks serve as a sanity check on your resume/application/meeting.
I've round linkedin extremely useful recently for finding a new job after being made redundant. It's where the recruiters are, and where the jobs are posted, at least here in the UK. I even paid for a couple of months enhanced membership, or whatever they call it, as a career investment. I'd say its worth the money over the short-term.
As for maintaining an up-to-date profile, I think its worth dialing-down the access unless you're actively looking for a new job.
But the bs that people post to try to get "engagement" makes my head hurt. I'm about to start a new job in a few weeks and it'll be a relief not to have to bother with linkedin again for a few (hopefully many) years.
As for maintaining an up-to-date profile, I think its worth dialing-down the access unless you're actively looking for a new job.
But the bs that people post to try to get "engagement" makes my head hurt. I'm about to start a new job in a few weeks and it'll be a relief not to have to bother with linkedin again for a few (hopefully many) years.
I deactivated my account after finding a job and will reactivate when I am on a new search.
It is scary that one platform has so much control over people's lives. If LinkedIn were to ban me for whatever reason tomorrow, finding a job would become virtually impossible.
I could still get a job but it would require more effort. I keep my network updated on what I'm doing and new opportunities, not just jobs, present themselves to me. People who avoid LinkedIn remind of those who scoff at the stock market. Yes, it sucks if you hold it wrong.
> People who avoid LinkedIn remind of those who scoff at the stock market. Yes, it sucks if you hold it wrong.
Wait, really? I must be old. I technically have a LinkedIn but haven't really been on the site since the last time I was in the job market 8 yeras ago.
Very occasionally a potential client messages me through it but they are almost very low quality contacts.
Very occasionally a potential client messages me through it but they are almost very low quality contacts.
I mean that's the correct way to use LinkedIn: it's a job board.
It's a social media platform. Full stop.
Headhunters are trying to be influencers, they have games, news feeds are full of junk or agenda pushing (lots of anti-WFH pieces because the wealthy owners need to keep their commercial property prices up), etc.
Headhunters are trying to be influencers, they have games, news feeds are full of junk or agenda pushing (lots of anti-WFH pieces because the wealthy owners need to keep their commercial property prices up), etc.
Out of all the social media I don't have, that's the one that has lost me the most job opportunities for sure. I probably would have caved and signed up if I didn't end up getting a job through some old-fashioned (face-to-face) networking.
We were required to make linkedin profiles as part of the computer science career preparedness class. I got an internship out of that career day though so it was a win for me
It's not the miracle you seem to imagine! I deleted my linkedin account at least fifteen years ago now, disgusted by their spammy, underhanded recruitment tactics, and I have never had any trouble finding interesting work.
I understand that some people find it reassuring to receive a constant stream of recruiter inquiries, but from what I hear these messages are mostly low-effort, shotgun-blast attempts to fill undesirable positions, so I don't feel like I am missing out.
I understand that some people find it reassuring to receive a constant stream of recruiter inquiries, but from what I hear these messages are mostly low-effort, shotgun-blast attempts to fill undesirable positions, so I don't feel like I am missing out.
Maybe you're just iteratively refining your friend group.
I agree. In my 40s and at work most people my age do have fb instagram and TikTok but everyone’s super understanding when I say I like my privacy
How did you miss out on job opportunities by not being on social media?
The first step in the resume vetting process was looking the applicant up on LinkedIn. If they didn't exist, the resume goes in the bin. I doubt it's that severe still as more and more people move away from having social media (it's been awhile since I've been on either side of job hunt/hiring).
On more than one occasion the direct feedback of why I didn't move further in the hiring process was a lack of internet presence.
But, again, keep in mind this was early 2010s. Social media hadn't had as much time to show the world how poisonous it is.
On more than one occasion the direct feedback of why I didn't move further in the hiring process was a lack of internet presence.
But, again, keep in mind this was early 2010s. Social media hadn't had as much time to show the world how poisonous it is.
Oh I see. I’ve never found LinkedIn useful, but I still have a profile for some reason. I suppose I’ve never fallen into that particular trap.
I've found work via twitter. I left it last year, but I can't deny it had some networking benefits which can lead to job opportunities.
One unfortunate aspect of this phenomena is that as reddit "evaporatively cools" (ala https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZQG9cwKbct2LtmL3p/evaporativ... ) as the more level headed people leave reddit gets even more radical.
It's even possible the places that people then move to (such as HN) also get more radical if the leavers have higher levels of radicalism than the place they join.
It's even possible the places that people then move to (such as HN) also get more radical if the leavers have higher levels of radicalism than the place they join.
> It's unfortunate people expect you to have social media like a girl asks me if I have Instagram and I'm weird to not have one, I get it they can scope you out too for safety but when I tried using that stuff I felt this pressure to post about something
Probably worth Googling something like [men who don't have social media] to think what women think about this, it's more positive than you might think :)
Probably worth Googling something like [men who don't have social media] to think what women think about this, it's more positive than you might think :)
> It's unfortunate people expect you to have social media like a girl asks me if I have Instagram and I'm weird to not have one, I get it they can scope you out too for safety but when I tried using that stuff I felt this pressure to post about something
It's not about scoping you out. Asking for your Instagram is like what asking for your number was in the past. It's flirting, it's that they want to get in touch again, set up a date.
If you say "I don't have Instagram", the girl will assume that you don't like her, not that you don't have Instagram.
So just make an empty Instagram (with a normal profile photo) for connecting with people. And say so when sharing it with a girl. If it's somebody who wants to "scope you out", you're already dealing with a person who you don't want to deal with.
It's not about scoping you out. Asking for your Instagram is like what asking for your number was in the past. It's flirting, it's that they want to get in touch again, set up a date.
If you say "I don't have Instagram", the girl will assume that you don't like her, not that you don't have Instagram.
So just make an empty Instagram (with a normal profile photo) for connecting with people. And say so when sharing it with a girl. If it's somebody who wants to "scope you out", you're already dealing with a person who you don't want to deal with.
> If you say "I don't have Instagram", the girl will assume that you don't like her, not that you don't have Instagram.
> So just make an empty Instagram
Why not, instead, say "I don't have Instagram, here's my [ bluesky handle / phone number / email address ]"?
> So just make an empty Instagram
Why not, instead, say "I don't have Instagram, here's my [ bluesky handle / phone number / email address ]"?
> bluesky handle
Just tell her you are an Arch Linux admin and skip the flirting.
> phone number
Yes, in regions where people use phone numbers / WhatsApp numbers in that way.
> email address
Just tell her you wanna sell her a time share and skip the flirting.
Just tell her you are an Arch Linux admin and skip the flirting.
> phone number
Yes, in regions where people use phone numbers / WhatsApp numbers in that way.
> email address
Just tell her you wanna sell her a time share and skip the flirting.
> Asking for your Instagram is like what asking for your number was in the past. It's flirting, it's that they want to get in touch again, set up a date.
Personal website is the way to go. Preferably a static site built with a home-made templating engine written in Ruby and running on a non-mainstream budget cloud provider. The chicks dig it man.
Even a hint of Wordpress is social death.
/s
Personal website is the way to go. Preferably a static site built with a home-made templating engine written in Ruby and running on a non-mainstream budget cloud provider. The chicks dig it man.
Even a hint of Wordpress is social death.
/s
The Instagram dating thing is because, in the heteronormative sense, a guy without one odd WAY more likely to be cheating. If you’re in a relationship, even if you don’t post, your significant other will likely tag you in their posts.
I’ve never really understood doomscrolling on Twitter or Reddit. The only social media I find remotely useful out entertaining is actually TikTok. The comments are IME the least toxic and most entertaining. And I’ve gone down fascinating rabbit holes of things that have absolutely no relevance to my life like medical residency TikTok.
I’ve never really understood doomscrolling on Twitter or Reddit. The only social media I find remotely useful out entertaining is actually TikTok. The comments are IME the least toxic and most entertaining. And I’ve gone down fascinating rabbit holes of things that have absolutely no relevance to my life like medical residency TikTok.
I 100% believe that guys with Instagram accounts are more likely to cheat than guys without them.
Agreed, but we are getting thrown in with the people who have an insta account, but say they don't so they don't get fact-checked on their relationship status.
My reddit scrolling wasn't doom for my case. I was either personal topics I liked (cars, computing, software, photography, etc...) or brain rot/stupid shi that's the main reason I've left because I could be more productive than looking at an endless supply of that stuff
You can mute subreddits and not see them anymore
Funny you have to purge the algo on things like YouTube if you click on a thubmnail with some hot chick, boom your feed is nothing but click bait of hot women
You can mute subreddits and not see them anymore
Funny you have to purge the algo on things like YouTube if you click on a thubmnail with some hot chick, boom your feed is nothing but click bait of hot women
This is the way. I was a director of the community team at deviantart when it got going and I remember so many times thinking "if we get one of these apps for everything people are going to drown themselves in the internet" - because I used to have to actively check in on community members who we deemed addicted. Sure enough, here we are, except it seems nobody is looking out for the best interests of their communities anymore. Thank god for dang.
> I was a director of the community team at deviantart (...) I used to have to actively check in on community members who we deemed addicted
This sounds so interesting to me - was it your responsibility? How did you detect if someone was addicted? And most importantly, how did you scale it?
This sounds so interesting to me - was it your responsibility? How did you detect if someone was addicted? And most importantly, how did you scale it?
Well early deviantart was pretty small, and I don't think anyone building it was over 25y/o at the time, so we all had lots of free time to work on it. Deviantart was arranged in a way we all had communities we were responsible for, it changed a lot after it reached million+ users scale, but in the beginning at 100k or so users it was very manageable. Your responsibility per Scott Jarkoff who lead that team was "to love, nurture, protect and grow your community" - and then there were things we were taught to watch out for or check in on. Backend you could see pretty much everything about the user, plus you just got used to the users in your communities, so "additive like behavior" was not difficult to detect, literally I would just see some users online ALL THE TIME, so we would always check in to make sure everything is ok, and tell them they're probably spending too much time on the site (it was a bit harder for me because I was one of the people responsible for communities generally.) I don't know how actively other GDs did this, but it was a widly discussed topic in our staff only irc channel very frequently. This all came from the teams want to be mindful to avoid hurting other people using the internet, most of us building it genuinely gave 2 shits and genuinely cared about our users. This was the same playbook I then used to build devrel at DigitalOcean in the beginning, I had devrel structured per community with the same instruction Scott gave me back in the day. (I think it's part of why y'all originally picked us! so thanks!)
Interesting. Would this be implementable today but on a larger scale?
"Someone who cares about you on the internet"
instead of
"Something that prevents you from posting hate/snuff/nude on the internet"
Obviously lots of problems, tons of them, and 1984 vibes, but still, the basic idea. A bit more like humans were meant to interact?
"Someone who cares about you on the internet"
instead of
"Something that prevents you from posting hate/snuff/nude on the internet"
Obviously lots of problems, tons of them, and 1984 vibes, but still, the basic idea. A bit more like humans were meant to interact?
Yes: "Better Living Through Algorithms" - https://clarkesworldmagazine.com/kritzer_05_23/
It's an interesting relevant short story. Won the 2024 Hugo Award. It was posted a few months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41263876
It's an interesting relevant short story. Won the 2024 Hugo Award. It was posted a few months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41263876
Corporate social media does not care about its users. They are just biomass to fuel various goals: ad revenue, political influence, etc. In fact, the more addicted you are, the better.
And the weather does not care about farmers either.
It is obviously a completely unfinished thought.
But something about humans innate tendency to self-organise into tribes and villages.
It is obviously a completely unfinished thought.
But something about humans innate tendency to self-organise into tribes and villages.
I think sadly the scale becomes less about the size per say and more about the unpredictability. The "vibes" on the internet late 90s early 2000s where very... on point, so it didn't feel like emotional labour. I can imagine being someone who cares about someone on the internet in 2025 would be, frankly, exhausting, in 2002 it was just fun.
Wow, thanks for the sharing this lovely tidbit!
What advice would you have for someone running a discord community?
1. a community is simply an abstract place people meet around the intersection of a shared interest. It's important to first recognize that. 2. Communities are not people who are all the same, they just commune together for reasons. 3. communities form, they are not built. 4. communities are ultimately selfless, however, good communities know what they are and why they exist, this can be a learning process and can be malleable, but at any given moment in time that should be understood. 5. Good communities enforce strong rules strongly. Community steering and moderation should be as diffuse as possible without losing the next point in fact keeping it central: 6. Good communities look to proactively raise up people who energetically build the community for the sake of the community not for the sake of themselves, for themselves should be the second order effect of any raising up within a community, this is subtle and community leaders need to spend time understanding this. I think that is all.
This is amazing! I needed to read it today. Thank you.
> Sure enough, here we are, except it seems nobody is looking out for the best interests of their communities anymore. Thank god for dang.
Here's to dang! Even when you do things I might not agree with if I knew about them, this is a place where interesting things can be shared and found without all the blah-blah.
Here's to dang! Even when you do things I might not agree with if I knew about them, this is a place where interesting things can be shared and found without all the blah-blah.
Alternatively carefully curate your social media accounts. My reddit home page is all books and formula 1. I'm quick to hit 'show me less like this' when anything drifts in from the front page.
My Facebook feed is all friends and family who don't discuss politics and ads for nerd shirts. I've purchased a few. It is also easy and effective to hit show me less of this.
I agree about LinkedIn and don't go there unless I'm actively job hunting, something I hope never to do again. I don't feel any bitterness when I see friends and family on FB go on expensive vacations, but I do feel an unhealthy and indefensible jealousy sometimes when I see former coworkers getting new jobs or promotions.
My Facebook feed is all friends and family who don't discuss politics and ads for nerd shirts. I've purchased a few. It is also easy and effective to hit show me less of this.
I agree about LinkedIn and don't go there unless I'm actively job hunting, something I hope never to do again. I don't feel any bitterness when I see friends and family on FB go on expensive vacations, but I do feel an unhealthy and indefensible jealousy sometimes when I see former coworkers getting new jobs or promotions.
This is how I've dealt with Instagram. My IG account is literally nothing but cats. it's actually very refreshing to look at for five or ten minutes. But it takes work. IG wants to keep feeding me their BS reels. Sometimes I don't think it's worth it, they really make you put up a fight.
Adding animal feeds to whatever is a very good way to tone things down.
Otters, dogs, cats, snow leopards, red pandas whatever floats your boat.
Also, as you say the big platforms will still try and get you into an outrage loop.
Otters, dogs, cats, snow leopards, red pandas whatever floats your boat.
Also, as you say the big platforms will still try and get you into an outrage loop.
I used to have the same thing (other less wholesome content has made its way back, I've not been strong enough). It was a better experience than what my feed was like before or after, but I'd still waste hours watching cat videos! Trying to stay off the feeds entirely, now.
Indeed. I've unsubscribed from all subreddits that have become infested with political content, and I've "unfollowed" all of my acquaintances on Facebook and LinkedIn who post anything political. So much more enjoyable.
That didn’t work for me, at least with FB and Insta.
I unfollowed/unfriended anybody who kept posting political stuff. I did the same for anybody I didn’t interact with in real-life regularly.
That basically left my parents, and about 5 friends. None of whom post anything regularly.
So, now my feed is just random shitposts and memes from “influencers”.
So, I deactivated my Meta accounts. And I’m still alive. And probably saner.
I unfollowed/unfriended anybody who kept posting political stuff. I did the same for anybody I didn’t interact with in real-life regularly.
That basically left my parents, and about 5 friends. None of whom post anything regularly.
So, now my feed is just random shitposts and memes from “influencers”.
So, I deactivated my Meta accounts. And I’m still alive. And probably saner.
Yeah, I you should see the curation totally from the top, so fully dropping certain platforms is part of the curation. I mean, in essence we all already do that as certain platforms are not even considered a candidate in our 'portfolio'.
I totally understand the desire to avoid politics on all these platforms but in some way I always expect the greater powers want to destroy these platforms and make us even more hopeless.
The greater powers control these platforms and want to keep us engaged so we believe what they want us to believe.
I can't imagine identifying myself on a forum...much less reddit.
Why do you exclude HN from your list? It is literally social media, but with the dial turned down a little. Yet, you don't have to dig to deeply to see flamewars, outrage, and trolling. I mean, look at many of the garbage comments in this very thread that are on par with /.,xchan.
Yes, but it’s the old skool version of social media and the conversations here are generally higher quality and more genuine. I strongly disagree that it’s “on par with /.,xchan”
HN also doesn’t seem to be as susceptible to rage-baiting / outrage-attention-seeking behavior. Not sure exactly what by this is the case but I’d venture a guess it has a lot to do with (1) “dang”s moderation, and (2) not having a personalized algorithm feed.
I’m increasingly of the view that personalized algorithm feeds generated to select the maximum attention grabbing content for each person is a truly dangerous idea.
Frankly, HN is not that engaging (by modern standards). In fact, probably 60-70% of the articles on the front page are boring to me on any given day. I view this as a feature and not a bug. Why should I expect that everything I look at must be maximally engaging?
I wish more sites were old skool like HN.
HN also doesn’t seem to be as susceptible to rage-baiting / outrage-attention-seeking behavior. Not sure exactly what by this is the case but I’d venture a guess it has a lot to do with (1) “dang”s moderation, and (2) not having a personalized algorithm feed.
I’m increasingly of the view that personalized algorithm feeds generated to select the maximum attention grabbing content for each person is a truly dangerous idea.
Frankly, HN is not that engaging (by modern standards). In fact, probably 60-70% of the articles on the front page are boring to me on any given day. I view this as a feature and not a bug. Why should I expect that everything I look at must be maximally engaging?
I wish more sites were old skool like HN.
There is still a lot of taboo subjects and comments you can make on HN, just look through your comment history on all the things downvoted to hell that you still believe are true. Like a good sheep I now refuse to defend anything that will leave me open to this.
A problem with downvoting on many sites (perhaps HN to some extent) is that people seem to just use it as a generic "I don't like this" button or as part of an upvote/downvote war to make sure that their preferred comment "wins."
I learned much from just scrolling HN. Technical articles help me know the latest updates in various areas, dive deep into a topic, or develop new skills. I applied quite a few things I learned in my job. Fundamentally, most links on HN are articles, many of which are quite long, which tend to be more focused and informative.
Completely non-technical ones are few, and you can always choose to ignore them.
The feed is also non-personalized. It's not going to show a few more article on politics just because you linked on one.
By comparison, reddit is much, much worse, almost the opposite of HN. Just a bit better than Twitter, maybe. Most of my reddit browsing/participation falls into tech/hobby, yet I always find that spend more time than I'd like on meaningless stuff, and reddit keeps pushing/promoting political content (even in the context of technology).
My solution? Don't browse reddit unless I really need to for some reason (or if I really don't have anything else to do at that time).
Completely non-technical ones are few, and you can always choose to ignore them.
The feed is also non-personalized. It's not going to show a few more article on politics just because you linked on one.
By comparison, reddit is much, much worse, almost the opposite of HN. Just a bit better than Twitter, maybe. Most of my reddit browsing/participation falls into tech/hobby, yet I always find that spend more time than I'd like on meaningless stuff, and reddit keeps pushing/promoting political content (even in the context of technology).
My solution? Don't browse reddit unless I really need to for some reason (or if I really don't have anything else to do at that time).
I'm here to talk about technology and it's usage. I'm not here to socialize, I don't know your name, don't care, and haven't even looked at your username. You're just a sentence to me. It's more impersonal than the old newsgroups. How is it social?
We're literally socializing right now. We're a special interest group meeting to communicate about special interests. The opposite of socialization is isolation. If you hadn't posted, you wouldn't be socializing, but here we are, socializing.
Semi-anonymous community is still community. HN isn't unique there.
it's similar to how you can go to a bar and just say "I'm here to watch the game". You can be asosial in a social community.
it's similar to how you can go to a bar and just say "I'm here to watch the game". You can be asosial in a social community.
I disagree with the often stated claim that HN is social media!
To me, HN is more like an online forum.
IMHO for a service to be defined as Social Media it needs to at least have a 'social graph' of some kind.
HN has never suggested an account to follow, or tried to suggest trending posts or topics to me.
Yes, HN does have a voting system. But that to me doesn't make it social media. HN posts are not measured and promoted based on engagement.
To me, HN is more like an online forum.
IMHO for a service to be defined as Social Media it needs to at least have a 'social graph' of some kind.
HN has never suggested an account to follow, or tried to suggest trending posts or topics to me.
Yes, HN does have a voting system. But that to me doesn't make it social media. HN posts are not measured and promoted based on engagement.
> Why do you exclude HN from your list? It is literally social media
I didn't exlude it from my list. See here:
> I’ve been off of social media (aside from HN, WhatsApp and discord) for years
I did, however, leave it out of this list
> Reddit, instagram, X, Facebook, TikTok, LinkedIn, Threads, etc are all the equivalent of digital junk food
because I don't consider HN to be digital junk food.
I didn't exlude it from my list. See here:
> I’ve been off of social media (aside from HN, WhatsApp and discord) for years
I did, however, leave it out of this list
> Reddit, instagram, X, Facebook, TikTok, LinkedIn, Threads, etc are all the equivalent of digital junk food
because I don't consider HN to be digital junk food.
If HN is social media, then old online forums from the time before "social media" are also social media.
Well, yes.
That’s not really a gotcha statement.
That’s not really a gotcha statement.
Sure, but it’s also not a useful distinction.
There’s a clear difference of kind between modern social media and the forums/usenet of old.
There’s a clear difference of kind between modern social media and the forums/usenet of old.
I really would like to know what exactly you consider a "clear difference" between how Usenet and differ conceptually (e.g., ignoring the GUI, the # of users, and mechanics, [e.g., usenet updates diffused around the globe because we didn't have cloud servers]).
Please back that statement up with some facts.
Please back that statement up with some facts.
"social" implies that relationships between users are a core part of the platform. I can't follow another user or mark them as a "friend" on HN.
HN users put a lot less emphasis on who says something and we focus more on what they say. There are exceptions of course, because we have our own share of renowned experts posting here. But for the most part, people don't take note of what username writes a post.
HN users put a lot less emphasis on who says something and we focus more on what they say. There are exceptions of course, because we have our own share of renowned experts posting here. But for the most part, people don't take note of what username writes a post.
Ah, thanks. That's a good answer. I was coming at it from the discussion angle only. However, both Usenet and HN don't allow you to friend people, like other social media. I see I accidentally dropped the term HN, which makes my question unclear. I still don't see spiritual difference between HN and Usenet when framed around your response, though.
1. Centralized control by for-profit corporations (and their investors) chasing perpetual growth
2. Algorithms driving ever-increasing "engagement" to deliver advertising
3. Surveillance capitalism
2. Algorithms driving ever-increasing "engagement" to deliver advertising
3. Surveillance capitalism
Sorry, I was refering to Hacker News, not all social media. My question was unclear.
1. HN is centralized, but not for-profit.
2. HN does not drive engagement, AFAIK
3. HN is not surveillance capitalism.
You haven't demonstrated how Usenet differs from HN, but since my question had a typo and omitted HN, I can see how that is confusing.
1. HN is centralized, but not for-profit.
2. HN does not drive engagement, AFAIK
3. HN is not surveillance capitalism.
You haven't demonstrated how Usenet differs from HN, but since my question had a typo and omitted HN, I can see how that is confusing.
> There’s a clear difference of kind between modern social media and the forums/usenet of old.
No, there isn't.
No, there isn't.
But that makes the term "social media" a very broad category that doesn't tell you much.
Yes but more importantly it's a definition that allows those who wield it to feel as though they are on the right hand side of the 'bell curve meme'.
Not GP, but feel similarly. I'll offer my 2 cents:
> but with the dial turned down a little.
Exactly for this reason. Yes, HN is a social network. And if it follows the same enshittification path as the others, I will be gone from here too. But until then, to me (YMMV) it still provides a bit of entertainment and news without rotting my brain.
Even the analogy works. Fast food is not that bad... in moderate quantities (/"with the dial turned down a little")
> but with the dial turned down a little.
Exactly for this reason. Yes, HN is a social network. And if it follows the same enshittification path as the others, I will be gone from here too. But until then, to me (YMMV) it still provides a bit of entertainment and news without rotting my brain.
Even the analogy works. Fast food is not that bad... in moderate quantities (/"with the dial turned down a little")
HN remains distinct from Reddit almost entirely due to dang's hard work moderating the site. Spend a few minutes with showdead turned on and you'll see real quick what that site might turn into without effective moderation. The site would be full of politics and flamewars.
I believe a good portion of Reddit could have had been the same. However, the way moderators are chosen-- in other words, whoever creates the sub first gets to rule the roost-- has left that site with almost universally unqualified moderation.
I believe a good portion of Reddit could have had been the same. However, the way moderators are chosen-- in other words, whoever creates the sub first gets to rule the roost-- has left that site with almost universally unqualified moderation.
HN has a non personalized feed. That alone distinguishes from most social media today. And that matter a LOT.
In principal it's a great method to get back to normal, however there are key areas (subreddits, local groups, etc.) that really do provide information, expertise, and news content that isn't available anywhere else online. It's a double edged sword. The best way I've found is to be in there with a read-only mindset or perhaps only participating inside those key areas where political discussions are strictly prohibited.
This has been my exact issue with giving up reddit. It's really hard to replace very niche topics without it, since many online forums are dead. I also append so many searches on google with "reddit" because the top results are generally SEO spam.
Reading "You should quit reddit" helped a little. The author tries to reframe your hidden beliefs about reddit like "finding useful information" or "it's filled with experts." Helped me to realize I was spending more time reading about my hobbies than actually doing them. Though I understand it's not that simple, doing requires more energy, etc.
Reading "You should quit reddit" helped a little. The author tries to reframe your hidden beliefs about reddit like "finding useful information" or "it's filled with experts." Helped me to realize I was spending more time reading about my hobbies than actually doing them. Though I understand it's not that simple, doing requires more energy, etc.
My approach, finally mostly successful after over a decade, is just "no main feed or subreddit pages." Reading a thread off a Google search or whatever because it has information I want is fine.
News feed eradicator extension helps with that across ~8 sites:
https://github.com/jordwest/news-feed-eradicator
https://github.com/jordwest/news-feed-eradicator
I have found this to be completely untrue. Yes, maybe not at the same scale that Reddit is, but if you dig, there's a community for everything. You can find what you're looking for.
That said, I recognize that I am speaking completely for myself in regards to my own interests. YMMV.
That said, I recognize that I am speaking completely for myself in regards to my own interests. YMMV.
You can potentially rely on friends or family members to source such information (e.g., only one member of the household really needs to be checking the local group, etc...)
I think too that one thing that's important is to decide beforehand -- what can I do? What would I be willing to do?
That is to say, some people really are willing to be activists. They will organize protests and boycotts and things like that.
Other people are in marginalized communities and are trying to get a feel for whether they should move to a different region or even a different country.
Some folks don't really have a plan but they want to stay informed. If at some point a magical line is crossed, they might suddenly say, "That's IT! I can't take it anymore! I have to DO SOMETHNG!" and that's when they'll become activists.
But some folks are realistically never going to lift a finger to help themselves or anybody else. They'll just bitch online and/or be stressed.
What I'm working on is figuring out in what ways I might, in the right situation, be moved to contribute. If things get really bad (and they will), what will I realistically be doing? I'm disabled, so I can't be out in the streets. If things get even worse, I might write about the niche public health / politics topics I've accidentally become an expert in. And if something happens where medicare and medicaid are shut off, well then all hospitals everywhere will basically be non-functional. This will be a crisis for all but most immediately for the chronically ill -- any of us at that point who are able to will be leaving the country ASAP.
In other words, I need to know enough to keep writing (which I would do anyways) and I need to know when things are hopeless enough that a person with a messed up spine should travel out of the country anyways. That is currently all I need to know because it's all that is actionable for me.
There is a massive temptation to doomscroll into infinity, but that merely serves the enemies of sanity. I know what happens next because I've read Sarah Kendzior and Hannah Arendt. It's not good. But I also know that one of the first things that happened during the anti-semitic purges in Nazi Germany was that a ton of Jews got appendicitis from stress. Sometimes the body wants to align with power so badly, it aligns even with evil power and against its own interests. We have to be very careful not to poison ourselves and make evil's job easier.
That is to say, some people really are willing to be activists. They will organize protests and boycotts and things like that.
Other people are in marginalized communities and are trying to get a feel for whether they should move to a different region or even a different country.
Some folks don't really have a plan but they want to stay informed. If at some point a magical line is crossed, they might suddenly say, "That's IT! I can't take it anymore! I have to DO SOMETHNG!" and that's when they'll become activists.
But some folks are realistically never going to lift a finger to help themselves or anybody else. They'll just bitch online and/or be stressed.
What I'm working on is figuring out in what ways I might, in the right situation, be moved to contribute. If things get really bad (and they will), what will I realistically be doing? I'm disabled, so I can't be out in the streets. If things get even worse, I might write about the niche public health / politics topics I've accidentally become an expert in. And if something happens where medicare and medicaid are shut off, well then all hospitals everywhere will basically be non-functional. This will be a crisis for all but most immediately for the chronically ill -- any of us at that point who are able to will be leaving the country ASAP.
In other words, I need to know enough to keep writing (which I would do anyways) and I need to know when things are hopeless enough that a person with a messed up spine should travel out of the country anyways. That is currently all I need to know because it's all that is actionable for me.
There is a massive temptation to doomscroll into infinity, but that merely serves the enemies of sanity. I know what happens next because I've read Sarah Kendzior and Hannah Arendt. It's not good. But I also know that one of the first things that happened during the anti-semitic purges in Nazi Germany was that a ton of Jews got appendicitis from stress. Sometimes the body wants to align with power so badly, it aligns even with evil power and against its own interests. We have to be very careful not to poison ourselves and make evil's job easier.
<< One thing to consider for those of us who are more sensitive to online outrage is to just quit social media all together.
Yes. I still have to be at least aware of what is happening for work reasons, but removing social media was one of the better decisions for my sanity ( I stil comment on HN, but the quality of conversations was degrading as well, which in itself is a concern suggesting further digital landscape deterioration ).
I considered some more obvious solutions ( from buying subscription to WSJ/FT to personal news aggregator -- and objective/neutral observer rewrite using LLM and they all are not exactly ideal ).
Here is the good news. All this chaos is an opportunity to stand something useful up. And I mean something useful that cannot be so easily dismantled by powers that be ( and there are already heavy indications they are aware people may try going outside the defined paths ).
Yes. I still have to be at least aware of what is happening for work reasons, but removing social media was one of the better decisions for my sanity ( I stil comment on HN, but the quality of conversations was degrading as well, which in itself is a concern suggesting further digital landscape deterioration ).
I considered some more obvious solutions ( from buying subscription to WSJ/FT to personal news aggregator -- and objective/neutral observer rewrite using LLM and they all are not exactly ideal ).
Here is the good news. All this chaos is an opportunity to stand something useful up. And I mean something useful that cannot be so easily dismantled by powers that be ( and there are already heavy indications they are aware people may try going outside the defined paths ).
> I stil comment on HN, but the quality of conversations was degrading as well
Yeah I agree that many HN comments are unfortunately pretty bad, but I think this should only motivate people like you and me to try harder to make HN a better place with constructive, useful comments :)
Yeah I agree that many HN comments are unfortunately pretty bad, but I think this should only motivate people like you and me to try harder to make HN a better place with constructive, useful comments :)
If you decide not to totally quit a network, do what I do:
1. Turn off all notifications, especially for replies, likes, and content suggestions.
2. Train yourself not to look for feedback on the things you do post as a matter of habit. Intentionally check on the important discussions IFF you _remember_ to do so.
3. If possible, hide or remove any karma-like indications. Your life is better if the internet points aren't visible.
1. Turn off all notifications, especially for replies, likes, and content suggestions.
2. Train yourself not to look for feedback on the things you do post as a matter of habit. Intentionally check on the important discussions IFF you _remember_ to do so.
3. If possible, hide or remove any karma-like indications. Your life is better if the internet points aren't visible.
Isn’t this how they win? I mean the people in Germany in 1930 just said , this is crazy , it doesn’t feel right, but hey I have outrage fatigue so the concentration camps are just fine
Much of the German population in the 1930s and 1940s was not aware of concentration camps, and learned of them once the Allies arrived.
Early 30s, sure. Late 30s and 40s? You should qualify your statement with “this is a heated historical debate, but some people argue that…” Keep in mind the significant incentives to not seek out information, to disbelieve the information one did come across, and to lie after the war was over.
One of my neighbors when I grew up was part of Hitler Youth, and had moved to the US after the war. (for time context, I'm in my mid 30s, and he died a decade ago at IIRC 95 or 96, and I asked him about it maybe 20 years ago.)
I asked him if he and his fellow youths knew of anything. He said at first, no, but pretty quickly when all the jewish-owned businesses vanished almost overnight, everyone knew something was up. Did they know about the camps? Debatable. But even the kids knew that they jewish population was kicked out of society.
I asked him if he and his fellow youths knew of anything. He said at first, no, but pretty quickly when all the jewish-owned businesses vanished almost overnight, everyone knew something was up. Did they know about the camps? Debatable. But even the kids knew that they jewish population was kicked out of society.
Laughably false, camps like Dachau were on newspapers and newsreels. Almost every Germans were aware that they were rounding up Jews and murdering them in camps.
They definitely knew something was up. There were active roundups of victims and a staunch public policy of ghettos etc.
The services go through phases (I suspect depending on botnet activity)...Middle of the day, Threads is a fun place to hang, 9pm? It's a wall of anxiety producing ragebait, 2am? It's even worse.
Looking at it on my phone, if I can see three entries and 2 are anxiety inducing, I close the app. (I'm 99% certain they get that telemetry too)
That said, I also had days where I doomscrolled instagram and thought 'it's been 20 minutes and I haven't seen anything entertaining yet.' And that's when I decided to drop it. (It was the only app I could chat with my kids with...we've since moved to other methods)
I haven't cut it out completely, but I'm not hyper aware of how I'm consuming it.
Looking at it on my phone, if I can see three entries and 2 are anxiety inducing, I close the app. (I'm 99% certain they get that telemetry too)
That said, I also had days where I doomscrolled instagram and thought 'it's been 20 minutes and I haven't seen anything entertaining yet.' And that's when I decided to drop it. (It was the only app I could chat with my kids with...we've since moved to other methods)
I haven't cut it out completely, but I'm not hyper aware of how I'm consuming it.
I think Minimum Effective Dose applies. I quit most media for 4 years. The next 2 years were 2 hrs/day on Reddit for jokes. It was the best.
But 1 year into that, I read an article by Swyx on how to use social media. I tried but gave up for another 2 years. But the end of that last 2 years was the election...and I was curious...so I went to X.
Within 3 days my opinion of the outcome flipped.
And...since I already read Swyx's article, I was ready to effectively navigate other topics of interest.
But the key to effective media usage is to ALWAYS be on guard. Your mental filters have to be running all the time. The second you drop your guard, you're vulnerable because the stream never lets up.
But when you do this, you find that you quickly run out of truly interesting things to read. Luckily I've also got physical hobbies. I now spend a TOTAL of 2 hrs/day across all media, and my mental health is just fine!
But also I find it highly rewarding in many areas such as investing, history (the X format works so well!), international (language, culture, politics).
I also highly recommend taking a second to put each post in scale or context. This does 2 things: helps decide importance of post, and slows scrolling so your brain doesn't get DDOSed into a mental health crisis.
And the (increasingly cheap, powerful and ubiquitous) LLMs can be used to either save time or power you further into the conversations.
But 1 year into that, I read an article by Swyx on how to use social media. I tried but gave up for another 2 years. But the end of that last 2 years was the election...and I was curious...so I went to X.
Within 3 days my opinion of the outcome flipped.
And...since I already read Swyx's article, I was ready to effectively navigate other topics of interest.
But the key to effective media usage is to ALWAYS be on guard. Your mental filters have to be running all the time. The second you drop your guard, you're vulnerable because the stream never lets up.
But when you do this, you find that you quickly run out of truly interesting things to read. Luckily I've also got physical hobbies. I now spend a TOTAL of 2 hrs/day across all media, and my mental health is just fine!
But also I find it highly rewarding in many areas such as investing, history (the X format works so well!), international (language, culture, politics).
I also highly recommend taking a second to put each post in scale or context. This does 2 things: helps decide importance of post, and slows scrolling so your brain doesn't get DDOSed into a mental health crisis.
And the (increasingly cheap, powerful and ubiquitous) LLMs can be used to either save time or power you further into the conversations.
> One thing to consider for those of us who are more sensitive to online outrage is to just quit social media all together.
This is hard to overstate. Checkout Jonathan Haidts research into social medias role in skyrocketing mental health problems in kids over the past decade.
The junkfood comparison is great. It feels good now but makes you extremely unhealthy long term. Its deceptive because it doesnt look that bad, but it displaces things that you actually need to be healthy.
This is hard to overstate. Checkout Jonathan Haidts research into social medias role in skyrocketing mental health problems in kids over the past decade.
The junkfood comparison is great. It feels good now but makes you extremely unhealthy long term. Its deceptive because it doesnt look that bad, but it displaces things that you actually need to be healthy.
> Checkout Jonathan Haidts research
I love that guy! He generally makes the rounds as a guest on most of the large podcasts and I’d recommend anyone listen to at least one podcast where he’s a guest.
I love that guy! He generally makes the rounds as a guest on most of the large podcasts and I’d recommend anyone listen to at least one podcast where he’s a guest.
I hope he becomes more influential. He is the tip of the spear in terms of combating the negative effects of social media and improving youth mental health.
Just want to add that, while Reddit is a huge time sink, it is pretty easy to just see the good parts of it:
- Mute any subreddit you do not enjoy
- Generously block any asshole in the comments
- Subscribe to the subreddits you do enjoy
- Create one or more themed multireddits of the subreddits you enjoy
My Reddit experience is cheesy feel good clips, cool videos of skilled people or weird occurences, funny niche humor and nerdy niche hobbies. No drama.
- Mute any subreddit you do not enjoy
- Generously block any asshole in the comments
- Subscribe to the subreddits you do enjoy
- Create one or more themed multireddits of the subreddits you enjoy
My Reddit experience is cheesy feel good clips, cool videos of skilled people or weird occurences, funny niche humor and nerdy niche hobbies. No drama.
the same can be said about any social media. you can block/unfollow/mute anything, but it creeps through anyway.
I agree. My Reddit outrage addiction flares up every now and then and it makes my mental health objectively shitty. Doesn’t matter if there’s some good content and connection on there, it’s just not worth the (mental) cost.
Reddit is overwhelmingly fake information and covert ads. Investigate any random post on the front page of /r/all, even if it's just like a cute gif of an old person, then go to the comments. Like 75% chance there is something fake or made up about the title or context. It's such a mind pollutant, I can't stand it.
In my opinion reddit is still such a great community if you subscribe to topics that interest you and leave the default subreddits. There's plenty of subreddits that I would not be able to find a good alternative forum for, maybe a Facebook group exists here and there but is that really better?
Good for you for being able to ignore /r/all, /r/popular, etc. I just can't, I always end up relapsing.
This is to be expected for /r/all. But who cares because why would anyone want to go there in the first place? In general once something becomes a certain size wrt users, its value to those users plummets. The only thing to do is leave.
Completely agree. Sounds like we're similarly on the older end of Gen Z, and getting off social media in my first year of college was excellent. I get messages in my group chats from friends being pissed off (often rightfully) by things that our out of their control, but they're force-fed it on social media.
It doesn't help to stare at rage/anxiety inducing things - it doesn't mean you're actually informed all the time.
Plus I'd argue that most things you'll see end up being hogwash and the important stuff will rise to the top and you're generally hear about it anyway.
It doesn't help to stare at rage/anxiety inducing things - it doesn't mean you're actually informed all the time.
Plus I'd argue that most things you'll see end up being hogwash and the important stuff will rise to the top and you're generally hear about it anyway.
Just be aware than while HN appears to carry a wide range of interesting topics and discussions both the community and mods do have biases. It presents an incomplete and skewed perspective and has to be consumed in moderation as part of a balanced diet.
A lot of submissions are flagged every day. Some of them are well offtopic, repetitive or judged to be too biased or political and clearly if the site allowed all submissions it would break.
The act of curation is a form of censorship and while it is often justified, many posts about topical developments that have a technical/financial angle, perhaps even posted by technical/financial media or bloggers and featuring people who are well known in the technical/financial field appear to be getting flagged in ways that could appear to be politically motivated.
Pointless outrage over trivialities isn't good for us but when issues of genuine concern arise we shouldn't go out of our way to avoid them because they make us feel bad. We are supposed to feel bad when things are bad as it provokes us to action. The media/tech industry exploits our behavioral quirks to keep us engaged on their platforms but the fatique caused by the fire hose could numb us to real dangers. Disconnecting is very good for personal wellbeing but not to the point of dangerous ignorance.
A lot of submissions are flagged every day. Some of them are well offtopic, repetitive or judged to be too biased or political and clearly if the site allowed all submissions it would break.
The act of curation is a form of censorship and while it is often justified, many posts about topical developments that have a technical/financial angle, perhaps even posted by technical/financial media or bloggers and featuring people who are well known in the technical/financial field appear to be getting flagged in ways that could appear to be politically motivated.
Pointless outrage over trivialities isn't good for us but when issues of genuine concern arise we shouldn't go out of our way to avoid them because they make us feel bad. We are supposed to feel bad when things are bad as it provokes us to action. The media/tech industry exploits our behavioral quirks to keep us engaged on their platforms but the fatique caused by the fire hose could numb us to real dangers. Disconnecting is very good for personal wellbeing but not to the point of dangerous ignorance.
Good on you. I have been pushing the idea of leaving social media to people for well over a decade now, for the same of people learning to communicate with each other in more meaningful ways and improve their mental health. It worked for me and everyone that actually listened to me.
But the emotionally violent resistance I get from people who are embedded in it is wild. I've commented on here before and subsequently pissed people off, but it is an addiction and needs to be treated like one.
But the emotionally violent resistance I get from people who are embedded in it is wild. I've commented on here before and subsequently pissed people off, but it is an addiction and needs to be treated like one.
Not sure if you’ve intentionally omitted it but I would also include YouTube in this list. YouTube can be very addictive with all the clickbait thumbnails etc.
> Not sure if you’ve intentionally omitted it but I would also include YouTube in this list
Yeah I did conciously omit it actually, but only because I consider Youtube to be basic internet infrastructure and quite valuable if used right.
However, for me personally, I've actually blocked Youtube from Chrome when not in incognito mode to keep me signed out by default and I've also completely blocked the site from my iPad (and ofc I also don't have the app installed).
I unfortunately struggle with some form of social media addiction and I've made pretty dramatic changes to keep myself away from these sites.
Yeah I did conciously omit it actually, but only because I consider Youtube to be basic internet infrastructure and quite valuable if used right.
However, for me personally, I've actually blocked Youtube from Chrome when not in incognito mode to keep me signed out by default and I've also completely blocked the site from my iPad (and ofc I also don't have the app installed).
I unfortunately struggle with some form of social media addiction and I've made pretty dramatic changes to keep myself away from these sites.
haha yeah that's where you inject custom CSS on the page to hide thumbnails, come to YouTube to see something? no thumbnails to distract your original intent
do you have a link to instructions on how to do that? It sounds really nice.
by chrome extension, chrome extensions are pretty straight forward to build but yeah, you just inject a CSS file that hides what you want
you don't have to release the extension, you just load it unpackaged by developer mode in the extensions settings
you don't have to release the extension, you just load it unpackaged by developer mode in the extensions settings
I reduced my news intake to a daily email from reuters + HN. Special thanks go to AI, as reddit and others no longer allow reading content without login.
Interesting. What's your setup ?
A World Wide Web browser.
You've mentioned AI so thought you had something different
I meant that, because of AI scrapers, reddit is no longer accessible)
Thanks for your comment. Same here, Gen X. Off social media since pandemic. As Nassim Taleb says if it's really important someone will tell you. I feel like I'm on an island. I'm never outraged at all. Of course I hope there's more justice and equity in the world, but I am at peace with things and have no hatred or rage compared to when I was glued to social media.
I have tried to quit social media many times, but I end up using something again after a few weeks. It usually happens when I'm too tired to think about anything like games, or to read an article, or when I have a lot of waiting time without a lot of entertainment (eg airports). I wonder what do you do during those times?
> I wonder what do you do during those times?
When I’m really brain-tired but have downtime, I’ll 1) do nothing and just think in silence, 2) listen to a podcast or music or 3) watch Netflix.
Spotify and Netflix are definitely media apps but they don’t quite have that same negative and addictive effect that normal social media apps do.
When I’m really brain-tired but have downtime, I’ll 1) do nothing and just think in silence, 2) listen to a podcast or music or 3) watch Netflix.
Spotify and Netflix are definitely media apps but they don’t quite have that same negative and addictive effect that normal social media apps do.
> ...equivalent of digital junk food
Love it! Well, I hate that this situation exists, but the metaphor is great.
Love it! Well, I hate that this situation exists, but the metaphor is great.
digital junk food. I haven't stumbled across this term and I gotta say as someone whose right on the edge between millenial and genz this term summarizes what most "public" social media is.
I'm old enough to have grown up mostly with TV, with Internet being my escape hatch and twitter/facebook/tiktok/insta feel waaaay closer to old schoold programming TV than Internet.
Anyway I'm an Internet person, not a TV person, so I've quit using all of them (I do have some "just in case" unused in years accounts everywhere because I suffer from a bad case of FOMO...)
I find that just muting anyone who has anything to do with politics on facebook works well for me. I go on facebook to see your cutesy images and how your life is going not for long political diatribes.
For some short time, that worked for me, until facebook noticed that I was spending less time on it. Then, they started to push posts from other politics-related accounts (especially from ones at the side of the spectrum I used to antagonize most with). That was 4 years ago. I left that crap and didn't look back.
I did the same. I have some exceptions for technical topics on Reddit. I also still use Facebook in a very drilled down state (looking into it every 3-5 months and checking in with some remote friends). I have also set up my own Mastodon server, which is fine for niche topics and I can reach out to interesting people directly, where other channels fail (email). I heavily rely on RSS, particularly from people that I trust or who gained my trust over longer periods.
I thank myself for having avoided social media so far. I've also developed a keen eye for headlines that lead to "outrage articles" which I avoid.
> I've also developed a keen eye for headlines that lead to "outrage articles" which I avoid.
That's critical. My YouTube rule these days is to block any channel with a video name or thumbnail that says something like "This is why you fail at XYZ" or other statements designed to evoke an emotional response from me. And on top of that, I try to only click on videos where the title/thumbnail is properly informative, exposing the content rather than trying to hide it behind a vague hook. Hooks like "You won't believe this one trick!" and fluff like that, titles/thumbnails that should introduce the trick, not just allude to it.
That's critical. My YouTube rule these days is to block any channel with a video name or thumbnail that says something like "This is why you fail at XYZ" or other statements designed to evoke an emotional response from me. And on top of that, I try to only click on videos where the title/thumbnail is properly informative, exposing the content rather than trying to hide it behind a vague hook. Hooks like "You won't believe this one trick!" and fluff like that, titles/thumbnails that should introduce the trick, not just allude to it.
Another dead giveaway is "X is outraged by Y."
I need social media for work.
What I did was unfollow everyone and everything, and block all suggested content. The front page is literally empty. Nothing on those websites captures my attention unless I specifically look for it.
This was very effective. These websites have effectively become write-only media for me. They're still here if I need them, but I end up browsing just one page of /r/curatedtumblr and then doing something else.
What I did was unfollow everyone and everything, and block all suggested content. The front page is literally empty. Nothing on those websites captures my attention unless I specifically look for it.
This was very effective. These websites have effectively become write-only media for me. They're still here if I need them, but I end up browsing just one page of /r/curatedtumblr and then doing something else.
I’m still on social media (HN, YouTube and Reddit), but blocked all other news sites. They’re mostly about outrage too.
Many people don't even realize how much better they'd feel until they step away for a while.
The challenge for me is that there is useful stuff in there that I want to access.
There are neighbourhood groups and other really useful forums on Facebook. There are tech discussions on BlueSky.
But it's annoyingly hard to run the gauntlet of politics and outrage bait to get to the stuff I actually want.
There are neighbourhood groups and other really useful forums on Facebook. There are tech discussions on BlueSky.
But it's annoyingly hard to run the gauntlet of politics and outrage bait to get to the stuff I actually want.
We have to be aware of our disregulation as they try to swarm us with seemingly unstoppable energy. That is the point onslaught.
Take a breather, compose your emotions, take off hours or a days, but then re-engage, interact, observe, document, etc.
Take a breather, compose your emotions, take off hours or a days, but then re-engage, interact, observe, document, etc.
I basically agree, which is why it's kind of funny to see all the discussion in other threads here with people arguing about why can't ban AI or how Facebook was good because it created market value or whatever. Most of those platforms would be better off just outright banned.
I do think, though, that for at least some platforms it's possible to use them in a limited way where you confine yourself to relatively small communities that are focused on some common interest that genuinely brings together people who enjoy sharing it. You mentioned Discord for instance and that's one, if you can find the right servers. I think it's possible to do that on Reddit too. You just have to never visit the "front page" and stick only to subreddits that you actually get value out of. It's harder approaching impossible with ones like Facebook that are more doggedly algorithm-driven and don't put moderation in the control of users in the same way.
Of course, the lurking issue is that putting moderation in the control of users is building the platform on free labor and those good subcommunities are at risk of imploding when cracks emerge in the dike separating them from the wider platform userbase. And that's likely to happen because even those "safely usable" platforms are ultimately beholden to VC money that's going to demand enshittification eventually.
Cohost was by far the best attempt I've seen for many years, but sadly couldn't make a go of it in the toxic ecosystem we've got.
I do think, though, that for at least some platforms it's possible to use them in a limited way where you confine yourself to relatively small communities that are focused on some common interest that genuinely brings together people who enjoy sharing it. You mentioned Discord for instance and that's one, if you can find the right servers. I think it's possible to do that on Reddit too. You just have to never visit the "front page" and stick only to subreddits that you actually get value out of. It's harder approaching impossible with ones like Facebook that are more doggedly algorithm-driven and don't put moderation in the control of users in the same way.
Of course, the lurking issue is that putting moderation in the control of users is building the platform on free labor and those good subcommunities are at risk of imploding when cracks emerge in the dike separating them from the wider platform userbase. And that's likely to happen because even those "safely usable" platforms are ultimately beholden to VC money that's going to demand enshittification eventually.
Cohost was by far the best attempt I've seen for many years, but sadly couldn't make a go of it in the toxic ecosystem we've got.
> Most of those platforms would be better off just outright banned.
In general, the goal should be improvement of humans, not avoidance of negative stimuli. Something has to exist where humans are rewarded for aligning to truth and reality, rather than emotion.
In general, the goal should be improvement of humans, not avoidance of negative stimuli. Something has to exist where humans are rewarded for aligning to truth and reality, rather than emotion.
> Something has to exist where humans are rewarded for aligning to truth and reality, rather than emotion.
I more or less agree. Thus the humans who created and enshittified such platforms should be correspondingly punished for their disalignment to truth and reality. It's not just about rewarding "consumers" of stimuli; the creators and promulgators of stumili also need to be incentivized (and disincentivized) in just the manner you mention.
I more or less agree. Thus the humans who created and enshittified such platforms should be correspondingly punished for their disalignment to truth and reality. It's not just about rewarding "consumers" of stimuli; the creators and promulgators of stumili also need to be incentivized (and disincentivized) in just the manner you mention.
>LinkedIn
I really hate this one in particular. Why did the biggest Job board become another Facebook (but more blatantly trying to sell you stuff)? This is a hard one to leave unless you're very comfortable in your job prospects.
I really hate this one in particular. Why did the biggest Job board become another Facebook (but more blatantly trying to sell you stuff)? This is a hard one to leave unless you're very comfortable in your job prospects.
> This is a hard one to leave unless you're very comfortable in your job prospects.
I know! I'm currently looking for work so have been forced to use it a bit, but once I find my next position, I'm out!
I know! I'm currently looking for work so have been forced to use it a bit, but once I find my next position, I'm out!
My take is almost the opposite, that it's important to develop healthy social networking insofar as there is some alternative to the outrage. It takes effort though.
I'm going to offer my two accounts as examples
https://mastodon.social/@UP8
https://bsky.app/profile/up-8.bsky.social
both of these are 'cyborg' accounts in that I have my RSS reader, classifier and autoposter. I am looking to build a lot more automation.
My Mastodon feed took a large set of rules to block out #uspol and certain communities of miserable people. My feed has stayed outrage-free since last month.
My measurements showed that Bluesky's 'Discover' feed blocked about 75% of emotionally negative material before Jan 20, since then people are inflamed but looking closely at my feed it seems they are deliberately trying to help certain people who felt stuck on X to migrate, that is, giving huge amounts of visibility to journalists, journalism professors, activists, and such so that they can run up 200k+ follower counts.
I understand. (I've been brainstorming ideas about "how to get people off X" with a friend and tonight I'm going to tell him that Bluesky has it) I've used "less like this", "unfollow" [1], "mute", "block" and such and my discover feed is getting good again.
I have two classifiers in the development pipeline, one to detect "screenshots of text" and "image memes", also a text classifier that is better at sentiment than my current one (I think ModernBERT + LSTM should be possible to train reliably, unlike fine-tuned BERTs.) I'm not so much interested in classifying posts as I am in classifying people; some of them are easy, there are 40,000 people who have a certain image meme pinned that I know I never want to follow. Just recently I figured out how to make training sets for these things without having to look too closely at a lot of toxic content.
I'm also eliminating the dependencies that are keeping this from being open sourced or commercialized so I may I have something to share this summer.
[1] one strike for an outrage post
I'm going to offer my two accounts as examples
https://mastodon.social/@UP8
https://bsky.app/profile/up-8.bsky.social
both of these are 'cyborg' accounts in that I have my RSS reader, classifier and autoposter. I am looking to build a lot more automation.
My Mastodon feed took a large set of rules to block out #uspol and certain communities of miserable people. My feed has stayed outrage-free since last month.
My measurements showed that Bluesky's 'Discover' feed blocked about 75% of emotionally negative material before Jan 20, since then people are inflamed but looking closely at my feed it seems they are deliberately trying to help certain people who felt stuck on X to migrate, that is, giving huge amounts of visibility to journalists, journalism professors, activists, and such so that they can run up 200k+ follower counts.
I understand. (I've been brainstorming ideas about "how to get people off X" with a friend and tonight I'm going to tell him that Bluesky has it) I've used "less like this", "unfollow" [1], "mute", "block" and such and my discover feed is getting good again.
I have two classifiers in the development pipeline, one to detect "screenshots of text" and "image memes", also a text classifier that is better at sentiment than my current one (I think ModernBERT + LSTM should be possible to train reliably, unlike fine-tuned BERTs.) I'm not so much interested in classifying posts as I am in classifying people; some of them are easy, there are 40,000 people who have a certain image meme pinned that I know I never want to follow. Just recently I figured out how to make training sets for these things without having to look too closely at a lot of toxic content.
I'm also eliminating the dependencies that are keeping this from being open sourced or commercialized so I may I have something to share this summer.
[1] one strike for an outrage post
Wow that sounds awesome. I was thinking of doing something like that but never had the time to commit.
I find LinkedIn a healthy collection of professional accomplishments with minimal news. It’s also not very addictive.
However, shitty newsfeeds like Google news are my bane. I can’t stop.
However, shitty newsfeeds like Google news are my bane. I can’t stop.
I find LinkedIn to be the worse of the social media sites. My feed is full of wannabe “thought leaders”, people posting about a meaningless vendor certificate they got, recruiters giving advice, people who can’t get a job or were recently laid off, etc.
But now, politics is getting involved because people are having government job offers rescinded and the entire federal government is in a free fall like a 3rd world banana republic.
But now, politics is getting involved because people are having government job offers rescinded and the entire federal government is in a free fall like a 3rd world banana republic.
> My feed is full of wannabe “thought leaders”
Block them, it's easy. I have only close friends and coworkers that I don't hate on that site.
Block them, it's easy. I have only close friends and coworkers that I don't hate on that site.
you'll be spending every day blocking people, speaking from experience. Your dam can only push back so much.
> It’s also not very addictive.
For me, it's quite addictive unfortunately, even though I agree that it's pretty dull.
For me, it's quite addictive unfortunately, even though I agree that it's pretty dull.
For better or worse, news flows through social media, so this approach basically amounts to ignoring all the bad stuff going on. If you read HN, chances are you can probably safely get through the next four years doing this. But as the saying goes, "first they came for the communists..."
Always prioritize your own wellbeing first.
I still find value in some of these but just focused to a specific use case for each
Reddit - hobbies
Instagram - catching up with friends
LinkedIn - Job Search
Reddit - hobbies
Instagram - catching up with friends
LinkedIn - Job Search
You can get just as outraged by diving deep into official government PDFs and finding out by yourself from the source what they are doing.
Sticking your head in the sand is of course a "solution", but that is willfully choosing to be nothing more than a subject to the rulers.
Another solution is to limit your news intake and your political passion to the things that have the most real implications on your life and on the people you care about, while limiting your own exposure and vulnerability to governments as much as possible.
Sticking your head in the sand is of course a "solution", but that is willfully choosing to be nothing more than a subject to the rulers.
Another solution is to limit your news intake and your political passion to the things that have the most real implications on your life and on the people you care about, while limiting your own exposure and vulnerability to governments as much as possible.
HN, WhatsApp, and Discord are also junk food depending on how you use them.
Is WhatsApp really considered social media? I mainly use it as my sms alternative.
Depends how you use it. Once there were groups, it became quite similar - but since Telegram became so much better at it and I used it for some special groups and contacts - I now suddenly had lots of groups with subgroups and notifications for people liking my posts or replying to it - that suddenly I had social media again. What works for me is uninstalling it once in a while and only come back if I feel a specific need.
It can be and is in other countries, ones that didn't have unlimited SMS for 15+ years. It usually isn't in the US, though.
[deleted]
Have more self respect and consume a better information diet of printed media.
So the only things you check are HN, WhatsApp and Discord?
Yes. However I occasionally hop on LinkedIn for its job board, YouTube to watch a tutorial or Reddit when I’ve made something that I wanna share like a project or a meme. Other than that, I avoid these sites like the absolute plague. I virtually never browse them for fun.
So do you check world events? Like geopolitics?
Yeah it sure is nice this way isn’t it! It’s pretty boring, but you get to form your own opinions about things, and aren’t constantly mad about things that don’t affect you. I’ll admit to scrolling HN a lot, but I at least get a lot of very useful info out of it, it has leveled me up in unexpected ways over the years.
> you get to form your own opinions about things
Yeah! That's one of the cool things I first noticed when I stopped consuming as much news: I started to form my own unique and nuanced opinions.
It's actually pretty surprising when you learn about how many of your opinions were just absorbed through culture and media and not really 'your own'.
Yeah! That's one of the cool things I first noticed when I stopped consuming as much news: I started to form my own unique and nuanced opinions.
It's actually pretty surprising when you learn about how many of your opinions were just absorbed through culture and media and not really 'your own'.
what are your sources for news?
> what are your sources for news?
Unironically, my friends, family and colleagues. If anything truly important happens that ends up being relevant to me, the probability that one of them tells me is close to 100%. I don’t need the news or social media for that.
Unironically, my friends, family and colleagues. If anything truly important happens that ends up being relevant to me, the probability that one of them tells me is close to 100%. I don’t need the news or social media for that.
Discord suffers from the same problems; censorship platforms in general have the same cancer everywhere.
Same, I participate is very curated, self-selected communities online and that's it. I don't know how others who don't can do it.
Good luck out there.
Good luck out there.
Eh I wouldn't have known a friend died if I didn't occasionally log into FB.
I wouldn't have known that my best friend from middle school lost her house.
I wouldn't have known that a family member was pregnant.
But yeah, I feel like news stuff is better curated elsewhere, because outrage keeps eyeballs viewing, so algorithmic feeds tend to highlight it.
I wouldn't have known that my best friend from middle school lost her house.
I wouldn't have known that a family member was pregnant.
But yeah, I feel like news stuff is better curated elsewhere, because outrage keeps eyeballs viewing, so algorithmic feeds tend to highlight it.
> I wouldn't have known that a family member was pregnant.
Wait... how?
Your family only communicate via facebook?
I'm not judging here, I'm genuinely curious
Wait... how?
Your family only communicate via facebook?
I'm not judging here, I'm genuinely curious
It was a cousin on my dad's side, they don't live near me and we just don't talk that much directly.
In my personal experience from X, Facebook, Reddit and HN:
The place with the worst takes, most rage inducing, most filled with conspiracy theories, falsehoods and misinformation is HN.
I don't have outrage fatigue. Outrages are outrages and they are what they are. Are there many exaggerations and fake outrages? Sure. But things like the USA's current constitutional crisis are real.
What I struggle with isn't fatigue at outrage, it's knowing what to do about it.
I think violence is going to become more common, but I don't particularly think it will be effective.
So less so than outrage, it's the feeling that we're trapped in a real life doom loop with no clear off ramp that I struggle with.
I would like to do something... But what?
What I struggle with isn't fatigue at outrage, it's knowing what to do about it.
I think violence is going to become more common, but I don't particularly think it will be effective.
So less so than outrage, it's the feeling that we're trapped in a real life doom loop with no clear off ramp that I struggle with.
I would like to do something... But what?
I decided that other people are far more organized than I am and can respond more effectively, so I'm outsourcing political action in the form of donations. I've earmarked 3% of my income every month for a list of selected charities that currently includes the ACLU, the HRC, and a short list of smaller ones.
I encourage you to do the same!
I encourage you to do the same!
> I've earmarked 3% of my income every month for a list of selected charities that currently includes the ACLU, the HRC, and a short list of smaller ones.
I don't think that's a good investment, considering how badly those organizations failed in order to bring us to today.
I don't think that's a good investment, considering how badly those organizations failed in order to bring us to today.
I am happy to learn about better alternatives.
Democracy Forward has brought many of the lawsuits against the president’s executive overreach IIRC. Democracy Docket has had a lot of success protecting voting rights.
I am happy to say that Democracy Forward was already on my list.
Donated.
>considering how badly those organizations failed in order to bring us to today.
They don't have that much money.
They don't have that much money.
How did these organisations make people vote for Donald Trump?
By successfully pressuring Democratic politicians like Kamala Harris to publicly adopt progressive positions that are unpopular, but highly favored by the kind of people who donate to and operate organizations like the ACLU.
For example, the (unfortunately very successful) Trump ad “Harris is for they/them, Trump is for you” ultimately originates with the ACLU. In 2019 they successfully got Harris to pledge government funding for gender affirming care for people in e.g. immigration detention [1]. It is totally insane that the ACLU thought it was important and worthwhile to get a pledge on this edge case. In general this advocacy was way out of touch with the country at large, has totally backfired, and now landed us with an anti-trans administration.
[1] question 14 here https://www.aclu.org/documents/aclu-rights-for-all-candidate...
For example, the (unfortunately very successful) Trump ad “Harris is for they/them, Trump is for you” ultimately originates with the ACLU. In 2019 they successfully got Harris to pledge government funding for gender affirming care for people in e.g. immigration detention [1]. It is totally insane that the ACLU thought it was important and worthwhile to get a pledge on this edge case. In general this advocacy was way out of touch with the country at large, has totally backfired, and now landed us with an anti-trans administration.
[1] question 14 here https://www.aclu.org/documents/aclu-rights-for-all-candidate...
I really disagree with the premise that Kamala acted "too progressive"...it sounds a little bit ridiculous to even say. The Trump campaign effectively made a mountain out of a molehill, and if it weren't for this molehill, he would have used another, or fabricated one.
In 2019? That was before 2020, and that election resulted in Harris being vice president.
Is your claim seriously that Kamala Harris's image on cultural issues like trans rights did not harm her election campaign? One of Trump's most successful campaign ads was the one that included her talking about government-funded gender affirming care for people in prison. It even has its own Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_is_for_they/them). The fact that this stuff started in 2019 that she won as VP in 2020 is irrelevant; it _clearly_ was an issue in the 2024 that hurt her.
But that's just one example of many. There's also, say, Biden's handling of the border. Even though in 2022 it was clearly deeply unpopular and playing right into Trump's reelection campaign, he didn't change course (until too late) because of pressure from groups like the ACLU.
Overall, IMO one of the biggest factors in Trump's reelection is that the left and the center-left _talked_ about Trump being a big problem, but were unwilling to actually alter their policies or behavior or messaging to broaden their appeal and ensure Trump lost.
But that's just one example of many. There's also, say, Biden's handling of the border. Even though in 2022 it was clearly deeply unpopular and playing right into Trump's reelection campaign, he didn't change course (until too late) because of pressure from groups like the ACLU.
Overall, IMO one of the biggest factors in Trump's reelection is that the left and the center-left _talked_ about Trump being a big problem, but were unwilling to actually alter their policies or behavior or messaging to broaden their appeal and ensure Trump lost.
But when Democrats did change course they were blocked because Trump explicitly said Democrats passing something on the issue would hurt his election chances:
> In February 2024 and again in May 2024, Republicans in the Senate blocked a bipartisan border security bill Biden had pushed for to reduce the number of migrants who can claim asylum at the border and provide more money for Customs and Border Protection officials, asylum officers, immigration judges and scanning technology at the border.[79] It also provided for thousands of work visas for migrant spouses of U.S. citizens awaiting immigrant visas, and 250,000 new visas over five years for people seeking to work in the U.S. or join family members.[80] It was negotiated in a bipartisan manner and initially looked like it had the votes to pass until Donald Trump opposed it, citing that it would boost Biden's reelection chances.
https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_policy_of_the_Joe...
He had no political consequence for encouraging blocking it.
> In February 2024 and again in May 2024, Republicans in the Senate blocked a bipartisan border security bill Biden had pushed for to reduce the number of migrants who can claim asylum at the border and provide more money for Customs and Border Protection officials, asylum officers, immigration judges and scanning technology at the border.[79] It also provided for thousands of work visas for migrant spouses of U.S. citizens awaiting immigrant visas, and 250,000 new visas over five years for people seeking to work in the U.S. or join family members.[80] It was negotiated in a bipartisan manner and initially looked like it had the votes to pass until Donald Trump opposed it, citing that it would boost Biden's reelection chances.
https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_policy_of_the_Joe...
He had no political consequence for encouraging blocking it.
I agree that Trump's move was very bad, but we know that Biden didn't need a new law to "fix" the situation at the border. After Trump blocked that law, Biden made the executive order that for years he claimed he couldn't make, and then the situation at the border got "better". If Biden had instead made that executive order in, say, Fall 2022, there's a good chance that the situation at the border would not have been as salient in 2024 and Trump wouldn't have been elected. (Or, if Trump was still elected, he wouldn't have a mandate to come down so hard on immigration like he's doing now).
The reason Biden didn't make the executive order earlier is because of pressure from groups like the ACLU. The ACLU was simultaneously telling us that Trump is a threat but also pressuring the administration to keep pursuing policies that were clearly playing right into Trump's reelection campaign.
By the way, the ACLU was also against the border bill that Trump blocked.
The reason Biden didn't make the executive order earlier is because of pressure from groups like the ACLU. The ACLU was simultaneously telling us that Trump is a threat but also pressuring the administration to keep pursuing policies that were clearly playing right into Trump's reelection campaign.
By the way, the ACLU was also against the border bill that Trump blocked.
The border situation is a red herring. I'd say that the transgender issue is too.
The main reason Trump won in 24 because he captured the Great Lakes area. Outside of major cities, there are not large Hispanic communities in the Upper Midwest. Migration has far less of an impact there than, say, inflation. And that's what Trump campaigned on.
Now, did he cause that inflation? Partly. Does the US government have to print off money en masse in order to make up for deficits that have been made larger by three decades of GOP refusal to have an adult conversation about revenue policy? Yes.
Does that matter to the average person in the Upper Midwest? No.
The main reason Trump won in 24 because he captured the Great Lakes area. Outside of major cities, there are not large Hispanic communities in the Upper Midwest. Migration has far less of an impact there than, say, inflation. And that's what Trump campaigned on.
Now, did he cause that inflation? Partly. Does the US government have to print off money en masse in order to make up for deficits that have been made larger by three decades of GOP refusal to have an adult conversation about revenue policy? Yes.
Does that matter to the average person in the Upper Midwest? No.
Trump won by a slight majority. Given how close the race was, I don't think it was any one issue. Inflation was the problem. So was anti-DEI sentiment. So was bending over for donors and journalists who didn't reflect majority sentiment. Any one of those things would have probably helped Harris close the gap.
> How did these organisations make people vote for Donald Trump?
It's not so much that they made people vote for Trump, but that they utterly failed to rise to the occasion, despite screaming how the stakes were so high.
I really think a lot of the so-called opposition saw Trump as a wedge to selfishly drive support towards their little ideological or personal priorities.
I think the way forward is probably to ditch finger-wagging liberal technocracy and go for a more competent, law-abiding populism, which seeks to strike a compromise that can comfortably get super-majority support (i.e. 60%+ rather than 50%+1) and speak effectively to many of the anxieties Trump harnesses. You're not going to get that by giving to special interest activist organizations.
It's not so much that they made people vote for Trump, but that they utterly failed to rise to the occasion, despite screaming how the stakes were so high.
I really think a lot of the so-called opposition saw Trump as a wedge to selfishly drive support towards their little ideological or personal priorities.
I think the way forward is probably to ditch finger-wagging liberal technocracy and go for a more competent, law-abiding populism, which seeks to strike a compromise that can comfortably get super-majority support (i.e. 60%+ rather than 50%+1) and speak effectively to many of the anxieties Trump harnesses. You're not going to get that by giving to special interest activist organizations.
Not OP, but to me, these are organizations that are meant for a world where laws matter.
They spent the four years of the Biden administration acting like a hall monitor telling other students they can't smoke in the boys' room. Like, not only can they smoke in the boys' room, they have done so repeatedly. They have upgraded from clove cigarettes to tobacco to weed to crack.
The current oligarchs of the US got there by having no shame and by not caring about the rules, because ultimately, they're just words on paper unless someone uses force (through the state's monopoly on it) to make them a reality.
They spent the four years of the Biden administration acting like a hall monitor telling other students they can't smoke in the boys' room. Like, not only can they smoke in the boys' room, they have done so repeatedly. They have upgraded from clove cigarettes to tobacco to weed to crack.
The current oligarchs of the US got there by having no shame and by not caring about the rules, because ultimately, they're just words on paper unless someone uses force (through the state's monopoly on it) to make them a reality.
[deleted]
Edit: decided I don't want to engage on this issue.
> Edit: decided I don't want to engage on this issue.
I think I want that on my headstone :p
I think I want that on my headstone :p
yostrovs(2)
I know this is kinda banal, but I think even getting to know your neighbors (if you don't already know them) could be a good first step. Also look what exists locally, and maybe even start something. And with so many vulnerable groups under attack, you can probably get in touch or help out with many of them and find adjacent ways to get involved in the core political issues.
I genuinely think as long as you trust your gut (and are a sensible person), that literally doing "something", and then iterating on that, should not be discounted. Ignore outcome for a second, whatever the "chances" may be -- whatever you can contribute, I'm 100% sure that less dread will be helpful, both for yourself and the outcome. And the more active and together with other people who are active you become, the better you'll feel, and the better ideas you'll get.
But I'm pretty sure violence will not be helpful. It's the arena tyrants bait protesters into because that's when they win. That is, if the people are in such a majority that violence could achieve anything, then negotiation or surrender can be achieved, and violence would just be cruelty and barbarism IMO. Remember how mad people got at that sermon about having empathy? I found that incredibly telling, and I think we should tend to and build on our empathy, it's a super power. Fighting for yourself takes courage, but fighting for those who can't fight for themselves gives courage.
I genuinely think as long as you trust your gut (and are a sensible person), that literally doing "something", and then iterating on that, should not be discounted. Ignore outcome for a second, whatever the "chances" may be -- whatever you can contribute, I'm 100% sure that less dread will be helpful, both for yourself and the outcome. And the more active and together with other people who are active you become, the better you'll feel, and the better ideas you'll get.
But I'm pretty sure violence will not be helpful. It's the arena tyrants bait protesters into because that's when they win. That is, if the people are in such a majority that violence could achieve anything, then negotiation or surrender can be achieved, and violence would just be cruelty and barbarism IMO. Remember how mad people got at that sermon about having empathy? I found that incredibly telling, and I think we should tend to and build on our empathy, it's a super power. Fighting for yourself takes courage, but fighting for those who can't fight for themselves gives courage.
> So less so than outrage, it's the feeling that we're trapped in a real life doom loop with no clear off ramp that I struggle with.
> I would like to do something... But what?
That sounds exactly like outrage fatigue. And the solution is in this article: Read less social media, get more sunlight, instead of despairing at the global state[0] of the world, get involved in local issues where you can actually have a measurable effect.
[0] as programmers this should be self-evident
> I would like to do something... But what?
That sounds exactly like outrage fatigue. And the solution is in this article: Read less social media, get more sunlight, instead of despairing at the global state[0] of the world, get involved in local issues where you can actually have a measurable effect.
[0] as programmers this should be self-evident
> So less so than outrage, it's the feeling that we're trapped in a real life doom loop with no clear off ramp that I struggle with.
Glad I'm not alone, but knowing that doesn't change the situation. Still unable to wake from the nightmare... :(
Glad I'm not alone, but knowing that doesn't change the situation. Still unable to wake from the nightmare... :(
Last week I realized that this is bringing up the same feelings of anxiety as early 2020 where I'm living through something that I have little ability to change and don't know how bad it actually is going to get.
I think one of the best things you can do now is to be available in your local communities. You don’t have to be a leader there, but showing up, lending a bit of your time, or just making yourself known as an ally, especially to groups that are being targeted by this administration is helpful.
If things do get bad (job loss, no money, food scarcity) you’ll be able to fall back on the community you’re a part of.
Check out your local library for a jumping off point. Local pride centers would be happy to have you around.
I was feeling similar things (do I need go buy a gun?! No, I don’t.) and I decided that investing time in local communities is better.
If things do get bad (job loss, no money, food scarcity) you’ll be able to fall back on the community you’re a part of.
Check out your local library for a jumping off point. Local pride centers would be happy to have you around.
I was feeling similar things (do I need go buy a gun?! No, I don’t.) and I decided that investing time in local communities is better.
This felt useful to me:
> Make sure you are talking to people and doing something. The logic of “move fast and break things,” like the logic of all coups, is to gain quick dramatic successes that deter and demoralize and create the impression of inevitability. Nothing is inevitable. Do not be alone and do not be dismayed. Find someone who is doing something you admire and join them.
https://snyder.substack.com/p/the-logic-of-destruction
> Make sure you are talking to people and doing something. The logic of “move fast and break things,” like the logic of all coups, is to gain quick dramatic successes that deter and demoralize and create the impression of inevitability. Nothing is inevitable. Do not be alone and do not be dismayed. Find someone who is doing something you admire and join them.
https://snyder.substack.com/p/the-logic-of-destruction
The current situation is designed to disregulate all people in the United States and create disengagement and defeatism.
The best advice I've heard so far is to prioritize self-regulation BEFORE engaging in reaction/action to the news. Inform yourself to your capacity and lock in when you can, but lock in you must, or the crisis will continue growing.
The best advice I've heard so far is to prioritize self-regulation BEFORE engaging in reaction/action to the news. Inform yourself to your capacity and lock in when you can, but lock in you must, or the crisis will continue growing.
This is great advice, thanks for this! Whenever I've been in a stressful work situation using this approach has always led to better outcomes.
That's exactly where the fatigue comes from. Knowing how bad things are without knowing what to do about it.
Work on government reform. Work on bringing power back to the people, implement direct, decentralized democracy.
It might sound like a silly pipe dream. But it works extremely well in Switzerland and I promise it won't just work well where you live, your country will flourish.
It might sound like a silly pipe dream. But it works extremely well in Switzerland and I promise it won't just work well where you live, your country will flourish.
Can you give some specific policy directions you are advocating so I can better understand what you mean?
[deleted]
Consider watching Paul Shraeder's _First Reformed_.
We're all nearly powerless but our choices do matter.
We're all nearly powerless but our choices do matter.
>I think violence is going to become more common, but I don't particularly think it will be effective.
depends on where the violence is directed. Riots on the street and attacking fellow citizens will not change anything. Some old president suddenly falling ill would change a lot (not necessarily "everything". But a lot).
>I would like to do something... But what?
how much do you want to scale it?
Short term
keep pressure on congress, and call your representatives. Your 2 senates (both their local and DC Office each), and your Rep's office. Everyday is ideal but unlikely. Don't flood them with every issue; pick one or 2 and talk about that. They barely take email/letters/online forms into account, and Republicans call much more often than Democrats (yes, that is an issue to look into as well).
If you want to protest and there's something local, that's your choice. But I understand wanting to protect yourself. Stay as low tech as possible if you want to mitigate identification. Smart phone and other tech at home, use a burner phone if you need it.
Midterm (no, literally. Miderms)
- form or donate to coalitions. It may feel like an eternity, but 2026 will come in a blink and you want to make sure to try and turn as much of congress as possible. Those efforts start now, not next year. Keep who's in and helping in, and shift those who's condoning it out. Keep awareness up
- attend your local meetings with mayors/govenors/reps. Change starts from the locals, and surprise: most of the people who attend these tend to be older folk with no traditional workweek. Because they are doing meetings during the rep's workweek. Again, voice your concerns to people who have a chance to change it.
- if you're the type to post: don't let this gish gallop be ignored. Post every medium-large update in communities. You won't change many minds per post, but some will start to realize what's going on and shift. I've seen a few already. A few a day adds up to thousands over 2 years. And these are still slim margin congress.
From there there's a laundry list of long-term actions, but those really depend on Midterms. The theme is that there are people to talk to and not enough people get their voices heard. Don't underestimate the power you hold over who is elected in office.
depends on where the violence is directed. Riots on the street and attacking fellow citizens will not change anything. Some old president suddenly falling ill would change a lot (not necessarily "everything". But a lot).
>I would like to do something... But what?
how much do you want to scale it?
Short term
keep pressure on congress, and call your representatives. Your 2 senates (both their local and DC Office each), and your Rep's office. Everyday is ideal but unlikely. Don't flood them with every issue; pick one or 2 and talk about that. They barely take email/letters/online forms into account, and Republicans call much more often than Democrats (yes, that is an issue to look into as well).
If you want to protest and there's something local, that's your choice. But I understand wanting to protect yourself. Stay as low tech as possible if you want to mitigate identification. Smart phone and other tech at home, use a burner phone if you need it.
Midterm (no, literally. Miderms)
- form or donate to coalitions. It may feel like an eternity, but 2026 will come in a blink and you want to make sure to try and turn as much of congress as possible. Those efforts start now, not next year. Keep who's in and helping in, and shift those who's condoning it out. Keep awareness up
- attend your local meetings with mayors/govenors/reps. Change starts from the locals, and surprise: most of the people who attend these tend to be older folk with no traditional workweek. Because they are doing meetings during the rep's workweek. Again, voice your concerns to people who have a chance to change it.
- if you're the type to post: don't let this gish gallop be ignored. Post every medium-large update in communities. You won't change many minds per post, but some will start to realize what's going on and shift. I've seen a few already. A few a day adds up to thousands over 2 years. And these are still slim margin congress.
From there there's a laundry list of long-term actions, but those really depend on Midterms. The theme is that there are people to talk to and not enough people get their voices heard. Don't underestimate the power you hold over who is elected in office.
Violence against everything got us the fair housing act of 1968
I don’t think it will work against an autocrat
I don’t think it will work against an autocrat
> I think violence is going to become more common
What kind and why?
What kind and why?
Stuff like the Thompson or Abe assassinations.
That said, I think the why is more complicated. At least in the US I think there's a general sense that the world is backsliding, and that people feel like any bump on the road of life risks turning into a complete derailment. But this doesn't lead to any one particular ideology or course of action, so much as externalization of angst, whether against individuals, systems, or the "nobody pays attention to our angst let's burn it all down" attitude that's somewhat widespread.
That said, I think the why is more complicated. At least in the US I think there's a general sense that the world is backsliding, and that people feel like any bump on the road of life risks turning into a complete derailment. But this doesn't lead to any one particular ideology or course of action, so much as externalization of angst, whether against individuals, systems, or the "nobody pays attention to our angst let's burn it all down" attitude that's somewhat widespread.
> that people feel like any bump on the road of life risks turning into a complete derailment.
Maybe because in many ways it can be?
Unexpected medical condition -> crushing debt
Police stop goes bad
Job loss for reasons outside of your control
Wildfires burn your house down, or some other natural disaster
Maybe because in many ways it can be?
Unexpected medical condition -> crushing debt
Police stop goes bad
Job loss for reasons outside of your control
Wildfires burn your house down, or some other natural disaster
for the record, not everyone in the US thinks the sky is falling. it's the same extremely vocal groups as before that do, from what i can see.
Some of us are cautiously optimistic.
Some of us are cautiously optimistic.
It’s not that the sky is falling, it’s that we’re autocratizing. Usually that’s a gradual process.
Think about the recipe we’re seeing: Trump is scaring off career civil servants and installing loyalists whose allegiance is to Trump before the Constitution. He’s ignoring court orders. This is not ok, even if you like some of the policies, because it is democratic decline. It is happening.
So all of us can figure out what we can do … whether it be staying sane, focusing our efforts where they matter, donating, … I don’t have a magic bullet. But this country is worth fighting for.
So all of us can figure out what we can do … whether it be staying sane, focusing our efforts where they matter, donating, … I don’t have a magic bullet. But this country is worth fighting for.
The US has what from the outside looks like a very odd combination of:
- violent anti-government rhetoric (not a new phenomenon at all)
- huge availability of guns
- explicit links between the two by second-amendment advocates of violence against the government
- very little of what would normally be called political violence (Jan 6 is an exception, but a significant one)
- a huge amount of "radicalized" gun violence against schoolchildren (Columbine to Uvalde, etc)
This doesn't feel very stable. It relies on people's actions never matching their words. As soon as someone turns a gun on an elected representative there's a risk of the situation escalating. Or someone could independently reinvent the carbomb, a common factor in situations from the IRA to Iraq.
- violent anti-government rhetoric (not a new phenomenon at all)
- huge availability of guns
- explicit links between the two by second-amendment advocates of violence against the government
- very little of what would normally be called political violence (Jan 6 is an exception, but a significant one)
- a huge amount of "radicalized" gun violence against schoolchildren (Columbine to Uvalde, etc)
This doesn't feel very stable. It relies on people's actions never matching their words. As soon as someone turns a gun on an elected representative there's a risk of the situation escalating. Or someone could independently reinvent the carbomb, a common factor in situations from the IRA to Iraq.
>> But things like the USA's current constitutional crisis are real.
While I have no doubt this is true, is it _actually_ having any impact on your day to day life? If you didn't have social media, didn't read the news, and somehow didn't even know there was an election (I know this one isn't possible) would your day to day life have changed at all? Look at the past week as an example. Threats of tariffs, headline news, retaliation, and then backing down before anything happened bringing us largely back to where we started.
Don't get me wrong, there are people directly affected by these things and I'm not going to get into whether the approach above is ethical or not. But for most people, I believe you could genuinely switch off and not notice any difference at all.
And even if you know and are well read on the issues (as it sounds like you may be) - what can you do about it? In fact - have you done anything about it? If the answer is no then what's the point in being informed?
While I have no doubt this is true, is it _actually_ having any impact on your day to day life? If you didn't have social media, didn't read the news, and somehow didn't even know there was an election (I know this one isn't possible) would your day to day life have changed at all? Look at the past week as an example. Threats of tariffs, headline news, retaliation, and then backing down before anything happened bringing us largely back to where we started.
Don't get me wrong, there are people directly affected by these things and I'm not going to get into whether the approach above is ethical or not. But for most people, I believe you could genuinely switch off and not notice any difference at all.
And even if you know and are well read on the issues (as it sounds like you may be) - what can you do about it? In fact - have you done anything about it? If the answer is no then what's the point in being informed?
This is wrong, Trump and his policies does affect everyone’s day to day life. It may not be immediately visible effect but that is why he lost the 2nd time he tried to run. This fallacy didn’t cause people to vote for Trump in this current election, it caused them to not vote. Not voting is a direct negative effect on your life because you’ve chosen to give up on understanding the consequences. We are basically on track to repeat the last time he was in office because people have chosen to believe the fallacy out of fatigue. The exact fatigue we are talking about right now.
The common thread with Trump is to blame other people for your unhappiness whether an issue affects you daily or not. Then tie that unrelated unhappiness to these issues. That causes fatigue and effects your daily life trying to work through an unsolvable problem (from the individual perspective). For example my father is farmer in a 2 man farming operation. He never spends any time around or near immigrants, not even remotely close, but he has been blaming the immigrants for his unhappiness. If you ask him why it’s because there is this “crisis” with ominous consequences that no one can define.
The common thread with Trump is to blame other people for your unhappiness whether an issue affects you daily or not. Then tie that unrelated unhappiness to these issues. That causes fatigue and effects your daily life trying to work through an unsolvable problem (from the individual perspective). For example my father is farmer in a 2 man farming operation. He never spends any time around or near immigrants, not even remotely close, but he has been blaming the immigrants for his unhappiness. If you ask him why it’s because there is this “crisis” with ominous consequences that no one can define.
> He never spends any time around or near immigrants
He's literally married to an immigrant.
He's literally married to an immigrant.
My father? No he’s not. My father’s family however, his parents (my grand parents) were the children of immigrant homesteaders though who walked across the Canadian border. That’s about how close he’s been.
>> Trump and his policies does affect everyone’s day to day life
Of course, to an extent. But for the vast majority of people they aren't going to have a direct and horrible impact. Take some of the most objectionable things so far - the kind that might upset you if you read about them (treatment of immigrants, plans to 'take over' Greenland/Panama/Palastine, pardoning the Jan 6 criminals, DOGE, etc). These are all very upsetting for many people and understandably so. But they probably don't actually affect you. If they upset you there's very little you can actually do until the next round of elections. Better to switch off and save your own mental health in the meantime and vote when the time comes.
Take your father for example. Would it not be much better for him (and you) if he didn't follow the news/social media, checked out both parties policies at election time, voted and then switched off again?
Of course, to an extent. But for the vast majority of people they aren't going to have a direct and horrible impact. Take some of the most objectionable things so far - the kind that might upset you if you read about them (treatment of immigrants, plans to 'take over' Greenland/Panama/Palastine, pardoning the Jan 6 criminals, DOGE, etc). These are all very upsetting for many people and understandably so. But they probably don't actually affect you. If they upset you there's very little you can actually do until the next round of elections. Better to switch off and save your own mental health in the meantime and vote when the time comes.
Take your father for example. Would it not be much better for him (and you) if he didn't follow the news/social media, checked out both parties policies at election time, voted and then switched off again?
I think the closing of social programs is upsetting but not necessarily impactful to the wider populace because the admin can be sued for abusing federal funds and the programs easily reinstated.
That’s not the only changes that are happening however, there is pressure to normalize criminal activity to ensure the wealthy aren’t held accountable. This is immediately impactful because for every person Trump pardons or protects it enables the same behavior on the Democrat side. The “well Democrats will never do something like Trump” is also a fallacy. That behavior does immediately impact everyone.
So no I don’t wish my father to tune out the world in between elections. I want my father to tune out the hysterics, but he is one of the hysterics. People should be actively informed and ready to act. The hysteria is what happens when people ignore the world for short term capital gain.
That’s not the only changes that are happening however, there is pressure to normalize criminal activity to ensure the wealthy aren’t held accountable. This is immediately impactful because for every person Trump pardons or protects it enables the same behavior on the Democrat side. The “well Democrats will never do something like Trump” is also a fallacy. That behavior does immediately impact everyone.
So no I don’t wish my father to tune out the world in between elections. I want my father to tune out the hysterics, but he is one of the hysterics. People should be actively informed and ready to act. The hysteria is what happens when people ignore the world for short term capital gain.
I see the argument made in the context of government snooping. What if I said that the government made it illegal to use any form of encryption that it did not have a backdoor to. In other words, they have the right to read every single message you ever send or receive. There are people who tell me "don't be concerned, if you've got nothing to hide this won't have any impact on your day to day life".
I don't think that argument is going to persuade you or most others on HN. But you're saying exactly that.
I don't think that argument is going to persuade you or most others on HN. But you're saying exactly that.
That's just because the community on HN selects for the type of person who constantly talks about things where they don't have authorial control, any idea on how to change, nor a holistic strategic population understanding of the issue. I've always thought that's one of the weakest parts of the community here and something the community here has become much worse about over time selecting for noise over substance, though so has the rest of the web.
Many of us live in democracies but the kind of coverage you get on these sites doesn't help any individual voter or participant take any action. At that point, what use is this coverage? I bring this up because I'm involved in local politics and find the rhetoric on places like this would not survive a single community meeting or outreach event.
Many of us live in democracies but the kind of coverage you get on these sites doesn't help any individual voter or participant take any action. At that point, what use is this coverage? I bring this up because I'm involved in local politics and find the rhetoric on places like this would not survive a single community meeting or outreach event.
Sure, many people can dramatically turn down news consumption and may do better (working towards their personal goals). This is an information diet and stress management question.
At the same time, the parable of the slow boiling frog is apropos here. The Trump administration is breaking many laws as they try to scare off career government employees and install loyalists.
As a general principle, I’m not opposed to improving government efficiency, but it must be done legally.
It will take time for the courts to respond to the executive overreaches. But what happens if the administration doesn’t comply? This has already happened and will likely happen more. If we have an executive branch not complying with the courts, the one branch remaining is Congress. If not that, then massive civil unrest. Or some kind of internal power struggle. This could boil over more quickly than some might expect. It is a test of our resolve.
What happens when some people in the administration realize they are likely going to be held accountable? Will they do the right thing then? Or will they double down?
At the same time, the parable of the slow boiling frog is apropos here. The Trump administration is breaking many laws as they try to scare off career government employees and install loyalists.
As a general principle, I’m not opposed to improving government efficiency, but it must be done legally.
It will take time for the courts to respond to the executive overreaches. But what happens if the administration doesn’t comply? This has already happened and will likely happen more. If we have an executive branch not complying with the courts, the one branch remaining is Congress. If not that, then massive civil unrest. Or some kind of internal power struggle. This could boil over more quickly than some might expect. It is a test of our resolve.
What happens when some people in the administration realize they are likely going to be held accountable? Will they do the right thing then? Or will they double down?
Living in Poland ruled by trumpists for 8 years I have these experiences:
- Get subscription of high value newspaper or magazine. Professionals work there, so you will get real facts, worthy opinions and less emotions.
- It is better to not use social media. You never know if you are discussing with normal person, a political party troll, or Russian troll.
- It is not worth discussing with „switched-on” people. They are getting high doses of emotional content, they are made to feel like victims, facts does not matter at all. Political beliefs are intermingled with religious beliefs.
- emotional content is being treated with higher priority by brain, so it is better to stay away from it, or it will ruin your evening.
- people are getting addicted to emotions and victimization, so after public broadcaster has been freed from it, around 5% people switched to private tv station to get their daily doses.
- social media feels like a new kind of virus, we all need to get sick and develop some immunity to it.
- in the end, there are more reasonable people, but democracies needs to develop better constitutional/law systems, with very short feedback loop. It is very important to have fast reaction on breaking the law by ruling regime.
- Get subscription of high value newspaper or magazine. Professionals work there, so you will get real facts, worthy opinions and less emotions.
- It is better to not use social media. You never know if you are discussing with normal person, a political party troll, or Russian troll.
- It is not worth discussing with „switched-on” people. They are getting high doses of emotional content, they are made to feel like victims, facts does not matter at all. Political beliefs are intermingled with religious beliefs.
- emotional content is being treated with higher priority by brain, so it is better to stay away from it, or it will ruin your evening.
- people are getting addicted to emotions and victimization, so after public broadcaster has been freed from it, around 5% people switched to private tv station to get their daily doses.
- social media feels like a new kind of virus, we all need to get sick and develop some immunity to it.
- in the end, there are more reasonable people, but democracies needs to develop better constitutional/law systems, with very short feedback loop. It is very important to have fast reaction on breaking the law by ruling regime.
You nailed it. For ages, we've known that we can be hacked by anything that solicits an emotional response from us. People who set their sights on abusing that power have only gotten better at doing it, so much so that often the victim of the manipulation has no idea they've been manipulated.
There is still an alarming number of people out there who do not seem aware that this is even possible, let alone actively being done on almost all media fronts.
I think acknowledging this makes my outrage fatigue worse, because I am also forced to admit that it can (and does) happen to me, despite being aware of it. This renders me automatically suspicious of any news being reported from any source, regardless of liberal or conservative bias. So, on top of being outraged, there's layers of paranoia which is tiring in and of itself, especially now that it seems more justified.
There is still an alarming number of people out there who do not seem aware that this is even possible, let alone actively being done on almost all media fronts.
I think acknowledging this makes my outrage fatigue worse, because I am also forced to admit that it can (and does) happen to me, despite being aware of it. This renders me automatically suspicious of any news being reported from any source, regardless of liberal or conservative bias. So, on top of being outraged, there's layers of paranoia which is tiring in and of itself, especially now that it seems more justified.
That’s also an alarm bell right there. If the answer to the question “Does this article/headline want me to feel anything?” is Yes, than it’s emotional bait. If its “boring” than it’s probably more neutral.
Emotional reactivity is the psychological name I believe. High reactivity means more anxiety, stress and sometimes sign of a disorder.
Emotional reactivity is the psychological name I believe. High reactivity means more anxiety, stress and sometimes sign of a disorder.
Here is one example of what I think is boring. Is this what you had in mind?
----
Bank of England Cuts Interest Rates as British Economy Weakens
The central bank cut rates for the third time in about six months as it said growth had been weaker than expected.
----
Bank of England Cuts Interest Rates as British Economy Weakens
The central bank cut rates for the third time in about six months as it said growth had been weaker than expected.
If it bleeds it leads has been a core tenet of journalism essentially since it has existed. And certainly a staple of rumor mills since long before that.
I'm going to commit a netiquette faux-pas and, as a fellow European, simply wholeheartedly acknowledge all you just said, from politics to media to psychology and neurology.
I don't know if the internet is just mirroring the general state of society, or if it contributes negatively to it, but talking specifically about the net, this dystopia really isn't what I had envisioned in the '90s. Even rats in cages being subjected to psychological torture are better behaved than this.
I don't know if the internet is just mirroring the general state of society, or if it contributes negatively to it, but talking specifically about the net, this dystopia really isn't what I had envisioned in the '90s. Even rats in cages being subjected to psychological torture are better behaved than this.
> Get subscription of high value newspaper or magazine. Professionals work there, so you will get real facts, worthy opinions and less emotions.
I struggle with this. It's incredibly challenging to find reliable, unbiased news sources these days, especially with the perceived slant of many major outlets. It's discouraging when even subscriptions to reputable publications like the NYT and WSJ leave you feeling like you're not getting the full story. It's also concerning when editorial content undermines the perceived objectivity of the news reporting, specially with WSJ. So what are people reading?
I struggle with this. It's incredibly challenging to find reliable, unbiased news sources these days, especially with the perceived slant of many major outlets. It's discouraging when even subscriptions to reputable publications like the NYT and WSJ leave you feeling like you're not getting the full story. It's also concerning when editorial content undermines the perceived objectivity of the news reporting, specially with WSJ. So what are people reading?
I’ve been sticking to the weekly edition of The Economist for years to stay informed while escaping the news cycle. The US coverage is remarkably good. The weekly cadence mean I’m often a week behind the news, but to me that’s a feature. The editorial pieces (those expressing “the opinion of the newspaper”) are kept separate as “Leaders” and I read them last, if it all; I usually read each issue back-to-front following a tip from HN years ago.
For US-interested people, I’d also like to recommend Checks and Balance, a podcast by some of The Economist’s US reporters.
For US-interested people, I’d also like to recommend Checks and Balance, a podcast by some of The Economist’s US reporters.
I years ago read The Economist, and found a characterization of "Fleet Street cocktail party" useful for anticipating distributions of expertise and dysfunction across topics.
I've not read it regularly, but some suggest the Financial Times.[1][2]
The NYT... sigh. "All the foreign bureaus have closed" (geographic and topical; so superficial, confused, and pre-framed); and "correctness is a local property attained by wordsmithing" - an apparent belief that bad reporting can be "fixed" by local tweaks, so sentences in isolation aren't utterly wrong, even if most readers without overriding expertise will still be left badly misled. After all, it's "news" not analysis. My daily reminder that "Journalism hasn't yet had the 'we suck at this' epiphany which sets up a field's many-decade struggle towards high reliability organization" - we know what a safety/reliability culture looks like, and journalism very isn't it.
[1] https://www.cjr.org/special_report/why-the-left-cant-stand-t... [2] https://www.ft.com/ https://news.google.com/search?q=financial%20times&hl=en-US&...
I've not read it regularly, but some suggest the Financial Times.[1][2]
The NYT... sigh. "All the foreign bureaus have closed" (geographic and topical; so superficial, confused, and pre-framed); and "correctness is a local property attained by wordsmithing" - an apparent belief that bad reporting can be "fixed" by local tweaks, so sentences in isolation aren't utterly wrong, even if most readers without overriding expertise will still be left badly misled. After all, it's "news" not analysis. My daily reminder that "Journalism hasn't yet had the 'we suck at this' epiphany which sets up a field's many-decade struggle towards high reliability organization" - we know what a safety/reliability culture looks like, and journalism very isn't it.
[1] https://www.cjr.org/special_report/why-the-left-cant-stand-t... [2] https://www.ft.com/ https://news.google.com/search?q=financial%20times&hl=en-US&...
The Economist is not exactly a neutral source of information, and is very much pro-big business, which has caused it to take horrible positions on many important issues throughout its long history, such as overthrowing democratic governments, supporting dictatorships, etc.
I’d say it’s pro economic development. Like they express concerns around the decline of anti-trust enforcement.
I’m sure it’s true that they used to advocate dictators, but in the 30 years of reading it as my primary news source, they’ve always seemed to me to be very consistently on the side of liberalism (in the older sense of the word) and very concerned about democracy
I’m sure it’s true that they used to advocate dictators, but in the 30 years of reading it as my primary news source, they’ve always seemed to me to be very consistently on the side of liberalism (in the older sense of the word) and very concerned about democracy
I liked content from The Economist in the past but thought of them as more focused on the world affairs. Will try them out for sure.
I too enjoyed The Economist's reporting on foreign affairs and world news.
I found their editorials to be completely wacky and out of touch.
Same could be said for the WSJ.
I found their editorials to be completely wacky and out of touch.
Same could be said for the WSJ.
Focus on investigative journalism. Places that do their own research. You'll likely get less big picture stuff but the tradeoff is worth it
ProPublica is a good example: https://www.propublica.org/
ProPublica is a good example: https://www.propublica.org/
Focus on outlets that prioritize reporting. You can't find a "neutral" outlet -- all human beings have biases, and that gets magnified once we're talking about collective human endeavors such as newspapers, magazines, etc. But we can at least avoid solipsism ("the view that the self is the only reality") by grounding ourselves in outside, shared reality. That's what reporting is -- actually being at a place in real life, talking to actual people involved. Sure, the transmission of those observations will inevitably be shaped by the human reporter's own biases, but you're still getting access to shared reality. Even if the opinions aren't ones you share, you can at least see what they're based on and so have some ability to make your own evaluation on if the implicit conclusions the reporter is drawing match up with the base facts they are sharing.
> So what are people reading?
I've been liking AllSides. They aggregate news from all parts of the spectrum, so you get stuff ranging from Jacobin / Daily Beast all the way to Fox News / Breitbart (I'm not commenting on the truthfulness of or recommending any of these sources, just using them as an example of how wide ranging the sources being pulled from are)
For each headline, they pick a left, center, and right source and show that headline. They also show various headlines either side misses along with which side of the media is covering it. And other stuff, but mostly I just care about the news.
It helps with avoiding echochambers. One side's doomerism usually ends up being what another side's cheering. Given the current political climate that's been especially helpful to my stress levels.
I've been liking AllSides. They aggregate news from all parts of the spectrum, so you get stuff ranging from Jacobin / Daily Beast all the way to Fox News / Breitbart (I'm not commenting on the truthfulness of or recommending any of these sources, just using them as an example of how wide ranging the sources being pulled from are)
For each headline, they pick a left, center, and right source and show that headline. They also show various headlines either side misses along with which side of the media is covering it. And other stuff, but mostly I just care about the news.
It helps with avoiding echochambers. One side's doomerism usually ends up being what another side's cheering. Given the current political climate that's been especially helpful to my stress levels.
Don't have a specific advise, but generally I don't consume nor trust news articles about given country, from given country. So I read about my central European homeland from neighboring news, or BBC/Guardian for example.
Its more difficult with US since every fart affects rest of the world, sometimes massively, but some sort of averaging in my mind does it for me. Or at least I think it does, what is truly objective is a goal worthy of maybe academic discussions, I don't think individual can easily even get to it and realize 'this is it'.
Its more difficult with US since every fart affects rest of the world, sometimes massively, but some sort of averaging in my mind does it for me. Or at least I think it does, what is truly objective is a goal worthy of maybe academic discussions, I don't think individual can easily even get to it and realize 'this is it'.
> Its more difficult with US since every fart affects rest of the world, sometimes massively
The Guardian (UK), Al-Jazeera (UAE), and the Straits Times (Singapore) offer an outside perspective on the US, while still in English.
The Guardian (UK), Al-Jazeera (UAE), and the Straits Times (Singapore) offer an outside perspective on the US, while still in English.
There is no such thing as an unbiased new source. Rpoerting only articles with pure fact there is still selection bias in what topics are covered and what facts are presented. Giving equal coverage across articles and within results in both sides reporting which can seriously tilt the article.
Choose reputable sources and read with an understanding of the corespondent's perspective as well as the publication's. Diversify your choices to not isolate yourself.
Choose reputable sources and read with an understanding of the corespondent's perspective as well as the publication's. Diversify your choices to not isolate yourself.
Almost every story has sides. Multiple at a time. Depending on people and their cultural background involved or observing. Ask one people about a story, and might say completely different things than another. This is just the nature of humanity, nothing novelty was said here.
Choose something where they at least try.
My long time favorite is The Economist. They have writers there committed to a certain kind of message, true, like everywhere, putting on a glass supporting their preconceptions, yet the overall tone is somewhat analytical, at least trying to look behind and around, trying to use multiple viewpoints. If they miss some, you might add yours pretty easily (on your own or from other sources), and so you will be empowered by better vintage point at the matter than without their help. That's much more than nothing, at least compared to the vast majority (I believe).
I am sure there are even better alternatives where the being emotional first and professionally outraged all the time is frowned upon too. Definitely avoid bbc.co.uk despite their facade of being in depth and balanced. They actually say nothing more than repetition of the events mixed with lots of emotions nowadays, even their selection of topics are outrage oriented.
Choose something where they at least try.
My long time favorite is The Economist. They have writers there committed to a certain kind of message, true, like everywhere, putting on a glass supporting their preconceptions, yet the overall tone is somewhat analytical, at least trying to look behind and around, trying to use multiple viewpoints. If they miss some, you might add yours pretty easily (on your own or from other sources), and so you will be empowered by better vintage point at the matter than without their help. That's much more than nothing, at least compared to the vast majority (I believe).
I am sure there are even better alternatives where the being emotional first and professionally outraged all the time is frowned upon too. Definitely avoid bbc.co.uk despite their facade of being in depth and balanced. They actually say nothing more than repetition of the events mixed with lots of emotions nowadays, even their selection of topics are outrage oriented.
So many once great media outlets were bought by billionaires and now all have the same editorial slant. It's extremely frustrating. In there modern world where would Woodward and Bernstein work? Propublica? Even where there is a will to do that kind of work the funding is even harder to secure. The reporters have to pick and choose their stories.
I don't think there's a single source of news that is going to satisfy a need for full context. I read both for balance, and add The Economist to the mix for even more context.
I'm pretty happy with WSJ.
I have no problem separating the news from the editorials.
That said, there is not enough money in news these days to have anything like the quality and volume of 1-3 decades ago.
I have no problem separating the news from the editorials.
That said, there is not enough money in news these days to have anything like the quality and volume of 1-3 decades ago.
https://ground.news/
No affiliation other than being a customer.
They aggregate stories and report on who's reporting on the story and how, detailing bias and factuality. They do international stories and probably also stories in your local area (in the US, perhaps less likely elsewhere).
No affiliation other than being a customer.
They aggregate stories and report on who's reporting on the story and how, detailing bias and factuality. They do international stories and probably also stories in your local area (in the US, perhaps less likely elsewhere).
Frankly I find the NYT fine. Does it have its deficiencies? Sure. But journalists are but human and subject to their biases. Much better to listen to an NYT journalist than some hysterical X poster. WSJ and NYT have recently had social media outrage aimed against them and I think that's the point: the very folks who are most emotional about the media are angry that NYT isn't as emotional as they are.
Yeah I agree with this. Local news sources work as a good filter, only bringing national stories that have a local effect, plus you get more local news, plus your subscription goes to a news room of probably no more than a few dozen people who live in the same area as you depending on what city or state you're in.
What do you mean by an “unbiased news source? What dimension does it not have a bias against?
If you are talking about political ideologies, reality has a well-known liberal bias. So you have to choose one or the other.
There was a comment recently about how Gemini won’t tell you some Chili recipe from Obama because that might see political. So Google seems to be heading towards politically neutral direction. Contrast that with many years ago when a Google image search would bring up Trump’s image when you searched for “idiot”.
If you are talking about political ideologies, reality has a well-known liberal bias. So you have to choose one or the other.
There was a comment recently about how Gemini won’t tell you some Chili recipe from Obama because that might see political. So Google seems to be heading towards politically neutral direction. Contrast that with many years ago when a Google image search would bring up Trump’s image when you searched for “idiot”.
Out of curiosity-- does "trumpists" mean PiS? Are the "trumpists" still in power? What is the current trend (toward trumpists or away?).
> Get subscription of high value newspaper or magazine. Professionals work there, so you will get real facts, worthy opinions and less emotions.
This is excellent advise. I'm worrying that post-paper news have a really strong incentive nowadays to drive outrage, and that the current level of reporting we see online is the new normal.
> Get subscription of high value newspaper or magazine. Professionals work there, so you will get real facts, worthy opinions and less emotions.
This is excellent advise. I'm worrying that post-paper news have a really strong incentive nowadays to drive outrage, and that the current level of reporting we see online is the new normal.
They've lost majority in the 2023 elections.
The current president (serving his second term) is a big fan of Trump though.
The current president (serving his second term) is a big fan of Trump though.
And current government is running to the right, which IMO is terribly short-sighted strategy.
And their next candidate acts like a stereotypical Bible-waving Joe Rogan fan.
Dudu
Good list, especially the last one.
See also social acceleration [1], from German sociologist and political scientist Hartmut Rosa. Rosa argues that this current culture leads to a crisis in democratic self-determination, as the current quick demands of modern society often conflict with the slower, more reflective processes that democracy requires. The pressure to respond quickly can make democratic governance appear dysfunctional, as governments find it increasingly difficult to react to the complex issues of today within tight time constraints.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_acceleration
See also social acceleration [1], from German sociologist and political scientist Hartmut Rosa. Rosa argues that this current culture leads to a crisis in democratic self-determination, as the current quick demands of modern society often conflict with the slower, more reflective processes that democracy requires. The pressure to respond quickly can make democratic governance appear dysfunctional, as governments find it increasingly difficult to react to the complex issues of today within tight time constraints.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_acceleration
> Get subscription of high value newspaper or magazine. Professionals work there, so you will get real facts, worthy opinions and less emotions.
But, definitely understand what you are getting into here: Paraphrasing Nassim Nicholas Taleb, who notes that if you'd like to be cured of reading newspapers, read last years' newspapers.
I think they're good for understanding "what people are talking about these days" as well as any statements that are literal facts, but anything in-between will be pretty fraught with the same issues as e.g. social media.
But, definitely understand what you are getting into here: Paraphrasing Nassim Nicholas Taleb, who notes that if you'd like to be cured of reading newspapers, read last years' newspapers.
I think they're good for understanding "what people are talking about these days" as well as any statements that are literal facts, but anything in-between will be pretty fraught with the same issues as e.g. social media.
I would add consume less news in general. It has the same problems as social media, just less acute. Its better to spend that time reading more in-depth things such as books.
I’m getting outrage just by reading this comment.
edit: it makes me curious about how that works!
edit: it makes me curious about how that works!
> - It is better to not use social media. You never know if you are discussing with normal person, a political party troll, or Russian troll.
Completely valid, but there is a middleground of very deliberately curating your social media:
- Avoid using services that are engineered for outrage and views
- be ruthless with who you follow and block (someone trying to drum up some unimportant javascript outrage? get them off your feed)
- for twitter-likes, mute phrases from your timeline like crazy (included in my muted words is plainly trump, kamala, elon, gop, democrats, doge, dei, covid, etc)
- always be skeptical that everyone else online is some PSYOP effort, even those that share views you politically align with
It is possible to use social media, but you must have agency over it and not allow it to just happen to you. That's why I'm much more enthusastic about decentralised/open and non-commercial social networks because they currently give users much more control.
Completely valid, but there is a middleground of very deliberately curating your social media:
- Avoid using services that are engineered for outrage and views
- be ruthless with who you follow and block (someone trying to drum up some unimportant javascript outrage? get them off your feed)
- for twitter-likes, mute phrases from your timeline like crazy (included in my muted words is plainly trump, kamala, elon, gop, democrats, doge, dei, covid, etc)
- always be skeptical that everyone else online is some PSYOP effort, even those that share views you politically align with
It is possible to use social media, but you must have agency over it and not allow it to just happen to you. That's why I'm much more enthusastic about decentralised/open and non-commercial social networks because they currently give users much more control.
Don't disagree with you, but I'll counter with 2 big issues:
1. the services themselves continually change, and are incentivized to get much more manipulative, and much, much worse. I used to use LinkedIn as an employment network, and now it's a full-on social media hub (though weirdly positive in a very phony way...) even HN has changed for the worse (despite the efforts of dang)
2. won't someone think of the kids? in seriousness though, they're struggling to build agency over themselves; how can they be expected to control social media, and to pile on, it's the only world they've ever known?
1. the services themselves continually change, and are incentivized to get much more manipulative, and much, much worse. I used to use LinkedIn as an employment network, and now it's a full-on social media hub (though weirdly positive in a very phony way...) even HN has changed for the worse (despite the efforts of dang)
2. won't someone think of the kids? in seriousness though, they're struggling to build agency over themselves; how can they be expected to control social media, and to pile on, it's the only world they've ever known?
> the services themselves continually change
Nothing is perfect, and nothing is immune to change, but that's why I'm attracted to open, and non-commercial social networks. Non-commercial networks have less incentives to enshittify, and being decentralised/open can act as a relief value to give more control to users (like Bluesky's labellers) and help counteract any changes they do make for the worse.
> won't someone think of the kids?
not me. I don't see why I children using social media should impact my decision about how I spend my time?
Nothing is perfect, and nothing is immune to change, but that's why I'm attracted to open, and non-commercial social networks. Non-commercial networks have less incentives to enshittify, and being decentralised/open can act as a relief value to give more control to users (like Bluesky's labellers) and help counteract any changes they do make for the worse.
> won't someone think of the kids?
not me. I don't see why I children using social media should impact my decision about how I spend my time?
Can you give some examples of decentralized/open and non-commercial networks? I would be very interested to use such platforms but I don’t know of them (nor do the people in my life, unfortunately)!
In agreement with all your points above.
In agreement with all your points above.
Mastodon: https://mastodon.social/
Good points about how to better use social media but I don’t personally think the benefits outweigh the downsides
This is too complicated. There's a much shorter working plan:
- fact check exceptional claims
- report factual failures to the source
- if the source doesn't apologize publicly in the same channel, permanently remove it from trusted sources
edit: ok, after the rage comment I realized that one more item is missing: discarding sources with systematic reporting bias (when it is obvious they aren't reporting things that you care about that are happening)
- fact check exceptional claims
- report factual failures to the source
- if the source doesn't apologize publicly in the same channel, permanently remove it from trusted sources
edit: ok, after the rage comment I realized that one more item is missing: discarding sources with systematic reporting bias (when it is obvious they aren't reporting things that you care about that are happening)
Factual correctness is a different dimension from how "outrage-inducing" news are. Those are orthogonal.
Consider: "Illegal immigrants strike again, having raped 2 teenagers already this year"
is outrage-inducing regardless of factual correctness.
Consider: "Illegal immigrants strike again, having raped 2 teenagers already this year"
is outrage-inducing regardless of factual correctness.
What exactly is the problem with inducing outrage?
"Outrage fatigue can wear us down"-- the subtitle of the article :P
I don't necessarily see a problem with "outrage fatigue". It sounds like a self-solving problem: if a source gives you such fatigue, you will stop reading it naturally.
> if a source gives you such fatigue, you will stop reading it naturally.
That is not not at all how this works out in reality.
People are not subconciously opposed to being driven to outrage, especially if it reinforces their biases (the reverse appears to be true!).
Sanity check: If evoking outrage was driving away media consumer, there would be very strong selection pressure against that, and media would stop doing it or fail.
This is not what we observe: Almost all media is becoming increasingly outrage-inducing, because it works. It drives clicks, and it does not deter people from coming back.
Just consider CNN, FOX news, MSNBC , etc-- you can see the same trend over time, regardless of the position on the political spectrum.
That is not not at all how this works out in reality.
People are not subconciously opposed to being driven to outrage, especially if it reinforces their biases (the reverse appears to be true!).
Sanity check: If evoking outrage was driving away media consumer, there would be very strong selection pressure against that, and media would stop doing it or fail.
This is not what we observe: Almost all media is becoming increasingly outrage-inducing, because it works. It drives clicks, and it does not deter people from coming back.
Just consider CNN, FOX news, MSNBC , etc-- you can see the same trend over time, regardless of the position on the political spectrum.
Rare is the individual who does not make numerous errors while engaging in fact checking, in no small part because of our cultural norms of cognition.
> in the end, there are more reasonable people, but democracies needs to develop better constitutional/law systems, with very short feedback loop. It is very important to have fast reaction on breaking the law by ruling regime.
What’s wrong with the separation of powers in the USA? There’s plenty of situations where judges issue injunctions that are in effect until the case is resolved.
What’s wrong with the separation of powers in the USA? There’s plenty of situations where judges issue injunctions that are in effect until the case is resolved.
Lack of enforcement mechanisms, captured courts, feckless political stooges, gullible public.
E.g.
Virginia governor illegally purged voters within a certain time window. Courts said "yeah that was illegal, you need to stop" VA attorney gen said "no I don't." And while the court of appeals agreed with the lower court "yeah simple violation of the law. Reinstate revoked registration." The VA supreme court was like "nah fam, let's let the governor do his thing and we can figure this all out after the election." And everyone kinda stopped talking about it.
As a poll worker I had multiple people who had voter ID cards come in last November but required filling out paperwork to re-register them and have them cast a provisional ballot. Feels like they were connected as I hadn't dealt with that in the near dozen elections I've worked prior.
E.g.
Virginia governor illegally purged voters within a certain time window. Courts said "yeah that was illegal, you need to stop" VA attorney gen said "no I don't." And while the court of appeals agreed with the lower court "yeah simple violation of the law. Reinstate revoked registration." The VA supreme court was like "nah fam, let's let the governor do his thing and we can figure this all out after the election." And everyone kinda stopped talking about it.
As a poll worker I had multiple people who had voter ID cards come in last November but required filling out paperwork to re-register them and have them cast a provisional ballot. Feels like they were connected as I hadn't dealt with that in the near dozen elections I've worked prior.
> Lack of enforcement mechanisms, captured courts, feckless political stooges, gullible public.
> e.g., Virginia governor illegally purged voters within a certain time window. Courts said "yeah that was illegal, you need to stop" VA attorney gen said "no I don't." And while the court of appeals agreed with the lower court "yeah simple violation of the law. Reinstate revoked registration." The VA supreme court was like "nah fam, let's let the governor do his thing and we can figure this all out after the election." And everyone kinda stopped talking about it.
The fact that he won the case means that it was not an illegal purge. It was expressly legal. The SCOTUS agreed as well: https://www.npr.org/2024/10/30/g-s1-30644/supreme-court-virg...
You can't claim the result of a case is "illegal" simply because you don't agree with it. Or is the very act of appealing a ruling itself an illegal act because you do not immediately bend the knee to the first judge that sides with your opponents?
> As a poll worker I had multiple people who had voter ID cards come in last November but required filling out paperwork to re-register them and have them cast a provisional ballot. Feels like they were connected as I hadn't dealt with that in the near dozen elections I've worked prior.
Were they people who checked the box on their driver's license form explicitly stating that they are not a US citizen? Because those are the people who were removed from the voter rolls by that clean up.
> e.g., Virginia governor illegally purged voters within a certain time window. Courts said "yeah that was illegal, you need to stop" VA attorney gen said "no I don't." And while the court of appeals agreed with the lower court "yeah simple violation of the law. Reinstate revoked registration." The VA supreme court was like "nah fam, let's let the governor do his thing and we can figure this all out after the election." And everyone kinda stopped talking about it.
The fact that he won the case means that it was not an illegal purge. It was expressly legal. The SCOTUS agreed as well: https://www.npr.org/2024/10/30/g-s1-30644/supreme-court-virg...
You can't claim the result of a case is "illegal" simply because you don't agree with it. Or is the very act of appealing a ruling itself an illegal act because you do not immediately bend the knee to the first judge that sides with your opponents?
> As a poll worker I had multiple people who had voter ID cards come in last November but required filling out paperwork to re-register them and have them cast a provisional ballot. Feels like they were connected as I hadn't dealt with that in the near dozen elections I've worked prior.
Were they people who checked the box on their driver's license form explicitly stating that they are not a US citizen? Because those are the people who were removed from the voter rolls by that clean up.
>The fact that he won the case means that it was not an illegal purge. It was expressly legal. The SCOTUS agreed as well: https://www.npr.org/2024/10/30/g-s1-30644/supreme-court-virg...
Your whole argument basically falls apart with this logic: "Republicans wanted to cheat to put a Republican in power, until they were stopped by a court of law, and when defeated, appealed to powerful Republicans, who voted along party lines to give more power to Republicans."
Your whole argument basically falls apart with this logic: "Republicans wanted to cheat to put a Republican in power, until they were stopped by a court of law, and when defeated, appealed to powerful Republicans, who voted along party lines to give more power to Republicans."
> Your whole argument basically falls apart with this logic: "Republicans wanted to cheat to put a Republican in power, until they were stopped by a court of law, and when defeated, appealed to powerful Republicans, who voted along party lines to give more power to Republicans."
Alternatively: "Republicans wanted to clean up the voter rolls by removing self-declared non-citizens. Democrats wanted to cheat by allowing those non-citizens to vote so they went judge shopping till they found one that was willing to temporarily stop the effort. Republicans followed the process and appealed through the court system. And the final ruling by the highest court in the land agreed with the Republicans that the action was legal.".
So I'd argue the Democrats challenging the case are the ones that ended up on the illegal side.
Alternatively: "Republicans wanted to clean up the voter rolls by removing self-declared non-citizens. Democrats wanted to cheat by allowing those non-citizens to vote so they went judge shopping till they found one that was willing to temporarily stop the effort. Republicans followed the process and appealed through the court system. And the final ruling by the highest court in the land agreed with the Republicans that the action was legal.".
So I'd argue the Democrats challenging the case are the ones that ended up on the illegal side.
What a dishonest take.
"...Justice Department and advocacy groups sued, contending that the state had in fact purged at least some eligible voters and that it did so in violation of a federal law that bars systematic removals from voting rolls in the 90 days prior to an election. Specifically, the 1993 National Voter Registration Act creates a “quiet period” within 90 days of a federal election.
"A federal district court agreed, ordering Virginia to restore the approximately 1,600 voter registrations that were cancelled. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that order. Virginia then appealed to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to allow the state to strike the voters purged in the 90 days prior to the election.
"The state contended that the lower courts “misinterpreted the NVRA.” They argued that the “quiet period” cannot apply to noncitizens, since they are already ineligible to vote. Even if the “quiet period” did apply here, the state argued, the program was sufficiently individualized, not systematic."
So where is the cheating? Is it "cheating" to use the courts to resolve legal disputes? Or to misinterpret the law? Were both of the lower courts in on the cheating?
"...Justice Department and advocacy groups sued, contending that the state had in fact purged at least some eligible voters and that it did so in violation of a federal law that bars systematic removals from voting rolls in the 90 days prior to an election. Specifically, the 1993 National Voter Registration Act creates a “quiet period” within 90 days of a federal election.
"A federal district court agreed, ordering Virginia to restore the approximately 1,600 voter registrations that were cancelled. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that order. Virginia then appealed to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to allow the state to strike the voters purged in the 90 days prior to the election.
"The state contended that the lower courts “misinterpreted the NVRA.” They argued that the “quiet period” cannot apply to noncitizens, since they are already ineligible to vote. Even if the “quiet period” did apply here, the state argued, the program was sufficiently individualized, not systematic."
So where is the cheating? Is it "cheating" to use the courts to resolve legal disputes? Or to misinterpret the law? Were both of the lower courts in on the cheating?
Bad faith argument.
Republicans didn’t want to clean up the voter rolls, as you allege. They wanted to tip the election to Trump by any means necessary. This is so obvious that you’re likely to tell me not to believe my own eyes.
Republicans didn’t want to clean up the voter rolls, as you allege. They wanted to tip the election to Trump by any means necessary. This is so obvious that you’re likely to tell me not to believe my own eyes.
Non-citizens don't vote, and can't vote.
Can you prove that the entire list of cleared votes, was indeed 100% of people who were ineligible to vote?
Judge shopping is the GOP's favorite passtime. I hate both parties but it's been the GOP's tactic for ages. Go read up on Donald Trump judge shopping until he got a stooge to clear him for possession of intelligence documents he was unable to keep. Bear in mind, that some of those documents were our intelligence files on Israel's nuclear weapons program. Why do you think the Saudis sponsored a fucking golf tour on Trump's courses once they had access to those documents?
Can you prove that the entire list of cleared votes, was indeed 100% of people who were ineligible to vote?
Judge shopping is the GOP's favorite passtime. I hate both parties but it's been the GOP's tactic for ages. Go read up on Donald Trump judge shopping until he got a stooge to clear him for possession of intelligence documents he was unable to keep. Bear in mind, that some of those documents were our intelligence files on Israel's nuclear weapons program. Why do you think the Saudis sponsored a fucking golf tour on Trump's courses once they had access to those documents?
Illegality is a meaningless term when the separation of powers is compromised specifically to make what would normally be illegal legal.
Or put another way: there’s a subreddit called something like /r/EmpireDidNothingWrong that puts forth the idea that nothing the Empire did in the Star Wars universe was illegal. In fact it was quite legal, as Palpatine famously says “I’ll make it legal”.
A fictional example sure, but if you can’t make the leap here, well, then you’re the one being disingenuous.
Or put another way: there’s a subreddit called something like /r/EmpireDidNothingWrong that puts forth the idea that nothing the Empire did in the Star Wars universe was illegal. In fact it was quite legal, as Palpatine famously says “I’ll make it legal”.
A fictional example sure, but if you can’t make the leap here, well, then you’re the one being disingenuous.
I live in VA, and forgot about this until you mentioned it. Ugh.
Also wanted to say thank you for your work as a poll worker.
Also wanted to say thank you for your work as a poll worker.
At least in my area of VA, the elections board does a great job supporting it's poll-workers.
If you have the capacity (I understand it's not compatible with everyone's schedule or capacity) I would recommend looking into it in your area as they usually need help, and it is a paid gig. It's easy to sign up the next time you go to vote, just ask the poll workers for the signup sheet.
I try to make it fun and make food for my precinct. Usually some bbq fresh bread and some sides, then feed any of the county voting board members who check in on us as well.
Good luck out there!
If you have the capacity (I understand it's not compatible with everyone's schedule or capacity) I would recommend looking into it in your area as they usually need help, and it is a paid gig. It's easy to sign up the next time you go to vote, just ask the poll workers for the signup sheet.
I try to make it fun and make food for my precinct. Usually some bbq fresh bread and some sides, then feed any of the county voting board members who check in on us as well.
Good luck out there!
These voter purges changed the outcome of the election.
It’s utterly disingenuous to say Trump won. They straight up cheated.
It’s utterly disingenuous to say Trump won. They straight up cheated.
> What’s wrong with the separation of powers in the USA?
Once the same party controls the Senate, House, Presidency and Supreme Court, the powers are no longer meaningfully separate. Which is now the case.
(state powers are still separate; I'm guessing we'll see action from state AGs against sudden Federal actions which have disadvantaged their state)
Also, as Musk has figured out, the simple power of fait accompli. If you don't comply with a court order, someone has to make you. All of whom are Federal employees. Who are on the OPM payroll. Which he controls.
Once the same party controls the Senate, House, Presidency and Supreme Court, the powers are no longer meaningfully separate. Which is now the case.
(state powers are still separate; I'm guessing we'll see action from state AGs against sudden Federal actions which have disadvantaged their state)
Also, as Musk has figured out, the simple power of fait accompli. If you don't comply with a court order, someone has to make you. All of whom are Federal employees. Who are on the OPM payroll. Which he controls.
> Once the same party controls the Senate, House, Presidency and Supreme Court, the powers are no longer meaningfully separate. Which is now the case.
Three out of four of those are the direct will of the voters. And the fourth is the indirect will of the voters as expressed by their President.
I think insisting that they always be at odds with each other is unrealistic and goes against the fundamental idea that people have a right to form a government that represents them.
It's like insisting that someone who is appointed to run a given department (e.g., Education, Interior, or EPA), is required to promote more spending or expansion of that department. There's no requirement like that and the decision to pare things back and limit the scope of a department again falls in line with the will of the voters. There's no rule that government is only allowed to grow bigger.
Three out of four of those are the direct will of the voters. And the fourth is the indirect will of the voters as expressed by their President.
I think insisting that they always be at odds with each other is unrealistic and goes against the fundamental idea that people have a right to form a government that represents them.
It's like insisting that someone who is appointed to run a given department (e.g., Education, Interior, or EPA), is required to promote more spending or expansion of that department. There's no requirement like that and the decision to pare things back and limit the scope of a department again falls in line with the will of the voters. There's no rule that government is only allowed to grow bigger.
> I think insisting that they always be at odds with each other is unrealistic and goes against the fundamental idea that people have a right to form a government that represents them.
Sure, but then there's no longer meaningful separation of powers and you've converged on a UK-like system where a majority, no matter how narrow, conveys all the power - but with a politicised court (UK SC is still generally agreed to be nonpolitical).
It's a really serious problem for the US that lots of very important rights like, say, interracial marriage in Loving v Virginia, came about as court cases despite and often against the will of the voters.
Sure, but then there's no longer meaningful separation of powers and you've converged on a UK-like system where a majority, no matter how narrow, conveys all the power - but with a politicised court (UK SC is still generally agreed to be nonpolitical).
It's a really serious problem for the US that lots of very important rights like, say, interracial marriage in Loving v Virginia, came about as court cases despite and often against the will of the voters.
Will of the voters doesn't mean it's not a dictatorship. Plenty of dictators were popular and democratically elected.
Part of the problem is the incredible corruption at the Supreme Court. The courts increasingly can't be trusted to be a stopgap.
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/06/supreme-court-justices-milli...
Then you have the current administration making veiled threats against senators to ensure they vote as intended.
https://www.rawstory.com/morning-joe-today-2671089005/
This is why we need reinforcement of the governmental structures and guardrails. The good faith handshake approach is broken, as we can see through current events. It is not resilient against a malicious executive.
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/06/supreme-court-justices-milli...
Then you have the current administration making veiled threats against senators to ensure they vote as intended.
https://www.rawstory.com/morning-joe-today-2671089005/
This is why we need reinforcement of the governmental structures and guardrails. The good faith handshake approach is broken, as we can see through current events. It is not resilient against a malicious executive.
> Part of the problem is the incredible corruption at the Supreme Court. The courts increasingly can't be trusted to be a stopgap.
Just because a body disagrees with your desired interpretation of the law does not mean its corrupt. I disagree with the liberal justices on just about every split decision, but I don't think they're on the take. They simply have a different philosophy of the law.
I challenge you to find any specific court case taking up by the SCOTUS where you think the outcome was the result of corruption.
> Then you have the current administration making veiled threats against senators to ensure they vote as intended.
I'm more concerned about the other direction where the (at the time) Senate majority leader expressly threatened the SCOTUS to vote a particular way or they will "you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price": https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/rare-rebuke-c...
Just because a body disagrees with your desired interpretation of the law does not mean its corrupt. I disagree with the liberal justices on just about every split decision, but I don't think they're on the take. They simply have a different philosophy of the law.
I challenge you to find any specific court case taking up by the SCOTUS where you think the outcome was the result of corruption.
> Then you have the current administration making veiled threats against senators to ensure they vote as intended.
I'm more concerned about the other direction where the (at the time) Senate majority leader expressly threatened the SCOTUS to vote a particular way or they will "you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price": https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/rare-rebuke-c...
For your challenge: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/supreme-court-grants-tru...
The context of the Supreme Court choosing to reverse 50 years of precedent regarding abortion is pretty important there. Especially as the justices involved were going against their explicit answers from their confirmation hearings, that it was settled law. Schumer also did not threaten violence.
The context of the Supreme Court choosing to reverse 50 years of precedent regarding abortion is pretty important there. Especially as the justices involved were going against their explicit answers from their confirmation hearings, that it was settled law. Schumer also did not threaten violence.
> For your challenge: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/supreme-court-grants-tru...
I fail to see how this is a valid example of a corrupt decision.
And if you're going to start prosecuting Presidents for official acts, we definitely should start with the one that was executing US citizens via drone strikes without a trial.
> The context of the Supreme Court choosing to reverse 50 years of precedent regarding abortion is pretty important there. Especially as the justices involved were going against their explicit answers from their confirmation hearings, that it was settled law.
So a judge can never change their mind on anything? And once a ruling is decided, it's carved in stone forever?
By that bankrupt logic we'd be stuck with Plessy v. Ferguson.
> Schumer also did not threaten violence.
I'd love to hear what other consequences you think he was eluding to when he said they will "pay the price". It's clearly not at the ballot box as SCOTUS are appointed for life.
I fail to see how this is a valid example of a corrupt decision.
And if you're going to start prosecuting Presidents for official acts, we definitely should start with the one that was executing US citizens via drone strikes without a trial.
> The context of the Supreme Court choosing to reverse 50 years of precedent regarding abortion is pretty important there. Especially as the justices involved were going against their explicit answers from their confirmation hearings, that it was settled law.
So a judge can never change their mind on anything? And once a ruling is decided, it's carved in stone forever?
By that bankrupt logic we'd be stuck with Plessy v. Ferguson.
> Schumer also did not threaten violence.
I'd love to hear what other consequences you think he was eluding to when he said they will "pay the price". It's clearly not at the ballot box as SCOTUS are appointed for life.
>Just because a body disagrees with your desired interpretation of the law does not mean its corrupt.
Have you heard of a gentleman by the name of Clarence Thomas? If you have, I'm sure you've heard about some of the gifts he's been given by people who had upcoming business before the court?
Have you heard of a gentleman by the name of Clarence Thomas? If you have, I'm sure you've heard about some of the gifts he's been given by people who had upcoming business before the court?
He ignored the link about Thomas' massive gift/donation totals in my earlier post. He's heard about it but might be willfully ignoring it.
> I challenge you to find any specific court case taking up by the SCOTUS where you think the outcome was the result of corruption.
The presidential immunity case is another good one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States_(2024)
I think the first question to ask is, if the U.S. had a democratic president during the time of this judgement, would the vote granting presidential still have been 6-3 along party lines?
Perhaps if it had been a democrat president more of the liberal justices would have voted for it too, but that still indicates a corrupted court. It's just corrupted the other way.
There was additional appearance of corruption in that Alito refused to recuse himself even though he projected a clear bias towards the Jan. 6 riots by both flying a flag supporting the rioters [1].
It's nine un-elected people with no term limits who make up a third of our government. No matter who is in charge it's going to be a little corrupt I'd say.
[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/scotus-alito-flag-controversy-...
The presidential immunity case is another good one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States_(2024)
I think the first question to ask is, if the U.S. had a democratic president during the time of this judgement, would the vote granting presidential still have been 6-3 along party lines?
Perhaps if it had been a democrat president more of the liberal justices would have voted for it too, but that still indicates a corrupted court. It's just corrupted the other way.
There was additional appearance of corruption in that Alito refused to recuse himself even though he projected a clear bias towards the Jan. 6 riots by both flying a flag supporting the rioters [1].
It's nine un-elected people with no term limits who make up a third of our government. No matter who is in charge it's going to be a little corrupt I'd say.
[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/scotus-alito-flag-controversy-...
> I think the first question to ask is, if the U.S. had a democratic president during the time of this judgement, would the vote granting presidential still have been 6-3 along party lines?
> Perhaps if it had been a democrat president more of the liberal justices would have voted for it too, but that still indicates a corrupted court. It's just corrupted the other way.
Eh? Biden, a Democrat, was President during the time of that judgement.
The primary benefactor of the outcome of the case is clearly Trump as he's the one with open Federal lawsuits, but the POTUS at the time was a Democrat and the 2024 election had not happened yet either. So whatever immunity power the court granted, it was granting on an ongoing basis to Biden.
> There was additional appearance of corruption in that Alito refused to recuse himself even though he projected a clear bias towards the Jan. 6 riots by both flying a flag supporting the rioters [1].
There's an incredibly blurry line between bias an opinion. Having an opinion is not grounds for recusal. If he was at the capital or somehow involved with a lower court interaction, that'd be a conflict.
> It's nine un-elected people with no term limits who make up a third of our government. No matter who is in charge it's going to be a little corrupt I'd say.
I really don't think they're corrupt at all. There's just this sad framing of "us v.s. them" that makes people think that the only way someone could disagree is they are corrupt. I don't see it like that though. I just see a core difference of opinion (and I happen to side with one side much more than the other).
> Perhaps if it had been a democrat president more of the liberal justices would have voted for it too, but that still indicates a corrupted court. It's just corrupted the other way.
Eh? Biden, a Democrat, was President during the time of that judgement.
The primary benefactor of the outcome of the case is clearly Trump as he's the one with open Federal lawsuits, but the POTUS at the time was a Democrat and the 2024 election had not happened yet either. So whatever immunity power the court granted, it was granting on an ongoing basis to Biden.
> There was additional appearance of corruption in that Alito refused to recuse himself even though he projected a clear bias towards the Jan. 6 riots by both flying a flag supporting the rioters [1].
There's an incredibly blurry line between bias an opinion. Having an opinion is not grounds for recusal. If he was at the capital or somehow involved with a lower court interaction, that'd be a conflict.
> It's nine un-elected people with no term limits who make up a third of our government. No matter who is in charge it's going to be a little corrupt I'd say.
I really don't think they're corrupt at all. There's just this sad framing of "us v.s. them" that makes people think that the only way someone could disagree is they are corrupt. I don't see it like that though. I just see a core difference of opinion (and I happen to side with one side much more than the other).
> Eh? Biden, a Democrat, was President during the time of that judgement.
Sorry, bad typing. The judgement was for the ex-president while Biden was in office and my point was that the spread might have been different if the case was against a Democrat.
I agree about your line between bias and opinion, and I might have my own biases telling me when an opinion is a bias. However the judge for life thing we have here is not good for anybody.
Sorry, bad typing. The judgement was for the ex-president while Biden was in office and my point was that the spread might have been different if the case was against a Democrat.
I agree about your line between bias and opinion, and I might have my own biases telling me when an opinion is a bias. However the judge for life thing we have here is not good for anybody.
Separation is a good idea, but the implementation in the US needs some work. As majgr said, the feedback loop needs to be short. It's good that policy takes a while to change, because that allows debates, public comments, investigative reporting, etc. But the checks on power need to be fast, because if a president goes outside the legal framework, there's no debate or anything for as long as it takes to file a court case.
IANAL, but I believe that a judge can only order an injunction if a suit is filed by somebody who can show they have been out will be harmed by the action. It'd be nice if judges could be proactive for procedural or Constitutional violations.
IANAL, but I believe that a judge can only order an injunction if a suit is filed by somebody who can show they have been out will be harmed by the action. It'd be nice if judges could be proactive for procedural or Constitutional violations.
> What’s wrong with the separation of powers in the USA?
From an outsider's perspective, it doesn't look like it's working very well for you.
I'm not just talking about Trump - the "separation of powers" seems like a recipe for government shutdowns, pork-barrel spending to buy support, a politicised justice system, and being unable to hold politicians to account for failing to deliver their promises.
From an outsider's perspective, it doesn't look like it's working very well for you.
I'm not just talking about Trump - the "separation of powers" seems like a recipe for government shutdowns, pork-barrel spending to buy support, a politicised justice system, and being unable to hold politicians to account for failing to deliver their promises.
"It is not worth discussing with „switched-on” people. They are getting high doses of emotional content, they are made to feel like victims, facts does not matter at all. Political beliefs are intermingled with religious beliefs."
This is fascinating to watch in the current environment. People are decent in real life for the most part but on social media its as if all manner of restraint are removed. Post anything disagreeing with the overall narrative of the site and its like a scene out of World War Z. Just attacked by crowds of people actively calling for your death. Never seen anything like it.
On X they will insult your intelligence or pull the "we tried to tell you and this is what you get you [insert explicative here]. On Reddit they will quite openly hope someone murders you.
Social media has truly insidious powers and I don't think people realize they are under its spell until its too late.
This is fascinating to watch in the current environment. People are decent in real life for the most part but on social media its as if all manner of restraint are removed. Post anything disagreeing with the overall narrative of the site and its like a scene out of World War Z. Just attacked by crowds of people actively calling for your death. Never seen anything like it.
On X they will insult your intelligence or pull the "we tried to tell you and this is what you get you [insert explicative here]. On Reddit they will quite openly hope someone murders you.
Social media has truly insidious powers and I don't think people realize they are under its spell until its too late.
> Social media has truly insidious powers and I don't think people realize they are under its spell until its too late.
Which is why there's now the disastrous government-by-meme plan directed at fighting the people a social media site's owner spends his time fighting with on social media. Plus a few crank theories of his own.
Which is why there's now the disastrous government-by-meme plan directed at fighting the people a social media site's owner spends his time fighting with on social media. Plus a few crank theories of his own.
you don't even need to compare the same IRL people with social media. Tuck them behind a car windshield/windscreen and any social relationship is dead.
Sincerely,
A bike rider who commutes in traffic with the same people he works with every day.
Sincerely,
A bike rider who commutes in traffic with the same people he works with every day.
FAAFO is a real thing that influences human behavior.
We learn it as kids on the playground.
There is almost zero FAAFO with discussions on the internet.
And each passing year, there is less playground.
We learn it as kids on the playground.
There is almost zero FAAFO with discussions on the internet.
And each passing year, there is less playground.
The constitution (any constitution) and laws are just words on paper. They only matter when the people in the system make it matter. And larger society is part of that system.
Having a system which incentivizes people to not allow this to happen certainly helps - but corruption is inevitable and requires constant work to correct.
Having a system which incentivizes people to not allow this to happen certainly helps - but corruption is inevitable and requires constant work to correct.
This is a wonderful list and I’m going to hold onto it, thank you.
I love the concept of a “switched on” person and I’ve been struggling to define and name this myself. They’re all across the political spectrum and often outside its binaries, but they all bring an agitated personalized combativeness to the slightest of provocations. They’re deeply enmeshed in, whatever it is. I’m starting to see them as, almost, mentally ill. But I’m still developing my understanding and approach here. So thanks for the food for thought.
I love the concept of a “switched on” person and I’ve been struggling to define and name this myself. They’re all across the political spectrum and often outside its binaries, but they all bring an agitated personalized combativeness to the slightest of provocations. They’re deeply enmeshed in, whatever it is. I’m starting to see them as, almost, mentally ill. But I’m still developing my understanding and approach here. So thanks for the food for thought.
Sadly I don't know if a high value newspaper exists anymore.
Wapo and NYtimes have slowly evolved into elitists papers. That over focus on some issues and completely ignore others.
Wapo and NYtimes have slowly evolved into elitists papers. That over focus on some issues and completely ignore others.
What do you mean by “trumpists” precisely? In Poland, two centrist parties take turns in power. One uses more conservative and pro-American rhetoric, while the other is more liberal and pro-European. However, if you focus on what these parties actually do, there is no fundamental difference between them. Both raise taxes, expand bureaucracy, and limit freedom. And neither of them represents Polish interests.
And yet, people supporting one or the other party are furious at each other. It’s like a battle between warring tribes.
And yet, people supporting one or the other party are furious at each other. It’s like a battle between warring tribes.
How do they limit freedom and what kind? Is it like blocking websites and police searches or like "you can't drink booze outside"?
I'm referring to actions that can be observed in the vast majority of countries. There are two main cases here, which, surprisingly, are rarely discussed in the media.
The first case is when the state openly violates certain rights concerning individuals or groups, often under some pretext. An example could be a situation where you run an independent political website, and suddenly, it gets taken down by your ISP because they have received an ORDER from the intelligence agency, claiming that what you write is dangerous propaganda. Meanwhile, your constitution guarantees you freedom of speech. Another example might be someone being imprisoned for several months without a verdict or a concrete charge. Simply because they have fallen out of favour with the wrong people and are punished for it. I know this may sound like something that only happens in a 3rd-world country, but it is occurring in nearly all Western nations - it's just that the media choose not to report on it.
The second case is when a law is introduced, usually under a very appealing name - something like "The Environmental Protection Act". After all, who wouldn't want to protect the environment? Then, you suddenly discover that you are not allowed to build a private hydroelectric power plant on your own land because it is deemed illegal. This is happening in almost every country. When was the last time you heard about a law that removed restrictions? One that expanded civil liberties? Probably a long time ago. And yet, new laws are constantly being introduced.
The first case is when the state openly violates certain rights concerning individuals or groups, often under some pretext. An example could be a situation where you run an independent political website, and suddenly, it gets taken down by your ISP because they have received an ORDER from the intelligence agency, claiming that what you write is dangerous propaganda. Meanwhile, your constitution guarantees you freedom of speech. Another example might be someone being imprisoned for several months without a verdict or a concrete charge. Simply because they have fallen out of favour with the wrong people and are punished for it. I know this may sound like something that only happens in a 3rd-world country, but it is occurring in nearly all Western nations - it's just that the media choose not to report on it.
The second case is when a law is introduced, usually under a very appealing name - something like "The Environmental Protection Act". After all, who wouldn't want to protect the environment? Then, you suddenly discover that you are not allowed to build a private hydroelectric power plant on your own land because it is deemed illegal. This is happening in almost every country. When was the last time you heard about a law that removed restrictions? One that expanded civil liberties? Probably a long time ago. And yet, new laws are constantly being introduced.
OK. I mean not to excuse the arbitrary enforcement or bad laws but seems logical that your freedom stops where my freedom begins and as time passes more edge cases are found along those lines. Ditching unneeded/bad restrictions is good and not adding restrictions is good but in total idk if I expect the number of restrictions to go down unless people stop being selfish jerks
[deleted]
vaccineai(2)
Are you sure these high value professionals are fair? I saw this story the other day; don't have much idea about Poland. So verify yourself.
https://notesfrompoland.com/2025/02/03/polish-billionaire-of...
https://notesfrompoland.com/2025/02/03/polish-billionaire-of...
You know what you can do? Subscribe to multiple papers, from both sides. Then you can do some comparison to see when things are reported differently.
When I grew up we had at least two papers, sometimes three. One was leaning left, other leaning right.
These days it's what Ground News[1] is trying to do from what I can gather, though haven't tried them as they don't cover the news in my country.
[1]: https://ground.news/
When I grew up we had at least two papers, sometimes three. One was leaning left, other leaning right.
These days it's what Ground News[1] is trying to do from what I can gather, though haven't tried them as they don't cover the news in my country.
[1]: https://ground.news/
Yes, this is a good idea.
Alternatively, instead of reading "news"^ go to source and read/listen/watch it yourself. Then make your own mind.
^: which somehow became someone else's opinions in last decade. There's still opinion column. But there's no difference these days. It didn't use to be like this in the past. Journalists used to report events and facts without commentary or would add commentary in the end with some label on it.
^: which somehow became someone else's opinions in last decade. There's still opinion column. But there's no difference these days. It didn't use to be like this in the past. Journalists used to report events and facts without commentary or would add commentary in the end with some label on it.
Why should there be only two sides?
You can consider as many dimensions as you want. As I mentioned, for some time we had three papers regularly delivered, for additional perspective.
However typically, a single dimension is a useful first-order approximation[1], and so that's what's done in politics as well. As with all approximations, sometimes it works well and other times it does not.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_approximation
However typically, a single dimension is a useful first-order approximation[1], and so that's what's done in politics as well. As with all approximations, sometimes it works well and other times it does not.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_approximation
That was probably mentioned from US-centric point of view where they have two-party system.
I'm from Norway where we have currently ten parties in our parliament[1].
We still mostly talk about them as distributed along a left to right axis. Though as I mentioned it's not a perfect approximation.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storting
We still mostly talk about them as distributed along a left to right axis. Though as I mentioned it's not a perfect approximation.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storting
Seems like Norway has also many constituencies which can favor dominant parties. However unlike US you have also leveling seats which balances it a bit.
I think it is fair, because professionals do not use cheap tricks, but at least they are trying to distance themselves when writing a report. I like discussions when Sławomir Sierakowski (from Krytyka Polityczna) is present, because he always have some new ideas, new ways to describe reality. Although, I do not follow Krytyka Polityczna.
When someone is hired into a professional job, is there something in the laws of physics that prevent them from doing wrong?
> When someone is hired into a professional job, is there something in the laws of physics that prevent them from doing wrong?
No, but work of journalists is highly visible. Probably, this creates more incentive to write according to rules of the trade. There are examples of journalists who went with ruling regime and got monetary prizes. Some are switching to it now, betting that regime change again and their dedication will bring rewards.
No, but work of journalists is highly visible. Probably, this creates more incentive to write according to rules of the trade. There are examples of journalists who went with ruling regime and got monetary prizes. Some are switching to it now, betting that regime change again and their dedication will bring rewards.
What is the job anyway?
Almost all of the publishing is ultimately funded by ads, therefore the primary job of everyone involved is to generate ad impressions.
What's being attributed to "professionals" in this thread is actually the opposite of what the job pays for.
Almost all of the publishing is ultimately funded by ads, therefore the primary job of everyone involved is to generate ad impressions.
What's being attributed to "professionals" in this thread is actually the opposite of what the job pays for.
It is very funny how humans experience reality eh? Like, the literal assignment of a word to something can cause the representation of it in a person's mind (aka the reality) to change. Also weird: it is essentially not possible to talk about the phenomenon in a serious way (participants range of possible actions become highly constrained, and therefore highly predictable).
I really wonder if this normative phenomenon will be able to survive in the age of AI.
I really wonder if this normative phenomenon will be able to survive in the age of AI.
but what about THIS anecdote????!
Digging up a tiny, poorly funded left-wing publication as a whipping post doesn't support the point you are making.
Hmm. You're in bargaining stage or what?
fwiw, read/listen/watch actual events instead of some "professional's opinion". Then make up your own mind.
fwiw, read/listen/watch actual events instead of some "professional's opinion". Then make up your own mind.
> Get subscription of high value newspaper or magazine. Professionals work there, so you will get real facts, worthy opinions and less emotions.
All printed papers in the US that I’m aware of serve corporate political interests so I lost you there. Then you have magazines that are aligned with various think tanks and lobbyists. The truth isn’t somewhere in the middle of all this, it’s with totally independent journalists on new media like Rumble.
All printed papers in the US that I’m aware of serve corporate political interests so I lost you there. Then you have magazines that are aligned with various think tanks and lobbyists. The truth isn’t somewhere in the middle of all this, it’s with totally independent journalists on new media like Rumble.
> totally independent
How do you arrive at this conclusion? Individuals don't have to tell you where their money comes from. They might even be easier to influence/buy than the people inside the big news institutions.
How do you arrive at this conclusion? Individuals don't have to tell you where their money comes from. They might even be easier to influence/buy than the people inside the big news institutions.
Mostly by observing the sacrifices they make for their coverage, especially over several years. There’s always an element of trust, that’s life. I’d direct anyone to Seymour Hersh, Glenn Greenwald, and Matt Taibbi for example.
There are some left if you look. The Texas Tribune[0] is a bright spot for issues related to Texas; a state that has been doing trumpism before trump ever became a thing--but with less calls for succession these days.
[0] https://www.texastribune.org/about/
[0] https://www.texastribune.org/about/
I don't think the point is high value publications lack agendas or bias, but that they're targeted at an audience with much more respect; i.e. they'll try to convince you will argument and evidence, not outright lie or gaslight you. If you combine as few as 2 or 3 sources - intentionally looking for alternative views and angles - you will have a much more balanced understanding. You're still allowed to land on strong, passionate positions, just don't start there because you've been manipulated by a social media echo chamber.
It doesn't have to be printed in the US. The Guardian is backed by a non-profit and there's a US (digital) edition plus a printed weekly international edition.
The Guardian is not the example I would have chosen. They are among the most politically biased publications you could have chosen. Simply being backed a by a non-profit doesn’t mean they can’t be pushing an agenda.
They are truthful not neutral. You don't have to like or read them. That's journalism and free speech.
Truthful doesn't mean unbiased. Different people who agree on the facts but have different values may come to different conclusions about what is or isn't newsworthy and worth mentioning.
The Guardian is the worst example you could come up with, it is openly politically militant and its opinion pages headlines are hysterical.
It's the British style, but it doesn't make it bad journalism. You don't have to read or like it (or the opinion pieces), but their members clearly do. I was responding to the topic of "serving corporate political interests".
The guardian openly states on their website that they are anti-trump. So going to posit they may be less that neutral.
From the banner on their home page:
"From Elon Musk to the Murdochs, billionaire owners control much of the information that reaches the public. Meanwhile, increasing numbers of bad actors are spreading disinformation that threatens democracy"
also
"After Trump remarked that “in this term, everybody wants to be my friend,” The Guardian blasted out a defiant fundraising email stating, “Trump, we don’t want to be your friend” and urging readers to contribute a year-end gift."
From the banner on their home page:
"From Elon Musk to the Murdochs, billionaire owners control much of the information that reaches the public. Meanwhile, increasing numbers of bad actors are spreading disinformation that threatens democracy"
also
"After Trump remarked that “in this term, everybody wants to be my friend,” The Guardian blasted out a defiant fundraising email stating, “Trump, we don’t want to be your friend” and urging readers to contribute a year-end gift."
With the overwhelming trends towards winner takes all, regulatory capture (or elimination) and western oligarchs this seems like a valuable perspective. Some of the balance we need is on the other side of the scale from the power; I'd like to subscribe to a paper that always stakes out oppo the current ruling party & power.
Last I am going to post on this, but its fascinating the pushback even on this site against what I wrote. Everything I wrote is literally from the Guardian's site. People are insistent though, not that they did not post it but that I am still somehow wrong and that my posting it is evidence of some sort of bias. We have become so echo chambered that we demand that others ignore the evidence of their own eyes. Some even arguing that it's right for news to be biased as long as its against Trump.
I want all news sources to be honest, that lack of neutrality is exactly what led us to the current situation where there isn't a single trust worthy news source. You cant go anywhere just to get the facts. You want another Trump, a biased media is exactly how you get it.
I want all news sources to be honest, that lack of neutrality is exactly what led us to the current situation where there isn't a single trust worthy news source. You cant go anywhere just to get the facts. You want another Trump, a biased media is exactly how you get it.
If you read carefully, that's not anti-Trump, that's nuanced. A newspaper isn't supposed to be friends with politicians - it's supposed to report on them critically and truthfully.
I would agree with you if you can point to a similar post being made by them when Biden was elected.
This is an weird take considering:
- trump's previous failure as president
- his history of rape, fraud, and other crimes
- knowing what we now know about his first weeks of his lawless second term, and things are only getting worse
- trump's previous failure as president
- his history of rape, fraud, and other crimes
- knowing what we now know about his first weeks of his lawless second term, and things are only getting worse
A newspaper is supposed to be neutral, if you think Trumps prior behavior absolves them of neutrality then they are not a newspaper they are an opinion paper. Which is fine, as long as everyone acknowledges the slant. Not really sure why you are upset that I want my news to be neutral
You claimed that Guardian's banners state that they are anti-Trump. They don't. Game over.
And when Biden was elected, I'm pretty sure he didn't say “in this term, everybody wants to be my friend,” hence I'm pretty sure the banners were also different.
And when Biden was elected, I'm pretty sure he didn't say “in this term, everybody wants to be my friend,” hence I'm pretty sure the banners were also different.
Friend, I'm not sure I follow you. My claim is still they are anti--trump based purely on their statements. You may attempt to twist their words however you like but taken at face value, they are clearly anti-trump. Their banner literally states: "This is what we're up against"
"If you are not for us, you are against us." Or how exactly does "we don't want to be Trump's friend" become "we are anti-Trump"?
Friend, I am not really sure what you are arguing. There website fundraising banner literally says they are against Trump, Musk and the rest. I'm not the one saying it, they are. If you disagree, your argument is with the Guardians editors.
[deleted]
This take seems to me to be a classic case of the US tendency to irrational suspicion as first described in the Hofstadter essay The Paranoid Style in American Politics.
I'm not American but I do subscribe to The Atlantic, which seems to be owned by some kind of philanthropic trust with a do-gooding billionaire at the helm. As a European, that's plenty good enough for me. Financial incentives are important but they're not everything. We also sometimes need to trust in the good faith of professionals who take their jobs seriously. In this case journalists. Journalism is itself a corporate body of sorts, i.e. a guild. Its mission is to seek truth, just as the medical guild's mission is to heal. Personally, I choose to take both groups of professionals at their word.
A subscription to The Atlantic is a great deal, by the way. The volume of content is manageably low and the quality is consistently excellent.
I'm not American but I do subscribe to The Atlantic, which seems to be owned by some kind of philanthropic trust with a do-gooding billionaire at the helm. As a European, that's plenty good enough for me. Financial incentives are important but they're not everything. We also sometimes need to trust in the good faith of professionals who take their jobs seriously. In this case journalists. Journalism is itself a corporate body of sorts, i.e. a guild. Its mission is to seek truth, just as the medical guild's mission is to heal. Personally, I choose to take both groups of professionals at their word.
A subscription to The Atlantic is a great deal, by the way. The volume of content is manageably low and the quality is consistently excellent.
Atlantic is owned by Steve Job's ex wife, Laurene Powell Jobs.
She is openly anti-trump.
Not saying its not a good paper, just saying you are not going to get neutral news from them.
Not saying its not a good paper, just saying you are not going to get neutral news from them.
An owner of a newspaper doesn't have to destroy the journalistic independence of the newspaper's editors.
And someone’s ex doesn’t have to call them shitty either.
But oh boy does it happen.
But oh boy does it happen.
By your logic, everyone who has an ex talks shit. It does happen, but it doesn't make valid reasoning.
I’m saying if you don’t seriously consider that someone is talking shit about their ex when talking to someone, until proven otherwise, you’ll be easy to fool eh?
The claim I was commenting on was "you are not going to get neutral news from them." Neither Powell Jobs nor The Atlantic is an ex of Trump.
And the Editor in Chief is Jeffery Goldberg, of Iraq WMD conspiracy theory fame. I’m not saying they don’t publish good pieces, but seriously, talk about not a reliable source.
Then you are not aware of all printed papers. As someone outside the USA, my local university library already stocks two - Harper's Magazine and The New York Review of Books (not related to the NYT book section at all). They both have an independent editorial board and decades of dedication to journalism.
Avoid following the news constantly. Check in every once in a while—a couple times a week at most. Get your news from long articles, not tweets. Actually read the articles, don't just learn about the world from hot takes.
> ... people have found that, actually, outrage can be useful. It actually can help you identify a problem and react to it. But it can also be harmful if you’re experiencing it all the time and become overwhelmed by it.
I'm reading that as meaning something more like identify a problem and act on it. Outrage itself is a reaction, just not a positive one. There's no shortage of people reacting to things.
> ... people have found that, actually, outrage can be useful. It actually can help you identify a problem and react to it. But it can also be harmful if you’re experiencing it all the time and become overwhelmed by it.
I'm reading that as meaning something more like identify a problem and act on it. Outrage itself is a reaction, just not a positive one. There's no shortage of people reacting to things.
>Avoid following the news constantly. Check in every once in a while—a couple times a week at most. Get your news from long articles, not tweets. Actually read the articles, don't just learn about the world from hot takes.
This 100%. If a piece of news is truly important, then it'll be important tomorrow or even a week from now. You'll even get clarifications and corrections along the way.
I like to use Pocket to build a list of long-form articles I want to read, then EpubPress (https://epub.press/) to compile that into a weekly EPUB that I can read in-full on a distraction-free e-book reader. It's a much less stressful way of consuming media than the whole neverending drug-frenzied quick-hits world of online news.
This 100%. If a piece of news is truly important, then it'll be important tomorrow or even a week from now. You'll even get clarifications and corrections along the way.
I like to use Pocket to build a list of long-form articles I want to read, then EpubPress (https://epub.press/) to compile that into a weekly EPUB that I can read in-full on a distraction-free e-book reader. It's a much less stressful way of consuming media than the whole neverending drug-frenzied quick-hits world of online news.
If that could somehow be automated that would be cool
I looked into that recently, and Calibre with this plugin is a viable option. https://github.com/mmagnus/Pocket-Plus-Calibre-Plugin
You can schedule periodic content pulls in Calibre, and I believe you can also automate sending the resulting EPUB to an email address (like the Kindle's send-to-email feature). I would use this, but I prefer EpubPress's formatting and I'm too lazy to tweak Calibre's.
You can schedule periodic content pulls in Calibre, and I believe you can also automate sending the resulting EPUB to an email address (like the Kindle's send-to-email feature). I would use this, but I prefer EpubPress's formatting and I'm too lazy to tweak Calibre's.
If you have a Kobo, it has built in Pocket integration and sync out of the box
you mean like Time magazine or LA Weekly?
I meant a curated list of interesting articles for me sent as an epub to my kindle weekly...
You mean like what happens if you subscribe to TIME on your kindle?
For a billionaire perspective curated list yes:
> Since 2018, Time has been owned by Salesforce founder Marc Benioff, who acquired it from Meredith Corporation. Benioff currently publishes the magazine through the company Time USA, LLC.
https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_(magazine)
> Since 2018, Time has been owned by Salesforce founder Marc Benioff, who acquired it from Meredith Corporation. Benioff currently publishes the magazine through the company Time USA, LLC.
https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_(magazine)
Shrug. If you want something curated that's always going to mean someone is curating it.
> Avoid following the news constantly. Check in every once in a while—a couple times a week at most.
Agreed. I personally believe that checking the news everyday is akin to something like a ‘news overdose’. There’s nothing wrong with spending just 15 minutes per week. At least for me, that’s a far healthier dose.
Agreed. I personally believe that checking the news everyday is akin to something like a ‘news overdose’. There’s nothing wrong with spending just 15 minutes per week. At least for me, that’s a far healthier dose.
I swore off all television news except PBS Newshour. It's way less stressful than having cable/local news on in the background all the time.
I wish there were more news sources that enabled this. There is so much focus being first to cover a story, and dripping out information. My local newspaper had a website redesign a couple years ago, and completely eliminated the chronological story view. I literally have no idea how to browse stories older than what is currently on their main page for the day. There are some great national weekly papers but they all assume you've already heard the daily news and instead focus on supplementing it with deep dives on selected issues, and don't provide any summary that can be used as a primary news source.
Indeed, 40 years ago, if we weren't getting our news from the TV, we quite often got it via weekly news magazines and Sunday newspapers.
Someone I spoke with recently mentioned that it used to be that you could read a newspaper end-to-end and feel like you were informed. Now, it's an endless stream of information. I would posit that our brains weren't intended to consume that much information, but I'll leave that as uninformed speculation.
"used to be"? when? I had an L.A. Times subscription in high school and there was no way, even with 2 hours of bus ride a day plus lunch and breaks to finish that paper.
I think a lot of discourse is colored by the midwest. The midwest influenced movies (what does a US neighborhood look like? are there hills/trees/snow?), TV, radio, and literature. I imagine midwest newspapers to be like southern newspapers, 2-3 broadsheets per section if that.
I wonder how many words i can write on this subject
I think a lot of discourse is colored by the midwest. The midwest influenced movies (what does a US neighborhood look like? are there hills/trees/snow?), TV, radio, and literature. I imagine midwest newspapers to be like southern newspapers, 2-3 broadsheets per section if that.
I wonder how many words i can write on this subject
> it used to be that you could read a newspaper end-to-end and feel like you were informed
Of course, the downside of that approach is that the people who control the (relatively few) major newspapers effectively get to define what "informed" means - and, most importantly, what it does _not_ include.
Of course, the downside of that approach is that the people who control the (relatively few) major newspapers effectively get to define what "informed" means - and, most importantly, what it does _not_ include.
[deleted]
I've implemented this into my life via the "In the news" section of the Wikipedia start page. It served me well the last couple of months.
Am I on the wrong page or were there only 4 articles on North America for all of January?
This is the one I like to use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events
I think one of the fundamental problems is that "news" fundamentally doesn't tell you very much about what's happening.
A perfect example is a plane crash- you hear right away that a plane has crashed. It is reported on because it is an exceptional event. But, the "real" effects, the ones that actually affect you personally, or the world systemically, won't play out until months later. (for example the Boeing MCAS 777-max thing). How much good does it really do you to know about the plane crash now vs. informing yourself about the context of the plane crash 3--6 months later?
A perfect example is a plane crash- you hear right away that a plane has crashed. It is reported on because it is an exceptional event. But, the "real" effects, the ones that actually affect you personally, or the world systemically, won't play out until months later. (for example the Boeing MCAS 777-max thing). How much good does it really do you to know about the plane crash now vs. informing yourself about the context of the plane crash 3--6 months later?
> Actually read the articles, don't just learn about the world from hot takes.
Or, even more difficult: Actually read the science paper, or the court ruling, or the executive order, or the proposed legislation, rather than the journalist's hot take. A lot of these journalists takes boil down to "tweets with more words."
Or, even more difficult: Actually read the science paper, or the court ruling, or the executive order, or the proposed legislation, rather than the journalist's hot take. A lot of these journalists takes boil down to "tweets with more words."
Another bonus is that you get accurate into that way. I've lost count of how many times the tweet/article gets it completely wrong.
To add, find the source itself; submissions to HN are sometimes guilty of this (and often get corrected), posting an article about an article instead of the article itself, the meta-article telling you how to feel and think about the source instead of the source sticking to the facts. And the headline on HN itself priming you as well (but there's the policy that titles on HN should not be editoralised).
It's why I like kinda "boring" news outlets like Reuters. I don't know for sure but our national news thing (NOS) feels fair as well, it doesn't have an overt political alignment and will often report on both sides - even if I'm very much inclined to dismiss one side, but I won't claim to be unbiased.
It's why I like kinda "boring" news outlets like Reuters. I don't know for sure but our national news thing (NOS) feels fair as well, it doesn't have an overt political alignment and will often report on both sides - even if I'm very much inclined to dismiss one side, but I won't claim to be unbiased.
>I'm reading that as meaning something more like identify a problem and act on it.
we can't always act on it the way we want to. The Treasury is 3000 miles away. I know complaining at my rep isn't the solution people want, but it's all I can do.
we can't always act on it the way we want to. The Treasury is 3000 miles away. I know complaining at my rep isn't the solution people want, but it's all I can do.
>Get your news from long articles, not tweets. Actually read the articles
Alternatively I glance at Google News occasionally. Normally the headlines are dull enough not to read the article.
Alternatively I glance at Google News occasionally. Normally the headlines are dull enough not to read the article.
Yes. And pay for the news sources that prove valuable to you. Professional journalism is essential.
Those of us in the west tend to forget that much of what we see is a form of propaganda, whether by governments or businesses, or even a large number of people. When you keep this in mind, everything you see becomes an opinion and your mind can comfortably (or at least not emotionally/hurriedly) form your own opinion over time.
I agree that most messaging is propaganda, but that doesn't really counter the real pain that is being inflicted upon large populations of people by these government (and corporate) moves, and being cheered on by pretty large masses of people. The propaganda is like environmental pollution -- hard not to breathe it in. That said, I have no answer here..
I must agree, but I think the global public's awareness has been shocked into growth. I find the biggest problem with social media is actually user error. Unfortunately social media apps have become so complex that many have given up on curating their feeds. This is critical. If you can tune your social media to show you _interesting_ things, you can stay informed, possibly get good context, and not lose your mind.
Is your comment propaganda?
Yeah we seem to have rhetorical escalation. Opinions are propaganda, beliefs are narratives, etc, etc. It's a way to devalue messages one disagrees with; they aren't just wrong, they're nefarious.
People don’t understand what I was getting at.
In my book any furthering of any position is propaganda. It’s not just when you do it in a dishonest or underhanded way. That’s the old-school definition.
Now what started this was the bald assertion that all most messaging is propaganda. Okay. People went with it, including the person I replied to. And that’s not objectionable according to my own definition. But if it is only “nefarious” messaging which is propaganda then you set yourself up for throwing stones in a glasshouse. Because a lot of comments (including the one I replied to) contain at least assumptions that further a world view. I don’t have to make an outright statement. I just have to hint at an assumption. And yeah, that’s what they did too.
In my book any furthering of any position is propaganda. It’s not just when you do it in a dishonest or underhanded way. That’s the old-school definition.
Now what started this was the bald assertion that all most messaging is propaganda. Okay. People went with it, including the person I replied to. And that’s not objectionable according to my own definition. But if it is only “nefarious” messaging which is propaganda then you set yourself up for throwing stones in a glasshouse. Because a lot of comments (including the one I replied to) contain at least assumptions that further a world view. I don’t have to make an outright statement. I just have to hint at an assumption. And yeah, that’s what they did too.
There was just as much "large pain" being inflicted on people in the previous 4 years, it just didn't affect you personally.
Statements like this seem to originate in that environment polluted by propaganda that the previous comment mentions. For example, I genuinely don't know how someone can look at something like the dismantling of USAID as anything but an increase in "large pain". Sure, there are almost certainly individual programs within that organization that are wasteful and aren't the best use of our tax dollars, but there is (or at least was as of a few weeks ago) broad bipartisan support for this type of investment in humanity and stopping it will clearly inflict pain on people and this administration is at best indifferent to that pain.
Just using your example tho, I feel there are two kinds of framing.
1. This is literally a worse outcome than the alternative you prefer. You should care enough to try to fight it politically, especially if you are well positioned to do so.
2. This case (and 99% of cases of political outrage I see on the news) is trivial in the context of what is “normal” for human political history, even the political history that many people alive today were around for.
Will this even register as a trivia question in 100 years? Is a framing I ask myself when I’m mad about something in the world.
I think a lot of people walked from a world where they had no idea what the normal tumult of human political society is like, even normal American political messiness, and into the world of 24/7 current political news without any context what came before. It’s like, the sausage has always been made this way, you’re just now finding out.
I say these things and it always pisses people off. But I don’t recommend not caring, the world moves forward one micrometer at a time by caring, it’s just not worth the existential angst I see so often.
1. This is literally a worse outcome than the alternative you prefer. You should care enough to try to fight it politically, especially if you are well positioned to do so.
2. This case (and 99% of cases of political outrage I see on the news) is trivial in the context of what is “normal” for human political history, even the political history that many people alive today were around for.
Will this even register as a trivia question in 100 years? Is a framing I ask myself when I’m mad about something in the world.
I think a lot of people walked from a world where they had no idea what the normal tumult of human political society is like, even normal American political messiness, and into the world of 24/7 current political news without any context what came before. It’s like, the sausage has always been made this way, you’re just now finding out.
I say these things and it always pisses people off. But I don’t recommend not caring, the world moves forward one micrometer at a time by caring, it’s just not worth the existential angst I see so often.
>2. This case (and 99% of cases of political outrage I see on the news) is trivial in the context of what is “normal” for human political history, even the political history that many people alive today were around for.
>Will this even register as a trivia question in 100 years? Is a framing I ask myself when I’m mad about something in the world.
To me, this is an utterly nihilistic framing that renders one's entire life meaningless because the logic doesn't just apply to bad things. Like why did you even leave this comment? Maybe you or I remember for a little while. Maybe a handful of other people who read it will too. But no one is going to remember it, let alone genuinely care about what either of us said 100 years from now.
>Will this even register as a trivia question in 100 years? Is a framing I ask myself when I’m mad about something in the world.
To me, this is an utterly nihilistic framing that renders one's entire life meaningless because the logic doesn't just apply to bad things. Like why did you even leave this comment? Maybe you or I remember for a little while. Maybe a handful of other people who read it will too. But no one is going to remember it, let alone genuinely care about what either of us said 100 years from now.
How are you making the jump from calibrating your emotional response to distant political changes that have no immediate significance on your own life, are par for humanity, and don’t matter in the long run, to nihilism in your immediate experience of meaning?
I don’t connect distant political to my own personal experience of meaning in the world, so i can’t follow this line of reasoning.
I don’t connect distant political to my own personal experience of meaning in the world, so i can’t follow this line of reasoning.
>How are you making the jump from calibrating your emotional response to distant political changes that have no immediate significance on your own life, are par for humanity, and don’t matter in the long run, to nihilism in your immediate experience of meaning?
The primary difference I see between these two is how you define "your immediate experience". At what distance does something become "distant political changes" that can be ignored? Because almost all of us lead "par for humanity" lives that "don’t matter in the long run" so why care about any of it if that is the extent of what matters?
The primary difference I see between these two is how you define "your immediate experience". At what distance does something become "distant political changes" that can be ignored? Because almost all of us lead "par for humanity" lives that "don’t matter in the long run" so why care about any of it if that is the extent of what matters?
I’m not advocating for ignoring the world. I’m advocating for contextualizing it so that your emotional response is sane. I think I put it in another post, but someone I know closely has become catatonically depressed this year because of what political news he reads on Reddit. He makes statements like “there has literally never been a worse time to be alive”. His personal life was great, there was nothing in it to suggest the US president’s decisions affect him, but his emotional response to Reddit news is about as extreme as if his wife died. He stopped going to work and won’t get out of bed most days, which will actually impact his life and give him things to be depressed about.
Caring should not be binary. If in your life, caring about things is all or nothing, and a political event that is extremely common and minor in the context of political history feels as acute as the death of a loved one, then I’m really sorry for you. The world will always be a miserable place for you.
Caring should not be binary. If in your life, caring about things is all or nothing, and a political event that is extremely common and minor in the context of political history feels as acute as the death of a loved one, then I’m really sorry for you. The world will always be a miserable place for you.
>there was nothing in it to suggest the US president’s decisions affect him, but his emotional response to Reddit news is about as extreme as if his wife died.
Do you not realize that you are judging what "decisions affect him" exclusively from your own perspective? You clearly have some established distance in your mind in which you think someone's suffering is immaterial to you. You seem to imply that this reaction might be appropriate for a partner dying, but what about for other people? Would it be appropriate to be depressed because of a friend's suffering? What about a distant cousin? A neighbor? A coworker? An acquaintance? What about the parent of one of your kid's friends who you haven't even met before?
You don't seem to actually be objecting to the reaction your friend is having, you seem to be reacting that your friend just has a larger circle of people he empathizes with than you and therefore more people have the potential to "affect him".
Do you not realize that you are judging what "decisions affect him" exclusively from your own perspective? You clearly have some established distance in your mind in which you think someone's suffering is immaterial to you. You seem to imply that this reaction might be appropriate for a partner dying, but what about for other people? Would it be appropriate to be depressed because of a friend's suffering? What about a distant cousin? A neighbor? A coworker? An acquaintance? What about the parent of one of your kid's friends who you haven't even met before?
You don't seem to actually be objecting to the reaction your friend is having, you seem to be reacting that your friend just has a larger circle of people he empathizes with than you and therefore more people have the potential to "affect him".
> Will this even register as a trivia question in 100 years?
My family could be murdered in front of me and it wouldn't qualify as a trivia question for you or most other people in one year. This feels like a version of stoicism that missed the point of stoicism.
My family could be murdered in front of me and it wouldn't qualify as a trivia question for you or most other people in one year. This feels like a version of stoicism that missed the point of stoicism.
You’re making such an absurd comparison in situations. The death of your own family has an immediate and extreme impact on you personally.
99% of what you see on the news you would never know happened if it wasn’t presented to you.
And I’m not saying not to care. I’m saying put big things into perspective. You don’t need to become catatonically depressed because the US changed its foreign aid in a way that you would never know about unless presented to you.
As I write this I’m thinking about one of my best friends, who literally has been so depressed because of world news he reads on Reddit this year that he can’t get out of bed, stopped going to work and got fired. There are appropriate and healthy levels to care about things.
99% of what you see on the news you would never know happened if it wasn’t presented to you.
And I’m not saying not to care. I’m saying put big things into perspective. You don’t need to become catatonically depressed because the US changed its foreign aid in a way that you would never know about unless presented to you.
As I write this I’m thinking about one of my best friends, who literally has been so depressed because of world news he reads on Reddit this year that he can’t get out of bed, stopped going to work and got fired. There are appropriate and healthy levels to care about things.
> You’re making such an absurd comparison in situations. The death of your own family has an immediate and extreme impact on you personally.
> 99% of what you see on the news you would never know happened if it wasn’t presented to you.
What I'm hearing is that if the government kills someone, only their immediate family members are allowed to protest. We shouldn't protest when the government is killing people who aren't related to us, even if our relatives could be next.
> 99% of what you see on the news you would never know happened if it wasn’t presented to you.
What I'm hearing is that if the government kills someone, only their immediate family members are allowed to protest. We shouldn't protest when the government is killing people who aren't related to us, even if our relatives could be next.
You seem very emotionally uncalibrated if the first place you go is that the majority of news must mean your family is going to die. I’m not going to stop you from becoming emotionally destroyed by impossibly-worst-case-scenario perseverating any time something doesn’t politically go your way. I’m also not going to stop you from blowing 99% of political events so far out of proportion that you can’t sleep at night. I’m not going to stop you from existing in a constant cycle of mental angst because the world isn’t perfect by your vision (and because someone on the news tells you 24/7 just how imperfect the world is, because your angst is their profit).
That sounds like a nightmare existence to me. But if you really want it, maybe because it makes you feel righteous in your pain and holy in your angst, then go for it I guess.
That sounds like a nightmare existence to me. But if you really want it, maybe because it makes you feel righteous in your pain and holy in your angst, then go for it I guess.
A lot of political news is that my government is torturing or mass-murdering other people's families in a distant land. I understand your comment to say that I shouldn't feel bad about it unless (until) they're killing *my* family. This idea leads to losing by a thousand cuts, as in "First they came for the socialists..."
> And I’m not saying not to care. I’m saying put big things into perspective. You don’t need to become catatonically depressed because the US changed its foreign aid in a way that you would never know about unless presented to you.
Here in the UK in 2016 we had a referendum to leave the EU, which is a pooled sovereignty union to create a more integrated Europe.
I raised the same questions to those who wanted to leave the EU, who complained about "diktats from Brussels" as if pooling sovereignty meant we now had dictators instead of elected officials.
My questions were about how their daily lives were impacted by these "diktats". 99% of people avoided the question. For them, it wasn't about any practical reality. They just wanted to vote to leave the EU. The reasons for it seemed to be post-hoc justifications of an emotionally made decision.
I guess it is like that for most people.
Here in the UK in 2016 we had a referendum to leave the EU, which is a pooled sovereignty union to create a more integrated Europe.
I raised the same questions to those who wanted to leave the EU, who complained about "diktats from Brussels" as if pooling sovereignty meant we now had dictators instead of elected officials.
My questions were about how their daily lives were impacted by these "diktats". 99% of people avoided the question. For them, it wasn't about any practical reality. They just wanted to vote to leave the EU. The reasons for it seemed to be post-hoc justifications of an emotionally made decision.
I guess it is like that for most people.
I don't think anyone is saying that the US shouldn't have an organisation that distributes aid. But I think it is right to pause it when it is doing things like funding Politico magazine.
My current understanding is that USAID was not doing funding Politico, but had a subscription (or multiple subscriptions). You can check out the description here:
https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/05/media/politico-usaid-subscrip...
It sure does sound like Politico Pro is expensive, however.
There have certainly some other kind of fishy things going on with USAID, but so far as I can tell, all with full approval of the US government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Agency_for_Inter...
> I genuinely don't know how someone can look at something like the dismantling of USAID as anything but an increase in "large pain".
Maybe try asking people why they think it’s bad?
Here’s people arguing it’s doing all kinds of destructive behavior, - like setting up a fake vaccine clinic for the CIA.
https://youtu.be/wtgT_u2rWs0?si=bFX476_JgC81vJuM
I haven’t seen anyone arguing against these claims. They just say “oh but it’s helping poor people” without answering whether or not it’s been doing covert work for the CIA under the pretense that it’s aid.
Maybe try asking people why they think it’s bad?
Here’s people arguing it’s doing all kinds of destructive behavior, - like setting up a fake vaccine clinic for the CIA.
https://youtu.be/wtgT_u2rWs0?si=bFX476_JgC81vJuM
I haven’t seen anyone arguing against these claims. They just say “oh but it’s helping poor people” without answering whether or not it’s been doing covert work for the CIA under the pretense that it’s aid.
Are you arguing that USAID is entirely some CIA operation or are you arguing for throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Because this is not evidence that the entire organization is a net negative for the world.
It is. It's just tip of the iceberg. All they do is foment troubles in other countries while providing high paid employment for nepo babies. It's amazing how Americans downplay direct interference in other countries internal affairs with long lasting negative impacts (like people attacking government healthcare workers during vaccine drive) while claiming russians spending 10k usd on an election cycle in which parties spent billion+ was WW3.
Al though the current US admin is just bringing in USAID within the admin controls, USAID is massive net negative (as it is with any other american influence/aid) for the world.
Al though the current US admin is just bringing in USAID within the admin controls, USAID is massive net negative (as it is with any other american influence/aid) for the world.
Dude, lets be real here: most people would say the economy is shit, while still being comfortable with their lives. Anyone's general assessment of the economy based on gut, is meaningless. Unless you were on food banks/stamps, you were doing pretty good for all intents and purposes.
This statement is ridiculously out of touch.
There is a massive amount of evidence that Americans basically think everyone else is having a terrible time, but asked to review their own living situation things are going well. Here’s a decent summary from late 2024: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/23/opinion/biden-trump-vibec...
Instead of engaging in the data, opponents usually yell the equivalent of what you put “You’re just out of touch!” Or throw in an anecdote like “well my cousin is having a terrible time!”.
What’s going on the US is weirder than a “normal” economic problem. That’s what makes it so frustrating and politically polarizing.
Instead of engaging in the data, opponents usually yell the equivalent of what you put “You’re just out of touch!” Or throw in an anecdote like “well my cousin is having a terrible time!”.
What’s going on the US is weirder than a “normal” economic problem. That’s what makes it so frustrating and politically polarizing.
Sorry but quoting the NYTimes as evidence would be no different from a Republican quoting Fox News as evidence to you.
Here's an old quote from the author, the esteemable Paul Krugman
“The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in ‘Metcalfe’s law’—which states that the number of potential connections in a network is proportional to the square of the number of participants—becomes apparent: most people have nothing to say to each other! By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet’s impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine’s.”
Here's an old quote from the author, the esteemable Paul Krugman
“The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in ‘Metcalfe’s law’—which states that the number of potential connections in a network is proportional to the square of the number of participants—becomes apparent: most people have nothing to say to each other! By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet’s impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine’s.”
I linked this article because it summarizes why the data is weird and links to multiple sources, and frames the problem in a way that can be engaged with in a relatively short format.
I find it telling that instead of arguing with data, points presented, or any source of counter argument, you act like the only argument in this article is “it’s right because I say so.”
Much easier to dismiss a position as “can’t be right because you were wrong on something before” than actually think I guess.
I find it telling that instead of arguing with data, points presented, or any source of counter argument, you act like the only argument in this article is “it’s right because I say so.”
Much easier to dismiss a position as “can’t be right because you were wrong on something before” than actually think I guess.
Clearly the American people did see a problem with inflation and voted accordingly. And no matter how they try to spin it to support a particular political narrative, that won't change.
There are so many ways to spin the numbers to make them support an argument. I'm not an economist so am in no position to assess (and I'm guessing neither are you).
But given the track record (bias) of the NYT, I'm always going to be a bit suspicious.
Honestly I wasn’t even approaching this with right vs left in mind. I spend most of my voice on this subject talking down my liberal friends off a cliff. The right and the left tend to think the economy has never been worse and it’s all X fault.
Here’s the same jist from the economist: https://www.economist.com/leaders/2024/10/17/americas-econom...
If you want the thoughtful, smart, very right wing source on it, then check out the Cato institute: https://www.cato.org/commentary/americans-grim-views-decent-.... Which tries to explain it as basically “people get really mad about inflation even if technically as a whole they are better off”. But the Cato economists still concede that overall the economy is/was doing extremely well and things are improving for people that by standard economic measures looks really good.
Here’s the same jist from the economist: https://www.economist.com/leaders/2024/10/17/americas-econom...
If you want the thoughtful, smart, very right wing source on it, then check out the Cato institute: https://www.cato.org/commentary/americans-grim-views-decent-.... Which tries to explain it as basically “people get really mad about inflation even if technically as a whole they are better off”. But the Cato economists still concede that overall the economy is/was doing extremely well and things are improving for people that by standard economic measures looks really good.
"What we uncovered shocked us. The bottom line is that, for 20 years or more, including the months prior to the election, voter perception was more reflective of reality than the incumbent statistics. Our research revealed that the data collected by the various agencies is largely accurate. Moreover, the people staffing those agencies are talented and well-intentioned. But the filters used to compute the headline statistics are flawed. As a result, they paint a much rosier picture of reality than bears out on the ground..."
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/02/11/democrats-...
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/02/11/democrats-...
So far we've mentioned 3 parties in this scenario...the NY Times, Cato Institute and the voting public. There used to be a time where we'd give priority to the "experts" despite how consistently wrong they seem to be about almost everything. I think what's changed is we now have so many credible sources for comparison, that they are no longer able to gaslight people. So their opinions, quite rightly, have far less value than they used to.
So yeah, I'II go with the voting public on this one.
Here's another mea culpa from Paul Krugman (he was wrong about globalization).
What Economists (Including Me) Got Wrong About Globalization https://archive.md/DrJKm
If you stick up a liquor and kill a couple of people you go to jail for life. If you advocate for polices that destroy the local economies of middle America with all the ills that ensue...social breakdown, drug addiction/overdoses, crime etc. Well you get to write a mea culpa and then head off to a nice dinner at your favorite NY restaurant I guess.
What Economists (Including Me) Got Wrong About Globalization https://archive.md/DrJKm
If you stick up a liquor and kill a couple of people you go to jail for life. If you advocate for polices that destroy the local economies of middle America with all the ills that ensue...social breakdown, drug addiction/overdoses, crime etc. Well you get to write a mea culpa and then head off to a nice dinner at your favorite NY restaurant I guess.
Examples, please.
If you are trans, you were just de-personed by executive order and your passport was invalidated. If you also happened to be an incarcerated female, you are being transferred to male facilities. These are actions which will have life-altering consequences.
That's only one thing among many others (ICE immigrant raids which also sweep up legal immigrants and citizens who don't "look American") just in the first few days. What "large pain" are you talking about?
If you are trans, you were just de-personed by executive order and your passport was invalidated. If you also happened to be an incarcerated female, you are being transferred to male facilities. These are actions which will have life-altering consequences.
That's only one thing among many others (ICE immigrant raids which also sweep up legal immigrants and citizens who don't "look American") just in the first few days. What "large pain" are you talking about?
so things that affect less than 1% in the former and less than 0.01% in the latter, of the population, that's what we're basing "large pain" on? I'm not entirely sure you want to play this game.
edit: and vis a vis the USAID thing the former president of Kenya summed it up "Why you are crying? you don't pay american taxes! we need to take care of ourselves!" https://www.msn.com/en-xl/africa/other/us-aid-suspension-wak...
edit: and vis a vis the USAID thing the former president of Kenya summed it up "Why you are crying? you don't pay american taxes! we need to take care of ourselves!" https://www.msn.com/en-xl/africa/other/us-aid-suspension-wak...
Any percentage of people being de-personed is bad. If the state is permitted to withhold travel documents of people indefinitely (and the supporting documents they sent in to get their passport renewed[1]), do you really live in a free state?
Also, and I know people knee-jerk at the comparison, but historically speaking Jews comprised less than 1% of the population of Weimar Germany.[2] The smallness of the percentage shouldn't be cause to dismiss the harm of their discrimination as "no big deal." It's been shown where that leads.
[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2025/01/28/state-... [2] https://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/pdf/eng/JEW_RELIGIONZUG...
Also, and I know people knee-jerk at the comparison, but historically speaking Jews comprised less than 1% of the population of Weimar Germany.[2] The smallness of the percentage shouldn't be cause to dismiss the harm of their discrimination as "no big deal." It's been shown where that leads.
[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2025/01/28/state-... [2] https://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/pdf/eng/JEW_RELIGIONZUG...
No US citizen is unable to get a passport. The only issue is that their passport needs to reflect their biological sex rather than their gender identity. I personally think this policy is excessive but nobody is being "de-personed".
The new policy’s notion of binary “biological sex” is completely divorced from genetic, biological, physiological, and psychological reality
I’m more curious about what you think the “large pain” the previous administration was inflicting on people than learning about your indifference to minorities
[deleted]
Some Americans were left behind in Afghanistan, and thirteen Marines were killed there due to the incompetent execution of the withdrawal. Other Americans were taken hostage by Hamas with next to no serious effort to recover them. Many were fired from their jobs or discharged from the military if they refused to take an experimental vaccine. Others who took the vaccine suffered myocarditis and other vaccine injuries. Many people have overdosed on fentanyl or fallen victim to gangs like Tren de Aragua that simply walked across the open southern border. Tens of thousands of US construction jobs were destroyed by the cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline. I can keep going but I think I've made my point.
And if you're not just counting US citizens, there's a war in Ukraine that's killed over a million people and another war in Gaza, the latter of which was precipitated by the bloodiest mass killing of Jews since the Holocaust.
And if you're not just counting US citizens, there's a war in Ukraine that's killed over a million people and another war in Gaza, the latter of which was precipitated by the bloodiest mass killing of Jews since the Holocaust.
I need examples
my advice to you that cant breathe it in is leave your fantasy where propaganda is pollution and join reality where it does not impact you. also if you live in reality instead of the fantasy, you will just be less outraged in general.
So you say, do exactly what authors of propaganda are trying to achieve and let them do what they want.
Also, I am impacted by legal system, by lawlessness for some, by environment pollution, by Healthcare system ...
Also, I am impacted by legal system, by lawlessness for some, by environment pollution, by Healthcare system ...
You realize that pursuading people to accept terrible acts as normal and not outrageous is the primary aim of much propaganda, correct?
The aim of propaganda is not anywhere near singular. Much of it is also aimed at convincing you that minor things are "terrible acts" that you need to be outraged about.
How about you read actual news, not already half-digested propaganda vomit? You do not have to live in polluted wasteland of western media propaganda! Big media failed 1000x since war on terror, and Bush lies, yet you still consume their shit!
Simplest way is to read media from independent country. India is good, perhaps Arabic countries.
Next level are independent channels on Telegram and Youtube. 10 min daily summary on war situation goes very long way.
Simplest way is to read media from independent country. India is good, perhaps Arabic countries.
Next level are independent channels on Telegram and Youtube. 10 min daily summary on war situation goes very long way.
> Simplest way is to read media from independent country. India is good, perhaps Arabic countries.
It's interesting that you listed India first. The English-language news source that pops up most often via Google News is the Hindustan Times, which is hot garbage. Are there any Indian sources that are much, much better than that which you recommend?
It's interesting that you listed India first. The English-language news source that pops up most often via Google News is the Hindustan Times, which is hot garbage. Are there any Indian sources that are much, much better than that which you recommend?
Honestly no idea, I followed this rabbit hole many years ago.
Hindustan times seems like a rag, like British Sun.
I guess I would recommend to take some event that happened 2 years ago, find how some papers wrote about it back then, and if you like it, follow them.
My point is there is no reason to stay in toxic relationship. There is no reason to read news if you do not get any rewards. Even monthly AI summaries will be better, and you will stay "informed".
For example all the Trump shit today, he wants legal precedents from constitutional court, 90% of this shit is irrelevant.
Hindustan times seems like a rag, like British Sun.
I guess I would recommend to take some event that happened 2 years ago, find how some papers wrote about it back then, and if you like it, follow them.
My point is there is no reason to stay in toxic relationship. There is no reason to read news if you do not get any rewards. Even monthly AI summaries will be better, and you will stay "informed".
For example all the Trump shit today, he wants legal precedents from constitutional court, 90% of this shit is irrelevant.
This reminds me of two quotes:
"The point of modern propaganda isn't only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth." -Garry Kasparov.
And
"This constant lying is not aimed at making the people believe a lie, but at ensuring that no one believes anything anymore." This latter quote is, rather ironically, a false quote! (falsely attributed to Hannah Arendt). But I still think it contains truth.
"The point of modern propaganda isn't only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth." -Garry Kasparov.
And
"This constant lying is not aimed at making the people believe a lie, but at ensuring that no one believes anything anymore." This latter quote is, rather ironically, a false quote! (falsely attributed to Hannah Arendt). But I still think it contains truth.
> constant lying
Selective truth is far more effective, and more common, propaganda. Not in omitting important context from a story, but by omitting or burying (or simply never seeking out) entirely stories you don't want heard, and emphasizing stories you do want heard. In essence, holding up a funhouse mirror to society.
This is the propaganda you get when all your reporters think they are being honest and uncensored, but they all deeply care about the same set of issues, and are deeply ambivalent about another set.
Selective truth is far more effective, and more common, propaganda. Not in omitting important context from a story, but by omitting or burying (or simply never seeking out) entirely stories you don't want heard, and emphasizing stories you do want heard. In essence, holding up a funhouse mirror to society.
This is the propaganda you get when all your reporters think they are being honest and uncensored, but they all deeply care about the same set of issues, and are deeply ambivalent about another set.
This, plus the A/B testing of headlines to maximize clicks has lead inexorably to the current information environment.
Our intuitions, outrage, and knee-jerk reactions are being weaponized to gain clicks, votes, donations, and "action".
Many a dictatorship has fallen in the wake of social media revolutions. I wonder how long democracy can last?
In a would-be-funny-if-it-weren't-tragic ironic twist both of the two main US parties see themselves as the last guardians of democracy and frame their opponents as Evil, against which "any means necessary" is the only reasonable course of action.
(Yes, the party you disagree with is way worse and it's all their fault, this whataboutism indeed has to end, absolutely)
And here we all are.
Our intuitions, outrage, and knee-jerk reactions are being weaponized to gain clicks, votes, donations, and "action".
Many a dictatorship has fallen in the wake of social media revolutions. I wonder how long democracy can last?
In a would-be-funny-if-it-weren't-tragic ironic twist both of the two main US parties see themselves as the last guardians of democracy and frame their opponents as Evil, against which "any means necessary" is the only reasonable course of action.
(Yes, the party you disagree with is way worse and it's all their fault, this whataboutism indeed has to end, absolutely)
And here we all are.
Easier said than done. Bear in mind that the way information is served is meant to trigger strong emotional responses, skip the prefrontal cortex and tickle your amygdala. You can limit how much it impacts you, say, through reducing exposure, but you can't reason your way out of it.
(this is a response to the comment, not the article)
(this is a response to the comment, not the article)
You cannot logic someone out of something they didn't logic themselves into. 90% of what we feel is primal in-group survival.
I had used ublock-origin on youtube to disable the right-hand sidebar of "recommended" videos so that I could just view the stuff in my subscriptions. A couple of years ago, they started detecting and blocking ublock-origin, so I stopped using it (ublock).
It's not really the ads that bother me. It's the "recommended videos". Is there a way to customize my view of youtube to avoid the shit I don't need to see?
The thing about youtube is that it's very easy for propaganda/click-bait to creep in during moments of weakness.
Maybe it's time to go cold-turkey? Failing that, maybe it's worth it to try and take some control over the experience?
It's not really the ads that bother me. It's the "recommended videos". Is there a way to customize my view of youtube to avoid the shit I don't need to see?
The thing about youtube is that it's very easy for propaganda/click-bait to creep in during moments of weakness.
Maybe it's time to go cold-turkey? Failing that, maybe it's worth it to try and take some control over the experience?
For youtube, you can put the video in theater mode, which makes the video the full width of your window, and pushes recommendations down below it. With this I only ever see recommendations at the end of the video.
As a general solution for us techies, you can have user defined style sheets that selectively override the site's CSS, either using a plugin like Stylus, or Firefox's built-in userContent.css. Inspect the website, find the id name (or class if it is unique enough) for the content you want to go away and put the following in your user CSS.
As a general solution for us techies, you can have user defined style sheets that selectively override the site's CSS, either using a plugin like Stylus, or Firefox's built-in userContent.css. Inspect the website, find the id name (or class if it is unique enough) for the content you want to go away and put the following in your user CSS.
#<id> {
display: hidden;
}
I go to extremes compared to most others, but I log into YT with a browser profile where history is not kept and don't log in. The front page is basically empty. I have a local web page with links to creators whose content I enjoy. I check out one of my favorite creators and see what new videos they have to offer. The benefit of this is that the first few rounds of recommendations are actually mildly useful since the algorithm knows nothing about you and you haven't showed it much for it to use since I'm usually logging in through a vpn.
It's crazy that the best experience (for me, anyway) is achieved by giving it the least amount of information possible.
It's crazy that the best experience (for me, anyway) is achieved by giving it the least amount of information possible.
There's a browser addon, Enhancer for Youtube, that lets you hide recommended videos, among other things
there's actually a great "hidden" way to disable the youtube homepage and shorts across platforms - turn off youtube's watch history feature (myactivity.google.com > youtube history)
I've found that over time this chokes the recommendation system - makes it boring and it now finally refuses to show me any video recommendations on my youtube homepage - just a message asking me to turn history on. of course, you lose your watch history, but I just bookmark the videos I like anyway.
Videos related to the one you're watching may appear, but imo these tend to be based on your subscriptions / more focused / less rabbit-holey (and you can disable those with extensions and such as well).
I've found that over time this chokes the recommendation system - makes it boring and it now finally refuses to show me any video recommendations on my youtube homepage - just a message asking me to turn history on. of course, you lose your watch history, but I just bookmark the videos I like anyway.
Videos related to the one you're watching may appear, but imo these tend to be based on your subscriptions / more focused / less rabbit-holey (and you can disable those with extensions and such as well).
Clear your history often. My youtube is actually incredible, massive variety and useful topics.
I clear it about once every 2 weeks or month depending on how many of the same topics I see.
It works really well in that if you ignore the content you saw before it forces the algorithm to find unique content because it thinks you don't like the stuff you've seen.
That and cleaning your subscription list. Easily the best platform I have as of now because of that.
I clear it about once every 2 weeks or month depending on how many of the same topics I see.
It works really well in that if you ignore the content you saw before it forces the algorithm to find unique content because it thinks you don't like the stuff you've seen.
That and cleaning your subscription list. Easily the best platform I have as of now because of that.
Slide the right side of the window off the screen, maybe? Dirty tricks are allowed.
I'm very aggressive with the "not interested" and "don't recommend this channel" buttons, and over time it does mostly get rid of the most obnoxious recs. Right now it's also not recommending much good stuff, either, so YMMV.
I'm very aggressive with the "not interested" and "don't recommend this channel" buttons, and over time it does mostly get rid of the most obnoxious recs. Right now it's also not recommending much good stuff, either, so YMMV.
[deleted]
There's a Firefox add-on called Distraction free YouTube I used in the past. Maybe try that one
I recommend: <https://lawrencehook.com/rys/>
It's so disappointing, because "recommended" used to be brilliant to find stuff similar-ish to what you're watching.
But these days half of it is outrage bait, ranging from "WOKE LIBTARD GETS DESTROYED" to "TRUMP LOSES HIS MIND", or malicious clickbait like "you won't believe what the cast if $tv_show looks like now" with some AI generated thing of one cast member being horribly maimed. Even on stuff that has nothing to do with any of that, like some music video.
And whether "Trump loses his mind" is something you agree or disagree with doesn't even matter – I'm just here to listen to some music, maybe watch a funny video or two. To take a break from all of that. It's become so pervasive that it's just exhausting.
So normal people like you or me just withdraw. And the only people who don't are the hyper-politicised who never grow tired of talking of $favourite_issue, which tend to be rather less reasonable or open to nuance. And this feedback loop just makes things worse and worse.
This, in a nutshell, is why you need moderation. People talk about "enshittification" of platforms, but IMO the bigger problem is more the "cuntification" of platforms, where a small number of extremely unpleasant and vitriolic people chase off many people who don't want to deal with that. X.com is a well-known example, but also online games where you're matched with random people (where you very quickly learn a great deal about your mother's sex life).
But these days half of it is outrage bait, ranging from "WOKE LIBTARD GETS DESTROYED" to "TRUMP LOSES HIS MIND", or malicious clickbait like "you won't believe what the cast if $tv_show looks like now" with some AI generated thing of one cast member being horribly maimed. Even on stuff that has nothing to do with any of that, like some music video.
And whether "Trump loses his mind" is something you agree or disagree with doesn't even matter – I'm just here to listen to some music, maybe watch a funny video or two. To take a break from all of that. It's become so pervasive that it's just exhausting.
So normal people like you or me just withdraw. And the only people who don't are the hyper-politicised who never grow tired of talking of $favourite_issue, which tend to be rather less reasonable or open to nuance. And this feedback loop just makes things worse and worse.
This, in a nutshell, is why you need moderation. People talk about "enshittification" of platforms, but IMO the bigger problem is more the "cuntification" of platforms, where a small number of extremely unpleasant and vitriolic people chase off many people who don't want to deal with that. X.com is a well-known example, but also online games where you're matched with random people (where you very quickly learn a great deal about your mother's sex life).
> But these days half of it is outrage bait, ranging from "WOKE LIBTARD GETS DESTROYED" to "TRUMP LOSES HIS MIND", or malicious clickbait like "you won't believe what the cast if $tv_show looks like now" with some AI generated thing of one cast member being horribly maimed. Even on stuff that has nothing to do with any of that, like some music video.
I don't know what I'm doing differently than you, but I don't see ANY of that. The worst, most clickbaity Youtube content I see is poorly done rip-offs of Primitive Technology.
I don't know what I'm doing differently than you, but I don't see ANY of that. The worst, most clickbaity Youtube content I see is poorly done rip-offs of Primitive Technology.
First example I tried: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLF-f4kUtAw
7th recommended is " "YOU WILL BE INDICTED AND JAILED! " Jim Jordan SILENCE Overconfident Hillary Clinton" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbqHVba3Ohs)
I'm not logged in. I don't save cookies.
Unfortunately my regular internet has an outage and I need to rely on a mobile hotspot which YouTube seems to throttle with 20 second delays on everything, so looking for more examples is a bit painful at the moment. But having 1 to 3 of this kind of thing is common.
7th recommended is " "YOU WILL BE INDICTED AND JAILED! " Jim Jordan SILENCE Overconfident Hillary Clinton" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbqHVba3Ohs)
I'm not logged in. I don't save cookies.
Unfortunately my regular internet has an outage and I need to rely on a mobile hotspot which YouTube seems to throttle with 20 second delays on everything, so looking for more examples is a bit painful at the moment. But having 1 to 3 of this kind of thing is common.
FWIW I pretty much only see music videos in recommendations for the one you've linked to if I open it in a private Safari tab.
(If I use my normal session, it's still all music, but skewed more towards my personal tastes.)
(If I use my normal session, it's still all music, but skewed more towards my personal tastes.)
Very much the same for myself as for you.
I suspect the GP comment is tainted by the video history by IP associations of
> I need to rely on a mobile hotspot
I suspect the GP comment is tainted by the video history by IP associations of
> I need to rely on a mobile hotspot
Would you consider your own comment to be a form of propaganda? I'm genuinely asking.
I was looking for a take on this that was more than just finding ways not to be inundated.
You don't have to get outraged about something when you think about how that particular article might be trying to fan those flames and how what is reported might just be highlighting the points that push our buttons (but the real set of facts might not be as bad when looked into). Even the things that really are that bad don't have to lead to outrage. I take a wait-and-see attitude about a lot of this stuff we see in the media. There are trolls everywhere, we'll see if anything comes of it. I'm also capable of not liking something strongly without feeling rage with regards to it, while still wanting to combat it if I have a say in it at all.
Of course, "just don't let it get to you" is easy to say but hard to implement. I think it's the only real path that allows the inclusion of social media in our lives, though.
You don't have to get outraged about something when you think about how that particular article might be trying to fan those flames and how what is reported might just be highlighting the points that push our buttons (but the real set of facts might not be as bad when looked into). Even the things that really are that bad don't have to lead to outrage. I take a wait-and-see attitude about a lot of this stuff we see in the media. There are trolls everywhere, we'll see if anything comes of it. I'm also capable of not liking something strongly without feeling rage with regards to it, while still wanting to combat it if I have a say in it at all.
Of course, "just don't let it get to you" is easy to say but hard to implement. I think it's the only real path that allows the inclusion of social media in our lives, though.
It ostensibly used to be better in the US, and then the smith--mundt act was changed/repealed and now who knows.
I do like the "that's just like, your opinion, man" as an answer to news stories, though.
I do like the "that's just like, your opinion, man" as an answer to news stories, though.
The danger with this way of thinking is that it's easy to start weighing all information equally, while that's very far from the reality.
If everything I read online [that I don't pay for] is a form of propaganda, then the only choice I have is to either:
1) weight all information equally
2) bias information based on [personal beliefs XYZ]
I'm trying hard to do #1, mainly because #2 is confirmation bias (and reinforces it).
What other options are there?
I'm trying hard to do #1, mainly because #2 is confirmation bias (and reinforces it).
What other options are there?
3) Use your first-hand experience as an anchor. Propaganda is often easy to see through in concrete situations. Even as a kid, it was easy to tell the difference between the quality of life in the USSR and Western Europe.
4) If you don't see it in the real world, you probably don't need an opinion on it.
5) And the same applies to other people as well. Prioritize the opinions of the people the issue actually concerns over abstract word salad.
4) If you don't see it in the real world, you probably don't need an opinion on it.
5) And the same applies to other people as well. Prioritize the opinions of the people the issue actually concerns over abstract word salad.
You could for instance consider actual facts? Because 100% of what you read online is in fact not propaganda.
Then you might find that some sources are filled with lies and others contain a lot more facts.
Then you'd naturally weight facts from the more trustworthy source higher.
The next step is a "web of trust" where a new source will be more trustworthy if it's linked to by other trustworthy sources.
So in the end you'd rank information from Russia Today (one of Russia's main propaganda channels) as very low, a comment from a random redditor low, and a comment on physics by a renowned physicist as very high trustworthiness.
Then you might find that some sources are filled with lies and others contain a lot more facts.
Then you'd naturally weight facts from the more trustworthy source higher.
The next step is a "web of trust" where a new source will be more trustworthy if it's linked to by other trustworthy sources.
So in the end you'd rank information from Russia Today (one of Russia's main propaganda channels) as very low, a comment from a random redditor low, and a comment on physics by a renowned physicist as very high trustworthiness.
> Because 100% of what you read online is in fact not propaganda.
This isn't even close to true. Facts are facts, and stories are propaganda. What we call "news" is largely just "stories" (opinion/editorials) about facts -- the story is the propaganda - the story weaves the facts together in a narrative, the narrative tells us how to feel and think. Stories cost $$$, and those promoting them are absolutely promoting some stories over others. They have a message to send -- that message is propaganda.
You mention a comment from a "random redditor" is low value -- I'm suggesting that nearly every "major" narrative spun on Reddit has been largely placed there by forces with deep pockets and axes to grind, and the true believers and other useful idiots that follow blindly. It's all astroturfing, and Reddit is an absolute garbage dump of discussion. Anyone that goes there thinking they're getting an accurate picture of the world around them is seriously deluded. I'm convinced those that run Reddit do this by design. We know who runs Twitter, and Facebook. No one talks about who is running Reddit.
A "comment on physics by a renowned physicist" is still just a comment -- there are facts in physics, and theories. Even renowned physicists can be wrong when it comes to the theories they back. And honestly [coming back to the point of the article] that's not what's causing people to feel outrage -- they're not doom scrolling physics forums outraged about dark matter or a theory of everything -- they're doom scrolling an endless stream of political/cultural propaganda designed to outrage them and keep them addicted.
The world isn't nearly as black and white as the internet would have you believe it is.
Point me to a source of political/cultural news that you believe is full of fact and not just another site full of opinions pieces and editorializing around the facts.
This isn't even close to true. Facts are facts, and stories are propaganda. What we call "news" is largely just "stories" (opinion/editorials) about facts -- the story is the propaganda - the story weaves the facts together in a narrative, the narrative tells us how to feel and think. Stories cost $$$, and those promoting them are absolutely promoting some stories over others. They have a message to send -- that message is propaganda.
You mention a comment from a "random redditor" is low value -- I'm suggesting that nearly every "major" narrative spun on Reddit has been largely placed there by forces with deep pockets and axes to grind, and the true believers and other useful idiots that follow blindly. It's all astroturfing, and Reddit is an absolute garbage dump of discussion. Anyone that goes there thinking they're getting an accurate picture of the world around them is seriously deluded. I'm convinced those that run Reddit do this by design. We know who runs Twitter, and Facebook. No one talks about who is running Reddit.
A "comment on physics by a renowned physicist" is still just a comment -- there are facts in physics, and theories. Even renowned physicists can be wrong when it comes to the theories they back. And honestly [coming back to the point of the article] that's not what's causing people to feel outrage -- they're not doom scrolling physics forums outraged about dark matter or a theory of everything -- they're doom scrolling an endless stream of political/cultural propaganda designed to outrage them and keep them addicted.
The world isn't nearly as black and white as the internet would have you believe it is.
Point me to a source of political/cultural news that you believe is full of fact and not just another site full of opinions pieces and editorializing around the facts.
> everything you see becomes an opinion and your mind can comfortably (or at least not emotionally/hurriedly) form your own opinion over time
I agree (I've done this), but it's much easier said than done. Requires a lot of mental work/training.
More importantly, it requires a sort of mental "enlightenment" to the true state of things.. That everything you read for free on the internet is being paid for by someone, with their own motivation and intents, and that these forces don't have your best interest in mind. The saying "If you're watching it, then it was intended for you" comes to mind. Once this breakthrough occurs and you begin to see the world this way, everything else usually follows.
As you begin to realize that most of your facts and opinions are those planted there by other powerful ($$$) forces, you start to recognize that what you think is largely what they want you to think. But the scariest part of the awakening is that you begin to realize how little you truly know about the world outside your direct experience. You feel much less certain about the world and your place in it.
Most of the people I know recognize this, and I can have sane conversation with them. You can tell those that are caught up in the propaganda because they largely sound like parrots, and it's impossible to talk to them reasonably. A few friends of mine are in this category, and the one common denominator between them is that they are deeply unhappy, riddled with anxiety, and glued to their devices. The true human casualties of the new technological information age we've birthed. It appears that this is by design, as those that control the flow for information know exactly the power they have and what they intend to do with it.
For those that are stuck, I wish I knew how to open their eyes up and look around them. It's not too bad when you look at the world outside of the internet. I've tried to listen empathetically to people that are stuck, but it mostly doesn't help. Their minds are hamsters spinning on wheels, unable to stop or hear any thing else from the outside. One or two have woken up only after the anxiety it produces begins to interfere with their real lives and relationships, It's a form of addiction, and unfortunately many people are stubborn and will double down on their addiction time after time until they hit rock bottom.
We're in the middle of a massive mental health crisis. I hate knowing that a not-insignificant portion of our fellow citizens are rapidly heading towards some sort of mental/emotional rock bottom caused by technology... I feel powerless to do anything about it as I've watched it slowly unfold over the last decade or so -- it's nearly impossible to reach the friends and family members that you're actually close to. I don't know what can be done other than sit back and wait for them to crash, and help them pick up the pieces when that time comes.
Anyone got any good advice?
I agree (I've done this), but it's much easier said than done. Requires a lot of mental work/training.
More importantly, it requires a sort of mental "enlightenment" to the true state of things.. That everything you read for free on the internet is being paid for by someone, with their own motivation and intents, and that these forces don't have your best interest in mind. The saying "If you're watching it, then it was intended for you" comes to mind. Once this breakthrough occurs and you begin to see the world this way, everything else usually follows.
As you begin to realize that most of your facts and opinions are those planted there by other powerful ($$$) forces, you start to recognize that what you think is largely what they want you to think. But the scariest part of the awakening is that you begin to realize how little you truly know about the world outside your direct experience. You feel much less certain about the world and your place in it.
Most of the people I know recognize this, and I can have sane conversation with them. You can tell those that are caught up in the propaganda because they largely sound like parrots, and it's impossible to talk to them reasonably. A few friends of mine are in this category, and the one common denominator between them is that they are deeply unhappy, riddled with anxiety, and glued to their devices. The true human casualties of the new technological information age we've birthed. It appears that this is by design, as those that control the flow for information know exactly the power they have and what they intend to do with it.
For those that are stuck, I wish I knew how to open their eyes up and look around them. It's not too bad when you look at the world outside of the internet. I've tried to listen empathetically to people that are stuck, but it mostly doesn't help. Their minds are hamsters spinning on wheels, unable to stop or hear any thing else from the outside. One or two have woken up only after the anxiety it produces begins to interfere with their real lives and relationships, It's a form of addiction, and unfortunately many people are stubborn and will double down on their addiction time after time until they hit rock bottom.
We're in the middle of a massive mental health crisis. I hate knowing that a not-insignificant portion of our fellow citizens are rapidly heading towards some sort of mental/emotional rock bottom caused by technology... I feel powerless to do anything about it as I've watched it slowly unfold over the last decade or so -- it's nearly impossible to reach the friends and family members that you're actually close to. I don't know what can be done other than sit back and wait for them to crash, and help them pick up the pieces when that time comes.
Anyone got any good advice?
> Anyone got any good advice?
Let yourself be sad about it. It is sad. Our potential as a species is being squandered for the sake of unmitigated greed. On a personal level, it's deeply depressing how things could have been so different for our loved ones.
If you have at least one close friend who can still listen and think for themselves, then you're doing okay. It's when you can't talk about this stuff that it gets most toxic. - if that ever happens, there's still books, movies... They Live is a good one.. Anything to remind you that you're not alone.
Even seeing people express these ideas is a relief, so thanks for that.
Also, there are good reasons to be hopeful, or at least stoic. Karma is inevitable. It may be that all this was necessary in some way... Like how the asteroid which killed the dinosaurs made room for mammals. Those loopholes in human nature which are being abused; they won't work for ever. And surprises can be surprising - unpredictable phase shifts can turn things around in unforeseeable ways.
In any case, we're responsible for the effort; not the outcome. Be good
Let yourself be sad about it. It is sad. Our potential as a species is being squandered for the sake of unmitigated greed. On a personal level, it's deeply depressing how things could have been so different for our loved ones.
If you have at least one close friend who can still listen and think for themselves, then you're doing okay. It's when you can't talk about this stuff that it gets most toxic. - if that ever happens, there's still books, movies... They Live is a good one.. Anything to remind you that you're not alone.
Even seeing people express these ideas is a relief, so thanks for that.
Also, there are good reasons to be hopeful, or at least stoic. Karma is inevitable. It may be that all this was necessary in some way... Like how the asteroid which killed the dinosaurs made room for mammals. Those loopholes in human nature which are being abused; they won't work for ever. And surprises can be surprising - unpredictable phase shifts can turn things around in unforeseeable ways.
In any case, we're responsible for the effort; not the outcome. Be good
I've been an avid news consumer since ~2016 and early on I remember getting very outraged at articles, tweets and other pieces of news I read. Over time I realized that these articles want you to be outraged, and that the outrage is a form of control.
Over time though I picked up on these "outrage triggers" and that's helped me be much more objective about news I'm reading. I'll be reading an article and I can usually pick up the "tricks" writers use to generate outrage. I often find myself reading an article and go "oh look you want me to feel outraged right now".
Nowdays when I try to be informed about a story I will read an NYT report, a CNN report, a Fox News or other right leaning report, and then maybe one from DailyWire of Bannon's War Room. Skimming every article I often see spots where the outlet is trying to outrage their readers. NYT will report something that will outrage the left and as you "go right" on the reports you will start to see outrage directed to the right.
Over time though I picked up on these "outrage triggers" and that's helped me be much more objective about news I'm reading. I'll be reading an article and I can usually pick up the "tricks" writers use to generate outrage. I often find myself reading an article and go "oh look you want me to feel outraged right now".
Nowdays when I try to be informed about a story I will read an NYT report, a CNN report, a Fox News or other right leaning report, and then maybe one from DailyWire of Bannon's War Room. Skimming every article I often see spots where the outlet is trying to outrage their readers. NYT will report something that will outrage the left and as you "go right" on the reports you will start to see outrage directed to the right.
I’ve generally found that overtly biased outlets on the right aren’t a huge source of outrage for me because their spin is so blatant—once I notice the propaganda, it’s easy to tune out. The bigger frustration is knowing how many people take that coverage at face value. It’s not quite the same “outrage” the article describes, though.
By contrast, the NYT often feels more subtle and therefore more effective at stoking that sense of constant agitation. They’re meticulously fact-based, but their editorial choices—what they highlight, the framing they use—can seem designed to provoke a reaction rather than just inform. It’s not only about the content of the stories; sometimes it’s also about how they present or prioritize them. If you haven’t encountered this firsthand, checking out “NYTimes pitch bot” on Bluesky can illustrate how their style can veer into outrage territory. It’s a satirical account, but it often points out the patterns in the Times’ headlines and story angles that might otherwise go unnoticed.
By contrast, the NYT often feels more subtle and therefore more effective at stoking that sense of constant agitation. They’re meticulously fact-based, but their editorial choices—what they highlight, the framing they use—can seem designed to provoke a reaction rather than just inform. It’s not only about the content of the stories; sometimes it’s also about how they present or prioritize them. If you haven’t encountered this firsthand, checking out “NYTimes pitch bot” on Bluesky can illustrate how their style can veer into outrage territory. It’s a satirical account, but it often points out the patterns in the Times’ headlines and story angles that might otherwise go unnoticed.
I agree. Came on here to say that doing your own research is one way to reduce outrage stress. After reading a top political story in NYT, I hardly ever learn a valid point made by “the other side”. Researching with ChatGPT, or reading conservative media, I can usually find some. This makes the other side a little more rational in my imagination and reduces the stress.
Steelman your opponent’s arguments! It’s not just good for thinking, it’s relaxing!
Steelman your opponent’s arguments! It’s not just good for thinking, it’s relaxing!
You're absolutely correct, but you're missing an important detail.
I'm assuming you're more aligned politically with the left. If you're not, I apologize for the assumption. To someone who is more right-wing, the bias of e.g. NYT is just as blatant as Fox News is to you, and Fox may come off as "fair". This is because the propaganda is specifically intended to land with their own audience. It's tuned to your sensibilities.
It's very much a "fish in water" scenario. Trying to read articles from multiple sources can help, and questioning why you agree with one take over another. In the end, these are pretty sophisticated operations, and they know how to prey on their targets.
I'm assuming you're more aligned politically with the left. If you're not, I apologize for the assumption. To someone who is more right-wing, the bias of e.g. NYT is just as blatant as Fox News is to you, and Fox may come off as "fair". This is because the propaganda is specifically intended to land with their own audience. It's tuned to your sensibilities.
It's very much a "fish in water" scenario. Trying to read articles from multiple sources can help, and questioning why you agree with one take over another. In the end, these are pretty sophisticated operations, and they know how to prey on their targets.
To someone who is more right-wing, the bias of e.g. NYT is just as blatant as Fox News is to you, and Fox may come off as "fair". This is because the propaganda is specifically intended to land with their own audience. It's tuned to your sensibilities.
This isn't really a matter of subjective opinion, though. Objective surveys have consistently shown that Fox News viewers are worse-informed than people who don't pay attention to any conventional news sources. NYT readers are a long way up from there.
This isn't really a matter of subjective opinion, though. Objective surveys have consistently shown that Fox News viewers are worse-informed than people who don't pay attention to any conventional news sources. NYT readers are a long way up from there.
By the way, I read Fox News as a comparison for NYT. Reading the comments on Fox News articles is a very weird experience. You'll get this mixture of comments from "I support Trump but this particular idea is terrible" to "We must do everything Trump says to bring about the next revolution" to what appears to be blatant propaganda/manipulation from foreign agents and literal outright racism and sexism. What you don't see is nuanced communication, while in the NY Times, comments are often from knowledgeable people who have experience communicating online, can make good arguments, and back up their ideas with facts.
If the fox news comments in any way represent true opinions of trump supporters, then our country is truly screwed.
If the fox news comments in any way represent true opinions of trump supporters, then our country is truly screwed.
Honestly, I think most Trump supporters are never heard from online. They're just people who go about their daily lives without putting a lot of thought into politics. They checked the box on their ballot corresponding to a name they'd heard a lot lately.
I suspect they will have good reasons to pay more attention next time, if there is a next time.
I suspect they will have good reasons to pay more attention next time, if there is a next time.
Trump supporters watch Fox News, and listens to Joe Rogan. They are pretty in tune with the current politics, but they just don't try to go online and fight against the left.
[deleted]
"Objective surveys" by whom?
Ad Fontes' media bias chart [1] and it's methodology [2] are about as objective as you can be with something as subjective as bias and factuality.
1 - https://adfontesmedia.com/
2 - https://adfontesmedia.com/methodology/
There are a couple other groups out there too:
- https://www.allsides.com/media-bias
- https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/
1 - https://adfontesmedia.com/
2 - https://adfontesmedia.com/methodology/
There are a couple other groups out there too:
- https://www.allsides.com/media-bias
- https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/
This has literally zero bearing on the topic being discussed.
Objective surveys.
That’s not really comparing apples-to-apples though: a cable TV network aimed at the undereducated masses versus a prestigious broadsheet newspaper pitched at the educated classes
There’s plenty of right-of-centre magazines and websites aimed at educated right-wingers: e.g. First Things, Commentary, The American Conservative, the Spectator
There’s plenty of right-of-centre magazines and websites aimed at educated right-wingers: e.g. First Things, Commentary, The American Conservative, the Spectator
I read a book on the history of the NYT. They would market themselves to advertisers with "our readers have the highest disposable income of aby news source in America".
It's an interesting reflection on the modern Democrat party and politics in general, that the NYT now leans left.
Fair point, but it was the OP who first mentioned Fox News and the NYT in the same sentence.
Right, but I think their point was that they are both biased just in opposite directions, and bringing the orthogonal difference in target audience education level into it is arguably confusing things
Maybe a better demonstration of their point might be comparing NYT/WaPo to the WSJ
Maybe a better demonstration of their point might be comparing NYT/WaPo to the WSJ
> NYT is just as blatant as Fox News is to you
After this past election cycle I don't see how people can make that comment with a straight face.
Media in general is very right leaning. Some like CNN and NYT are maybe slightly more left than far right fox news, but there aren't many "left leaning" mass market news sources that are essentially felating one party for millions of people.
NYT and CNN, etc are all very critical of democrats when there is a controversy. This is stark contrast to fox news which essentially is willful ignorance of anything bad republicans / trump has done.
The "normalization" of Trump's corruption by media in general should be enough to see which way they lean.
Its just that if anybody is slightly less than full blown fox news conservative they get labeled as left leaning by everyone in the media so there is some idea of "balance" but conservative media (fox news, conservative podcasts, etc) are overwhelmingly mass market and the majority.
After this past election cycle I don't see how people can make that comment with a straight face.
Media in general is very right leaning. Some like CNN and NYT are maybe slightly more left than far right fox news, but there aren't many "left leaning" mass market news sources that are essentially felating one party for millions of people.
NYT and CNN, etc are all very critical of democrats when there is a controversy. This is stark contrast to fox news which essentially is willful ignorance of anything bad republicans / trump has done.
The "normalization" of Trump's corruption by media in general should be enough to see which way they lean.
Its just that if anybody is slightly less than full blown fox news conservative they get labeled as left leaning by everyone in the media so there is some idea of "balance" but conservative media (fox news, conservative podcasts, etc) are overwhelmingly mass market and the majority.
"media is in general is very right leaning"
Wow. You don't need to be very right leaning to feel the complete opposite. I'm simply amazed someone could feel that way, as nearly all media is very left-leaning (to my perspective).
Wow. You don't need to be very right leaning to feel the complete opposite. I'm simply amazed someone could feel that way, as nearly all media is very left-leaning (to my perspective).
Your perspective may be miscalibrated. Organizations earning all their income from large corporations are unlikely to propagate socialism.
And there's the core of issue. If you use vague terms like "left" and "right", then different people in the discussion will be using different definitions. You're using them to mean socialism vs capitalism, whereas others mean Democrats vs Republicans. Some are even using liberal vs conservative. Occasionally, I've seen it as authoritarian vs libertarian, even though that should be an orthogonal axis. If you're going to commit to the logical sin of the false dichotomy, at least say what you mean.
You have many misunderstandings that you should probably have right first before continuing
CNN leans pretty far left, but not as left as MSNBC
NYT leans pretty far left, similarly to CNN
Reddit leans very far left, so does Facebook and Instagram
Media in general is very left leaning. For example, Youtube, Disney, Netflix are the biggest online video content house, and they all lean heavily left. Even Max leans slightly left. There is no right leaning online content house. And all contents are moving to online.
CNN leans pretty far left, but not as left as MSNBC
NYT leans pretty far left, similarly to CNN
Reddit leans very far left, so does Facebook and Instagram
Media in general is very left leaning. For example, Youtube, Disney, Netflix are the biggest online video content house, and they all lean heavily left. Even Max leans slightly left. There is no right leaning online content house. And all contents are moving to online.
What you're calling "left" is center-right in the rest of the developed world. None of those are left leaning. They are all pro-corporate, pro-capitalist, anti-worker "infinite growth forever" media. Some of the journalists who work for them are left, but the owners are largely conservative and force them to cover Democratic scandals just as much as Republican ones, while Fox News and other conservative media outlets just outright ignore Republican scandals entirely.
If mainstream media in America was left, Bernie would have just finished up his second term.
If mainstream media in America was left, Bernie would have just finished up his second term.
"pro-corporate" and "pro-capitalist" have nothing to do with left vs right in the definition those in my circle would use.
If these are the topics that you feel define the "right", it's no wonder society is confused how this administration was elected.
If these are the topics that you feel define the "right", it's no wonder society is confused how this administration was elected.
Interesting to be around for the birth of a false fact like "the media is right leaning". Overnight you see people start parroting something that's clearly untrue.
> clearly untrue
Maybe you haven't been paying attention the past 5 years, but there has been a dramatic shift to the right in media. Companies change ownership and the new owners take advantage of the historical left leaning nature of the media.
The magic trick fox news and conservatives has pulled is by being so far right that center/slightly right parties look far left. The normalization of the MAGA movement is evidence of this right leaning media machine.
Look at who owns the "left leaning" media companies. CNN is owned by conservatives.
Joe Rogan, Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson audience dwarf most other channels these days. fox news has almost 3-4 times the viewership of CNN which is the preferred example of a "left leaning" network to balance them.
The rights constant raging against mainstream media is an attempt to distract from the fact that mainstream media is in fact conservative.
Maybe you haven't been paying attention the past 5 years, but there has been a dramatic shift to the right in media. Companies change ownership and the new owners take advantage of the historical left leaning nature of the media.
The magic trick fox news and conservatives has pulled is by being so far right that center/slightly right parties look far left. The normalization of the MAGA movement is evidence of this right leaning media machine.
Look at who owns the "left leaning" media companies. CNN is owned by conservatives.
Joe Rogan, Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson audience dwarf most other channels these days. fox news has almost 3-4 times the viewership of CNN which is the preferred example of a "left leaning" network to balance them.
The rights constant raging against mainstream media is an attempt to distract from the fact that mainstream media is in fact conservative.
Subreddits are a great place to see the result of this . . . it's incredible how much utter shite and misinformation is just taken for granted as "the way things are" and how much the details of said misinformation depend on your political leanings.
And of course everyone is convinced that they have the rational truth and it's the other guy who's the "low-information voter" being taken by the propaganda.
And of course everyone is convinced that they have the rational truth and it's the other guy who's the "low-information voter" being taken by the propaganda.
[deleted]
In the last week what headline and story do you think was overblown by the NYT?
>meticulously fact-based
Interesting...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_New_York_Times_con...
I'm not picking on them specifically. If you'd said this about any news outlet, I wouldn't believe you.
Interesting...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_New_York_Times_con...
I'm not picking on them specifically. If you'd said this about any news outlet, I wouldn't believe you.
If that's your standard, nobody is meticulously fact based. I stand by my statement, I didn't say they were perfect.
Exactly. No shortage of people leaving the industry because fact based isn't even the goal. Editors push for outrage. That's the point.
I had to give up news altogether before I could notice this, but yeah, news exists for the sole purpose of creating outrage in order to generate ad impressions. When you get outraged by one story, you’re more likely to click on the next related headline. We’re destroying our society so we can make less than a penny per page.
For anyone wanting to skip the outrage but still get news and analysis, I can't recommend the PBS News Hour highly enough.
Today's episode, for example: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/february-5-2025-pbs-news-h...
Today's episode, for example: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/february-5-2025-pbs-news-h...
> news exists for the sole purpose of creating outrage in order to generate ad impressions
I like the idea of distinguishing news from journalism. If we say they're distinct, then yeh I think I can agree that news is–via weird unintentional evolution of incentives–an outrage machine, but true journalism is a wondrous and professional exercise of human scrutiny on centres of otherwise unchecked power. We need that.
I like the idea of distinguishing news from journalism. If we say they're distinct, then yeh I think I can agree that news is–via weird unintentional evolution of incentives–an outrage machine, but true journalism is a wondrous and professional exercise of human scrutiny on centres of otherwise unchecked power. We need that.
Twenty+ years ago an aunt of mine regularly called our local news on channel four the Channel Fear news.
I think "being informed" is very overrated in general. Often it means being informed about palace intrigue and intelligence service/corporate narratives. I would say that in general media consumption or "staying informed" should be seen as a vice not a virtue
It's not overrated, it's often confused with "to understand what's happening".
To "be informed" is like to take a look at a chess or go board: positions are clear, black and white pieces are here and there, but it takes skill to really understand the current dynamics of a game.
Add media bias ("let's show the board at this angle that looks better for our side") and now we have "informed" population that's being surprised by reality every day.
To "be informed" is like to take a look at a chess or go board: positions are clear, black and white pieces are here and there, but it takes skill to really understand the current dynamics of a game.
Add media bias ("let's show the board at this angle that looks better for our side") and now we have "informed" population that's being surprised by reality every day.
in some handwavy simplification:
[start] data --(meaning/interpretation)--> information --(interpretation/understanding)-> knowledge ----> ...
probably more levels. At any step one can take action.. faster if more to the start but also less thoughtfull/"correct". primal instincts are at the start
the whole point of news-machine is to never get to beyond information.. same as <2sec video-frame switching..
[start] data --(meaning/interpretation)--> information --(interpretation/understanding)-> knowledge ----> ...
probably more levels. At any step one can take action.. faster if more to the start but also less thoughtfull/"correct". primal instincts are at the start
the whole point of news-machine is to never get to beyond information.. same as <2sec video-frame switching..
"If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed. If you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed."
-- Col. Jack O'Neill (with 2 Ls)
Most people think being informed is reading the NYT or the WP. That's being half informed. That's like listening to the prosecutor and ignoring the defense. You have to read both sides of the stories and guess where in between the actual facts lie (no pun intended).
See i even go further, i disagree that consuming _more_ propaganda is somehow an antidote to other propaganda you consumed. My strong belief on this is that the more media you consume the less accurate your worldview becomes
I can certainly see that. I try not to consume daily news. If it's actually important, someone will tell me about it.
So what's your alternative? Living in ignorance until it's too late?
How often do you actually act on something you saw in the news, within, say, a month?
I avoid news qua news as much as possible and try to read up on things after a month or so, when the heat has gone out and more sober analysis has taken place. E.g. I'm vaguely aware there was a plane crash recently and look forward to reading a proper writeup of that at some point, but I doubt there's anything to be learnt from diving into detailed coverage right now.
I avoid news qua news as much as possible and try to read up on things after a month or so, when the heat has gone out and more sober analysis has taken place. E.g. I'm vaguely aware there was a plane crash recently and look forward to reading a proper writeup of that at some point, but I doubt there's anything to be learnt from diving into detailed coverage right now.
Most stuff on the news doesn't feel like it threatens my life (e.g. Not a wildfire 5 miles away from me). So admitedtly not that often.
But probably more often than you'd expect. I see layoffs and I check up on contacts to see if they are okay. Major crashes or other kinds of disasters if I know people in the area. I see tarriffs and think "well, gotta grab stuff before that". I see issues with food and warn my family. Since a lot of my family is military I do need to check up everytime some chaos happens in DC. These aren't large actions but I do act on that knowledge.
This is definitely a case right now where I feel it's important to be informed instead of "letting it blow over". There may not be anything left this time. If you don't feel like it that's perfectly fine. But I'm genuinely looking for any ways to help, no matter how small.
But probably more often than you'd expect. I see layoffs and I check up on contacts to see if they are okay. Major crashes or other kinds of disasters if I know people in the area. I see tarriffs and think "well, gotta grab stuff before that". I see issues with food and warn my family. Since a lot of my family is military I do need to check up everytime some chaos happens in DC. These aren't large actions but I do act on that knowledge.
This is definitely a case right now where I feel it's important to be informed instead of "letting it blow over". There may not be anything left this time. If you don't feel like it that's perfectly fine. But I'm genuinely looking for any ways to help, no matter how small.
That's a false equivalence which is at the heart of the issue. You seem to be be assuming that "being informed" makes you better placed and/or more willing to take right action, but I'm not convinced that's the case
I'm not arguing. I'm genuinely asking for your approach. I can imagine being overloaded with information. And "research hypnosis" is a genuine thing (and issue I sometimes struggle with). I'm open to accepting I may be falling for it again and am open to other approaches. I genuinely don't know much more to do than keep calling my reps.
I still fundamentally believe that an info overload (as long as you are scrutinizing your news healthily) is better than being in complete ignorance.
I still fundamentally believe that an info overload (as long as you are scrutinizing your news healthily) is better than being in complete ignorance.
Better how? And by what measurement? What are you gaining from info overload opposed to ignorance?
You say you fundamentally believe in one over the other, but you haven't made the case for info overload, and have even made some points against it (hypnosis, futility, etc).
You say you fundamentally believe in one over the other, but you haven't made the case for info overload, and have even made some points against it (hypnosis, futility, etc).
Not being informed doesn’t even give you the option to consider getting involved.
>So what's your alternative? Living in ignorance until it's too late?
Too late for what? you are _already_ a slave to the system from birth to grave. If there is anything you can do, do it regardless of the news which is a distraction/propaganda.
Too late for what? you are _already_ a slave to the system from birth to grave. If there is anything you can do, do it regardless of the news which is a distraction/propaganda.
I'm begrudgingly fine with that. Let me do something before the deal alters, please.
Self proclaimed "news junkies" are some of the most insufferable people I know.
I tried to solve this problem by making AI rank the stories by significance and rewriting the news titles in a boring, factual style.
I think it worked quite well, there's only about 10 headlines a day (out of 15k+) that get a significance rating higher than of 5.5 out of 10.
It also helps avoiding the overfocus on western issues and actually learn what's happening around the world.
https://www.newsminimalist.com/
I think it worked quite well, there's only about 10 headlines a day (out of 15k+) that get a significance rating higher than of 5.5 out of 10.
It also helps avoiding the overfocus on western issues and actually learn what's happening around the world.
https://www.newsminimalist.com/
I love the idea of this tool, but there are serious issues with using LLMs to summarize articles and text. Re: Apple’s Notification Summary Debacle
For example, this headline with a score > 5 is flatly incorrect.
“China launches innovative flying robot to explore Moon's south pole for water resources”
Every article listed in the summary says the launch is planned for 2026.
For example, this headline with a score > 5 is flatly incorrect.
“China launches innovative flying robot to explore Moon's south pole for water resources”
Every article listed in the summary says the launch is planned for 2026.
Thanks! Good point.
I think there will always be some hallucinations until they're solved on a model level, but I'll also try to nudge AI now to be more precise with the headlines.
I think there will always be some hallucinations until they're solved on a model level, but I'll also try to nudge AI now to be more precise with the headlines.
Thanks for newsminimalist - other than what comes up on HN it's the only news I read these days. It's usually just enough to keep me in touch without any of the outrage.
I did the same too, but by ingesting Wikipedia's current event portal. The result is a decent balance of world events, but without the sensationalism.
https://detoxed.news/
https://github.com/tom-james-watson/detoxed.news/
https://detoxed.news/
https://github.com/tom-james-watson/detoxed.news/
Can I make the significance my choice?
To me a news site curates news that impacts me directly or things I can do something about. This could be in a scale too. 10 is water main is broken on my street, while 0 is a car crash on the other side of the planet.
To me a news site curates news that impacts me directly or things I can do something about. This could be in a scale too. 10 is water main is broken on my street, while 0 is a car crash on the other side of the planet.
Neat! Sounds similar to another app I've used: https://www.boringreport.org
That's a pretty cool website! What prompt do you use to determine what is and isn't significant?
Can't share the full prompt, but I share methodology on the about page: https://www.newsminimalist.com/about
why can't you?
One thing is read the article, not just the headline. Get the nuance, learn what’s actually happening, see what people are doing to react. You’ll not feel as frozen if you understand that a fluid situation has many directions it can take and it’s not set in stone.
"In an information-rich world, the wealth of information means a dearth of something else: a scarcity of whatever it is that information consumes. What information consumes is rather obvious: it consumes the attention of its recipients. Hence a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention"
Platforms have realized this long ago, that as info explodes people pay attention to the easiest things to pay attention too not the hardest, so they move resources to designing things like reels and shorts and tweets etc etc. Every earnings call they gloat about how shorter form content is exploding and how thrilled they are about it.
The long form stuff only holds attention of the majority if you keep throwing Novelty on the table every two sentences.
Platforms are basically running an animal domestication program, where people have been rewarded with high rep and status for extremely low cognitive work.
So that entire group that has benefited doesn't see any need for nuance and depth in anything. "Cause look how many likes, clicks, views and followers I have accumulated without it"
Platforms have realized this long ago, that as info explodes people pay attention to the easiest things to pay attention too not the hardest, so they move resources to designing things like reels and shorts and tweets etc etc. Every earnings call they gloat about how shorter form content is exploding and how thrilled they are about it.
The long form stuff only holds attention of the majority if you keep throwing Novelty on the table every two sentences.
Platforms are basically running an animal domestication program, where people have been rewarded with high rep and status for extremely low cognitive work.
So that entire group that has benefited doesn't see any need for nuance and depth in anything. "Cause look how many likes, clicks, views and followers I have accumulated without it"
As one of the seemingly few people who actually do read the article and not just the headline, it makes all the discussion people have around news infuriating.
Most articles I come across have a very fiery headline, then you dig in to the article and the facts are different, and/or the sources are dubious, and/or there's historical precedent for the thing that makes it not seem so strange this time, and/or the article doesn't dive deeply enough in to the details, etc.
Political biases and current events aside, it all sucks! It's so annoying that I have to do the legwork of reading through the article carefully and following through in factchecking outside of the article to get the meat of it out, and after all that, it feels like no one else does the same.
Most articles I come across have a very fiery headline, then you dig in to the article and the facts are different, and/or the sources are dubious, and/or there's historical precedent for the thing that makes it not seem so strange this time, and/or the article doesn't dive deeply enough in to the details, etc.
Political biases and current events aside, it all sucks! It's so annoying that I have to do the legwork of reading through the article carefully and following through in factchecking outside of the article to get the meat of it out, and after all that, it feels like no one else does the same.
If you ever read an article about something you are knowledgeable about you might find that the content is just as misleading or downright wrong as the headline.
Isn't this something that marginalized groups have had to deal with since their existence? I mean, there's a reason why in the US black men die at higher rates from heart disease and stress-related illnesses. Is this getting attention now because white people are feeling it? I grew up in the 70's, and the hatred toward gays that erupted in the 80's due to Reagan was impossible to explain to someone born in 2000 who grew up seeing gay people everwhere. Not saying it doesn't need attention, but I think we could probably turned to marginalized groups for tips! (RIP my karma.)
I can recommend https://newsasfacts.com for at least having a news source that, thanks to its matter-of-fact tone and lack of imagery, is useful for staying informed without getting overwhelmed so easily.
It also puts things into a bit of a global perspective, when you realize how much stuff is going on around the world all the time. Though this of course also means you'll learn things that are on the news everywhere in your country only after they've become relevant enough to register on a global level.
It also puts things into a bit of a global perspective, when you realize how much stuff is going on around the world all the time. Though this of course also means you'll learn things that are on the news everywhere in your country only after they've become relevant enough to register on a global level.
A little weird to see the Bitcoin price listed top-and-center, when it is a hype-driven security. Watching the market, especially crypto markets in real-time is also quite stressful. I don't see the point of having it listed first, before the news...
At least the toggles even for free users let you immediately disable market stuff, right alongside changing theme.
I assume you have a subscription? Does that let you turn on or off different topics? I am not interested in the large amount of space devoted to armed conflicts globally, for example.
I don't have a subscription so far, I just use it in its default setting. I'm not sure there is a filter like that even with a subscription, though.
Nice but I find the summary too short without any expansion if you want to learn more
There usually are links to the news articles and the corresponding Wikipedia articles. (Though sometimes it's redirected me to some nirvana-page that just shows '[object Object]', not sure what that's about.)
I have a New Yorker (I think that's where it's from) cartoon on my wall. It's a man and woman walking down the street and she's saying "My desire to be well-informed is currently at odds with my desire to remain sane." It's a good daily reminder for me.
I've been very pleased with my own results by disconnecting from social media and anything with a short (eg 24 hours) news cycle. Weeklies (eg the economist) are still generally worth reading and filter to more important topics. On (geo)politics when I want more information I go to websites of the major think tanks of the relevant country. The bias is explicit and the authors are always deeply knowledgeable, writing for an educated and equally knowledgeable audience. For the Americans, I would recommend the council on foreign relations and RAND for a republican perspective, and center for strategic and international studies and Brookings for the Democrat side.
Hope this helps someone out there.
Hope this helps someone out there.
> Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. You don’t want to act, or even talk alone; you don’t want to “go out of your way to make trouble.” Why not?—Well, you are not in the habit of doing it. And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty
> Uncertainty is a very important factor, and, instead of decreasing as time goes on, it grows. Outside, in the streets, in the general community, “everyone” is happy. One hears no protest, and certainly sees none. You speak privately to your colleagues, some of whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say? They say, “It’s not so bad” or “You’re seeing things” or “You’re an alarmist.”
> But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds of thousands will join with you, never comes. That’s the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and smallest, thousands, yes, millions, would have been sufficiently shocked—if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in ’43 had come immediately after the “German Firm” stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in ’33. But of course this isn’t the way it happens. In between come all of the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D.
> Uncertainty is a very important factor, and, instead of decreasing as time goes on, it grows. Outside, in the streets, in the general community, “everyone” is happy. One hears no protest, and certainly sees none. You speak privately to your colleagues, some of whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say? They say, “It’s not so bad” or “You’re seeing things” or “You’re an alarmist.”
> But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds of thousands will join with you, never comes. That’s the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and smallest, thousands, yes, millions, would have been sufficiently shocked—if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in ’43 had come immediately after the “German Firm” stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in ’33. But of course this isn’t the way it happens. In between come all of the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D.
- From "They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45"Similarly:
If you’re waiting for a moment where you’re like “this is it,” I’m telling you, it never comes. Nobody comes on TV and says “things are officially bad.” There’s no launch party for decay. It’s just a pileup of outrages and atrocities in between friendships and weddings and perhaps an unusual amount of alcohol.
from "I Lived Through Collapse. America Is Already There." https://gen.medium.com/i-lived-through-collapse-america-is-a...
If you’re waiting for a moment where you’re like “this is it,” I’m telling you, it never comes. Nobody comes on TV and says “things are officially bad.” There’s no launch party for decay. It’s just a pileup of outrages and atrocities in between friendships and weddings and perhaps an unusual amount of alcohol.
from "I Lived Through Collapse. America Is Already There." https://gen.medium.com/i-lived-through-collapse-america-is-a...
Yes, this is really tricky, because nowadays we have people shouting from the rooftops continuously, and half of them are shouting the exact opposite thing as the other half. WWII was openly racist, so from a modern perspective it would be easy to recognize and condemn some of the early behavior, but these days it's more about dog whistling and thought crimes. Probably the signs we would all recognize are not going to happen. But we have already moved a dramatic amount in terms of normalized behavior, from 20 years ago.
Happiness is an inside job. Sitting with your emotions is very important. That's not to say we can tolerate an unlimited amount of information. But rather to highlight that we can become the observer of our emotions, rather than be consumed by them.
Why is it even important to stay informed? In virtually all cases, there's very little that I can do about anything, so I'm just wasting energy by looking at the news.
Why do you believe there is very little you can do? What collaborations have you tried so far?
One of the reasons I love reading history is realizing the agency individual humans have when we get together. Individuals can't change much alone, but we don't have to do things alone.
You can choose not to use your agency, but that is still a choice to support the status quo.
One of the reasons I love reading history is realizing the agency individual humans have when we get together. Individuals can't change much alone, but we don't have to do things alone.
You can choose not to use your agency, but that is still a choice to support the status quo.
> Why is it even important to stay informed?
So that you stay in formation with everyone else, of course!
So that you stay in formation with everyone else, of course!
To predict future and make your decisions, e.g. on where to live, what skills to learn and what to do in general.
If you're on HN, it's most likely you can't control reality much, but you can navigate it better.
If you're on HN, it's most likely you can't control reality much, but you can navigate it better.
That's your right and I can understand why you might feel that way, but you should probably understand the compromises that are being made in doing so.
Because the behavior of your chosen leaders reflects on you? Ostracism is a thing.
From the "greed" point of view - because your chosen leaders can have dramatic and immediate impact on your net wealth.
Even if hedonistic, "I have no assets", your chosen leaders will choose how comfortable your life is.
From the "greed" point of view - because your chosen leaders can have dramatic and immediate impact on your net wealth.
Even if hedonistic, "I have no assets", your chosen leaders will choose how comfortable your life is.
[deleted]
Scientific American used to be a great magazine and should get back to what made it so valuable: Covering important ideas in science without watering them down. Their website now describes it as "the essential guide to the most awe-inspiring advances in science and technology". Blech.
Google's attack on RSS has been quite successful. Not a single mention here in the 150+ comments. I would think the HN crowd would be savvy enough to recommend it on this subject.
The content of the "news" has little to do with its conveyance protocol? Whether you get it from foxnews.com or foxnews.com/rss (insert your favoured antagonist here)
You're not really looking at the big picture. RSS allows you to escape social media filter bubbles, allows you to read the articles without an internet connection which removes a lot of the algorithmic capture of engagement and allows you to precisely control where your information comes from. You have to actively seek out new sources of information instead of having them fed to you.
Tiny Tiny RSS is still awesome, twelve years later. It is super-easy to self-host: https://tt-rss.org/
I'll share unpopular advice here: it would be wise to adopt a more Stoic approach to the present crisis.
The events unfolding now are an expected progression of choices made years ago.
The choices made now will likewise determine the future. Not all of the current situation is under your control, however. Take whatever wise action you can, but beyond this, judge the outcome neither good nor bad. As hard as it may be -- because we love this country and the ideals for which it should stand, but this is precisely the mechanism which the forces of chaos are using against the system.
They're trying to fatigue you. Don't let them.
It makes sense to examine several likewise unpopular but nevertheless patently correct facts:
1) Every nation ceases to be. Every nation that ever was has fallen, merged, disappeared. This one cannot be different -- and that is OK, because this is what nations do. This does not at all mean you should do nothing. Quite the contrary. It does however mean refraining from placing superlative negative value judgements upon the events happening now. Work towards indifference in your mind, and act according to your wisdom and conscience.
2) You and all other individuals alive today will perish eventually. We all return to nature when our time comes. You were once purely of nature and not of human society -- you came into the world not knowing language, not knowing what nations are, what democracy is, why any of this matters. You were taught what it means to be a modern human. And we all return to the earth, to this mysterious and unfathomably ancient layer of living matter upon this world. So your efforts while you are alive are by nature limited, by necessity bounded. You can cause great change, and you should, according to what you are uniquely suited and drawn to do. Beyond this however, the rest of humanity -- which as a group, unlike individuals, may survive indefinitely -- will have responsibility over the rest.
Hope this perespetive benefits someone. It is the precise opposite of modern media, which wants you to feel outraged with every headline.
When Socrates was informed that his son had died, his response was:
"I knew that my son was mortal."
His mind was rational enough to accept such seemingly mundane but nevertheless consequential knowledge, at every level of his mind. And the effect? When disaster came, he did still suffer, but far less than most other people.
Because it was not a disaster. Merely an outcome of that which when examined closely, was to be expected based on knowledge of mortality.
The events unfolding now are an expected progression of choices made years ago.
The choices made now will likewise determine the future. Not all of the current situation is under your control, however. Take whatever wise action you can, but beyond this, judge the outcome neither good nor bad. As hard as it may be -- because we love this country and the ideals for which it should stand, but this is precisely the mechanism which the forces of chaos are using against the system.
They're trying to fatigue you. Don't let them.
It makes sense to examine several likewise unpopular but nevertheless patently correct facts:
1) Every nation ceases to be. Every nation that ever was has fallen, merged, disappeared. This one cannot be different -- and that is OK, because this is what nations do. This does not at all mean you should do nothing. Quite the contrary. It does however mean refraining from placing superlative negative value judgements upon the events happening now. Work towards indifference in your mind, and act according to your wisdom and conscience.
2) You and all other individuals alive today will perish eventually. We all return to nature when our time comes. You were once purely of nature and not of human society -- you came into the world not knowing language, not knowing what nations are, what democracy is, why any of this matters. You were taught what it means to be a modern human. And we all return to the earth, to this mysterious and unfathomably ancient layer of living matter upon this world. So your efforts while you are alive are by nature limited, by necessity bounded. You can cause great change, and you should, according to what you are uniquely suited and drawn to do. Beyond this however, the rest of humanity -- which as a group, unlike individuals, may survive indefinitely -- will have responsibility over the rest.
Hope this perespetive benefits someone. It is the precise opposite of modern media, which wants you to feel outraged with every headline.
When Socrates was informed that his son had died, his response was:
"I knew that my son was mortal."
His mind was rational enough to accept such seemingly mundane but nevertheless consequential knowledge, at every level of his mind. And the effect? When disaster came, he did still suffer, but far less than most other people.
Because it was not a disaster. Merely an outcome of that which when examined closely, was to be expected based on knowledge of mortality.
I wish there was a modern "news wire" service to help with this problem.
I'm thinking tweet-sized news stories, a few per day at most, no threads, no images, no links, nothing but 140 characters of pure text. You could even deliver them as texts or unclickable push notifications.
That format heavily discourages clickbait (because there are no clicks to be had) and forces journalists to only include the information that actually matters, with no fluff about how they were sipping hot cocoa in a nice indie restaurant in Montana when talking to the subject of the story, a 38-year-old man wearing a polo shirt.
You could run an operation like this on a shoestring budget, with one or two individuals regurgitating news stories from mainstream sources in a much denser format, minus the outrage. Many, including me, would probably be willing to subscribe.
I'm thinking tweet-sized news stories, a few per day at most, no threads, no images, no links, nothing but 140 characters of pure text. You could even deliver them as texts or unclickable push notifications.
That format heavily discourages clickbait (because there are no clicks to be had) and forces journalists to only include the information that actually matters, with no fluff about how they were sipping hot cocoa in a nice indie restaurant in Montana when talking to the subject of the story, a 38-year-old man wearing a polo shirt.
You could run an operation like this on a shoestring budget, with one or two individuals regurgitating news stories from mainstream sources in a much denser format, minus the outrage. Many, including me, would probably be willing to subscribe.
Or you could just read actual wire services. AP/Reuters etc have close to no clickbait.
Yeah, news ticker sounds like the perfect solution. If something relevant comes up you can still look up some full articles
The front page of Reuters right now is a story about a major presidential proposal[1]. I think that is certainly headline news in the traditional sense. Still, it would be nice if there were additionally a news wire that didn't cover statements, only events.
1 = (Not describing the content because that's not the point.)
1 = (Not describing the content because that's not the point.)
There are email newsletters, but there is no unbiased source. Even a dry, “moderate” source is biased, in that it chooses to ignore taking a stance, and thus requires ignoring some details altogether
This seems completely pointless as the entire reason of news is to be informed of what's going on, and you can't do that in "tweet-sized news stories". For starters, simple "fact"-based news like "X happened" is really not bias-free, as there is a lot of context on why "X happened", or things leading up to it, or stuff like that.
Never mind of course there is an inherent bias in choosing what to publish and what not to publish.
So it's not forcing journalists to "only include the information that actually matters", it's forcing journalists to exclude tons of information that really does matter. In fact, it's worse than pointless: it's actively harmful to mislead people with these "unbiased facts", because they're not.
Never mind of course there is an inherent bias in choosing what to publish and what not to publish.
So it's not forcing journalists to "only include the information that actually matters", it's forcing journalists to exclude tons of information that really does matter. In fact, it's worse than pointless: it's actively harmful to mislead people with these "unbiased facts", because they're not.
I subscribed to International Intrigue, which sends a digestible summary by email every day.
https://www.internationalintrigue.io/
https://www.internationalintrigue.io/
This is the second reference to this site. I like the style and lack of propaganda pitch. I wish there were more writings like this. You know of any other apolitical or with more authentic writing style?
It's it's political by nature, and biased because it's written by humans, but I think the brevity of the format helps keep things to the point.
Really, you have to do the pre-social-media trick of comparing multiple sources, adjusting for known biases, and synthesising a world view.
I've always rated the Financial Times for world news. It has a high-capital bias of course, but because its goal is to help investors make investment decisions it is incentivised to report things accurately rather than spin.
Also old media international news reporting is usually leagues better than domestic reporting. The BBC's reporting of UK politics is pretty weak, but it's international reporting is very high-quality. I wouldn't trust Al Jazeera to report on things the Qatari royal family have a stake in, but their remit is (or was) to inform said royal family accurately about world affairs.
On that note, I've seen plenty of adverts for Ground News, which supposedly lets you compare the bias of various sources for the same story. I've not tried it.
Really, you have to do the pre-social-media trick of comparing multiple sources, adjusting for known biases, and synthesising a world view.
I've always rated the Financial Times for world news. It has a high-capital bias of course, but because its goal is to help investors make investment decisions it is incentivised to report things accurately rather than spin.
Also old media international news reporting is usually leagues better than domestic reporting. The BBC's reporting of UK politics is pretty weak, but it's international reporting is very high-quality. I wouldn't trust Al Jazeera to report on things the Qatari royal family have a stake in, but their remit is (or was) to inform said royal family accurately about world affairs.
On that note, I've seen plenty of adverts for Ground News, which supposedly lets you compare the bias of various sources for the same story. I've not tried it.
It is hard to be apolitical, but most news are constantly repeating propaganda. Financial journals are great informing people. Right now business insider has an article on Wallstreet embracing opensource. The problem is that their pitch is always: How can we squeeze more from the working class and into our pockets?
I am looking for more authentic/humane writing style. There is a lot of info to keep informed, so the way in which things are expressed is important to me. Even outside the news it's hard to find good writing.
I think sites like ground.news just make things worst. The issue is not if something is left or right. It should be whether it is correct and in which setting. They are exploiting peoples' biases to make money.
I am looking for more authentic/humane writing style. There is a lot of info to keep informed, so the way in which things are expressed is important to me. Even outside the news it's hard to find good writing.
I think sites like ground.news just make things worst. The issue is not if something is left or right. It should be whether it is correct and in which setting. They are exploiting peoples' biases to make money.
I agree, but I don’t know of anything better. And with regards to Ground News specifically, it reinforces the fallacy that “the truth is somewhere in the middle,” while the position of the “middle” is being manipulated by bad actors at the extremes.
I'm sorry for plugging my project twice in this thread.
But what you're asking sounds extremely close to what I made: https://www.newsminimalist.com/
If you want fewer stories (by default it shows about 25 a day), adjust the slider to a higher significance threshold.
But what you're asking sounds extremely close to what I made: https://www.newsminimalist.com/
If you want fewer stories (by default it shows about 25 a day), adjust the slider to a higher significance threshold.
Part of the problem is that good journalism is expensive, and has been systematically undermined by monied interests around the world.
What is needed is a sustainable business model for quality journalism, set up in a way that is resistant to income inequality.
What is needed is a sustainable business model for quality journalism, set up in a way that is resistant to income inequality.
Just view a topic on Reddit then on X. You can't be outraged both ways and it should cancel out.
This more than doubles the outrage. You'll have to hate yourself for being so mistaken before.
as if "both" ways is all there is.
I have OCD and sadly one of the ways I've dealt with it is to drown it out by being on social media and, before that, just playing NPR nonstop all day. I basically chose a new, louder voice to drown out the other voices in my head.
Unfortunately, in this day and age it's like choosing between two different forms of torture. Social media is so toxic and fries the nervous system so much - it's awful. The news is awful. And being alone with OCD is awful. (And yes I've tried various treatments - so far, nothing's worked great. B12 shots did help a bit and so did prednisone accidentally, but I can't stay on that long term.)
Unfortunately, in this day and age it's like choosing between two different forms of torture. Social media is so toxic and fries the nervous system so much - it's awful. The news is awful. And being alone with OCD is awful. (And yes I've tried various treatments - so far, nothing's worked great. B12 shots did help a bit and so did prednisone accidentally, but I can't stay on that long term.)
Have you tried giving meditation a try? I have no idea if it helps for OCD, but for me it gives space around all the thoughts that’s floating around in my head. That space gives me a bit more freedom to select which thoughts to listen to.
I tried blocking all social media and news sites and instead subscribing to the print version of The Week. Honestly, it was great. But eventually the siren song of internet-fueled dopamine eventually lured me back...
This is not a good article. Shocked that it got so much attention here. It's full of garden variety common sense.
Saying "just quit social media" or something doesn't work. You have to have the mindset that you cannot control what happens in the vast majority of news stories. If the federal government does something I don't like, it's not worth my time to be angry and let it linger in my head for the day, which only hurts me. Outrage seems to come from a lack of control over a situation.
Shift your focus to things you can possibly control, e.g. the news that's happening in your local community where you have a say in how things are done.
Shift your focus to things you can possibly control, e.g. the news that's happening in your local community where you have a say in how things are done.
After November I totally stopped looking at any and all news and social media with the exception of HN. My reasoning being that you are not actually getting informed by any of those sources. They are geared towards engagement which makes them entertainment. Also, I have absolutely no power to change anything happening right now so knowing about it is just going to make me upset. It's a lose lose IMO. A lot of folks have gotten upset with me about this which I find a bit baffling. Like, what does knowing every minute detail do for me?
The net effect of my news/social media fast has been fairly dramatic. I suddenly have an attention span again. When a persons opinion differs from mine, I generally don't immediately assume they are part of the third reich (although if they keep talking a while I might get there lol).
To be clear I absolutely despise whats happening in the US right now. Enough information makes it to me through friends and family (and HN) that I feel a deep sense of despair. I am just not sure what minute by minute updates on the fuckery happening right now gets me.
The net effect of my news/social media fast has been fairly dramatic. I suddenly have an attention span again. When a persons opinion differs from mine, I generally don't immediately assume they are part of the third reich (although if they keep talking a while I might get there lol).
To be clear I absolutely despise whats happening in the US right now. Enough information makes it to me through friends and family (and HN) that I feel a deep sense of despair. I am just not sure what minute by minute updates on the fuckery happening right now gets me.
I think I did something similar. I decided to severely control my information diet after November and switch to only RSS feeds that I have selected manually and HN. It’s gone better than I expected and I feel very little urge to go back.
At the same time, I’m definitely less informed. Though I’m quite surprised how much still permeates despite me not “going looking”.
Generally, I think it’s more healthy to focus on what you can control and what you have agency over. You can choose what to be outraged over national/global events (and do nothing) or you can instead focus that energy on Doing Something closer to home that’s important to you. Which is the better trade?
I’m somewhat conflicted on being less informed esp with big changes happening. And even more conflicted about what kind of world we’d have if everyone chose this strategy. But, it’s not unprincipled. The principle is Focus on What You Can Control/Do and put all your energy into that.
At the same time, I’m definitely less informed. Though I’m quite surprised how much still permeates despite me not “going looking”.
Generally, I think it’s more healthy to focus on what you can control and what you have agency over. You can choose what to be outraged over national/global events (and do nothing) or you can instead focus that energy on Doing Something closer to home that’s important to you. Which is the better trade?
I’m somewhat conflicted on being less informed esp with big changes happening. And even more conflicted about what kind of world we’d have if everyone chose this strategy. But, it’s not unprincipled. The principle is Focus on What You Can Control/Do and put all your energy into that.
Well said. Something that occurred to me after writing the parent comment is that this is also an act of protest. Really the only one at my disposal. By depriving these news outlets of my eyeballs I am no longer participating in the incentive structure that created them. Furthermore, our current president is a well-known attention seeker who doesn't care what you think as long as it's about him. The biggest middle finger I can give that asshole is my total lack of interest or attention in anything he's doing.
This exactly, even before November.
I finally saw the futility when there were 10,000 articles about Trump tweeting "covfefe".
I finally saw the futility when there were 10,000 articles about Trump tweeting "covfefe".
I basically just get my news from the onion now.
Onion news are just news from the future.
I hope you're right about that: https://theonion.com/trump-executed-1850257714/
It's unfortunate that so many people are radicalized today.
A recent financial report on the media industry noted The Onion is on the verge of collapse due to, quote, “not being able to able to make sh*t up that is more idiotic than current reality.”
Optimism might be bland but I can't help it!
Prior to social media, we all had incredibly conflicting views, just wasn't in our faces all the time to get outraged about! So the trick is to remember, by having these discussions/disagreements, we're actually making progress. We hear the loudest voices, but there's always smart and sincere people quietly reading and learning, which is a brilliant outcome!
If you find yourself getting outraged, be disciplined and switch activities (exercise, go for a walk, or turn off the source).
I definitely wouldn't leave social media though! Instead, harness them! Train those algos to give you science, book clubs, fascinating music niches, travel, culture - go deep, explore, and 'follow' liberally - you can very easily remove yourself from a group/page. I've found insanely interesting chemistry and physics pages, not to mention domains I never even knew existed, like color theory and a handful of others. Once you start clicking on politics, you'll only get more of it. Click on the good stuff!
Prior to social media, we all had incredibly conflicting views, just wasn't in our faces all the time to get outraged about! So the trick is to remember, by having these discussions/disagreements, we're actually making progress. We hear the loudest voices, but there's always smart and sincere people quietly reading and learning, which is a brilliant outcome!
If you find yourself getting outraged, be disciplined and switch activities (exercise, go for a walk, or turn off the source).
I definitely wouldn't leave social media though! Instead, harness them! Train those algos to give you science, book clubs, fascinating music niches, travel, culture - go deep, explore, and 'follow' liberally - you can very easily remove yourself from a group/page. I've found insanely interesting chemistry and physics pages, not to mention domains I never even knew existed, like color theory and a handful of others. Once you start clicking on politics, you'll only get more of it. Click on the good stuff!
> I definitely wouldn't leave social media though! Instead, harness them! Train those algos to give you science, book clubs, fascinating music niches, travel, culture - go deep, explore, and 'follow' liberally - you can very easily remove yourself from a group/page. I've found insanely interesting chemistry and physics pages, not to mention domains I never even knew existed, like color theory and a handful of others. Once you start clicking on politics, you'll only get more of it. Click on the good stuff!
Sorry, but that last paragraph sounds like AI generated Meta PR.
Sorry, but that last paragraph sounds like AI generated Meta PR.
Ha, fair! 'Sounding like an LLM' might be the ~2025 equivalent of being called an NPC. But it could also imply good grammar.
To put it another way, ditching a medium entirely is the incorrect strategy; akin to refusing to read books just because there's many bad ones - obviously, instead, we select the good ones and read those. Same goes for social media pages/groups/profiles
To put it another way, ditching a medium entirely is the incorrect strategy; akin to refusing to read books just because there's many bad ones - obviously, instead, we select the good ones and read those. Same goes for social media pages/groups/profiles
There is no use in staying "informed" in the current societal environment, there is no propaganda-free information floating around anymore, if there ever was. As long as one is aware of that basic fact then things will fall into line more easily.
And, yes, I have been in the boat of "trying to stay informed" for almost 20 years now, as in I was actually paying money for The Economist and the Financial Times, but around a couple of years ago (in fact three, since the war in Ukraine started for good) I realized that they were as propaganda-infested as the rest of the media and that was the end of my journey of trying to remain "informed". No information gathering and receiving is neutral, none at all.
And, yes, I have been in the boat of "trying to stay informed" for almost 20 years now, as in I was actually paying money for The Economist and the Financial Times, but around a couple of years ago (in fact three, since the war in Ukraine started for good) I realized that they were as propaganda-infested as the rest of the media and that was the end of my journey of trying to remain "informed". No information gathering and receiving is neutral, none at all.
I gave up social media for this reason. EVERYTHING is so politicised and agenda-centric on all platforms and news sites.
It was effecting me really badly, to the point that I made the decision to leave the room when the news is playing, switch to a dumb phone, switch to an mp3 player, and get rid of all social media including reddit. So I don’t use a smartphone, and don’t carry it with me day-day.
On my laptop I even went as far as blacklisting all the typical sites.
I’m only 30. It’s very hard when it feels like you’re alone in acting this way. It’s a very isolating life trying to have principals.
I also recently learnt I have adhd, so that may be why I’m so sensitive to it.
But like i say, it’s an isolating feeling.
It was effecting me really badly, to the point that I made the decision to leave the room when the news is playing, switch to a dumb phone, switch to an mp3 player, and get rid of all social media including reddit. So I don’t use a smartphone, and don’t carry it with me day-day.
On my laptop I even went as far as blacklisting all the typical sites.
I’m only 30. It’s very hard when it feels like you’re alone in acting this way. It’s a very isolating life trying to have principals.
I also recently learnt I have adhd, so that may be why I’m so sensitive to it.
But like i say, it’s an isolating feeling.
I did the same thing but brought back Facebook and Instagram. The controls are great if you spend time filtering — I actually enjoy both now.
If you want to stay informed. Apple News. Same deal, filter away. Ditch The NY Times and pick a few newspapers domestic and international. You’ll get news without the bullshit:
If you want to stay informed. Apple News. Same deal, filter away. Ditch The NY Times and pick a few newspapers domestic and international. You’ll get news without the bullshit:
I don’t want to stay informed though. What’s the point? You can’t really do anything about events in life anyway outside your own family and yourself. You can only react. So I just don’t stay informed anymore. Ignorance is bliss
Fair. In my line of work, certain things are relevant to my work life and it’s good to know. In fairness my focus is local and features.
I don’t really care about what Clarence Thomas was bribed about today.
I don’t really care about what Clarence Thomas was bribed about today.
You're not alone, there's dozens of us.
The way I see it, for a piece of news to hold value, it must have 2 properties:
1. Actionable: can this news inform how you go about your life in some way? 2. Primary Source: it must come straight from the source, to avoid manipulation of the original info
The vast majority of news doesn't have either quality, let alone both.
Just like how "staying fed" often amounts to people eating junk food rather than quality stuff that gives them the actual nourishment their body needs, "staying informed" amounts to people scratching their curiosity itch with global gossip, rather than with actionable information.
1. Actionable: can this news inform how you go about your life in some way? 2. Primary Source: it must come straight from the source, to avoid manipulation of the original info
The vast majority of news doesn't have either quality, let alone both.
Just like how "staying fed" often amounts to people eating junk food rather than quality stuff that gives them the actual nourishment their body needs, "staying informed" amounts to people scratching their curiosity itch with global gossip, rather than with actionable information.
I've always found sports to be moronic. People sit glued to their TV staring at big men in tights pass a pigskin around. All people who like sports talk about is how those men passed that ball around, or who they think is gonna pass the ball around next. Let's trade stats and figures about the big men in tights. Ooh, did you see what the big man in tights did?
Politics is now just sports where people in business suits pass moronic comments around. Same pointless drama, same fans commenting about the pointless action, glued to their TVs.
I quit all news the first time Trump was in office. I didn't miss anything. Important information filters through culture, you can't avoid it. But you'll notice soon you have absolutely no idea who it is people are talking about constantly. And it turns out, nothing in your life changes now that you're "uninformed", except you have more free time and you're less stressed out.
Politics is now just sports where people in business suits pass moronic comments around. Same pointless drama, same fans commenting about the pointless action, glued to their TVs.
I quit all news the first time Trump was in office. I didn't miss anything. Important information filters through culture, you can't avoid it. But you'll notice soon you have absolutely no idea who it is people are talking about constantly. And it turns out, nothing in your life changes now that you're "uninformed", except you have more free time and you're less stressed out.
"No matter what you believe, I’m willing to bet you’ve been feeling a lot of outrage lately."
Is it true that most people are feeling lots of outrage? Why?
The vibe I get from the left is outrage. The vibe I get from the right is relief and happiness. And the vibe of the likely-majority (i.e., the non-political) is probably just a desire to get on with life.
I can see there being lots of anxiety (e.g., over AI, automation, China-US relations, etc...). But anxiety is different from outrage.
Is it true that most people are feeling lots of outrage? Why?
The vibe I get from the left is outrage. The vibe I get from the right is relief and happiness. And the vibe of the likely-majority (i.e., the non-political) is probably just a desire to get on with life.
I can see there being lots of anxiety (e.g., over AI, automation, China-US relations, etc...). But anxiety is different from outrage.
Social media, rage bait, politics are more polarized than ever before. Now it's basically like rooting for your favorite sports team.
Scientific American: "It's so bad that we live in such polarised times."
Also Scientific American:
Science journal editor resigns after calling Gen X fascists over Trump win
Laura Helmuth leaves Scientific American following controversial social media posts in which she lashed out at ‘bigoted’ voters
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2024/11/15/laura-helmuth...
Also Scientific American:
Science journal editor resigns after calling Gen X fascists over Trump win
Laura Helmuth leaves Scientific American following controversial social media posts in which she lashed out at ‘bigoted’ voters
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2024/11/15/laura-helmuth...
The irony of clicking a link to an article about “outrage fatigue” only to find it’s not even an article but a playboy style interview that goes on for several pages. Outrageous.
> And this just really has been accelerating, I guess, in the last few years because of our political polarization and other world events.
Feels like the causality might be the other way around.
Feels like the causality might be the other way around.
This has been very difficult over the last couple weeks.
I mainly read Reuters now. It's refreshingly boring.
The best way is to make sure you are actually trading or making predictions where you lose if you are deeply wrong.
Outrage about "news" is usually from the kind of people who get upset about desriptions of reality and things like that. They usually read the NYT or the Atlantic and never trade or predict and they don't realize it is useless, wrong or just way to late.
Outrage about "news" is usually from the kind of people who get upset about desriptions of reality and things like that. They usually read the NYT or the Atlantic and never trade or predict and they don't realize it is useless, wrong or just way to late.
Here's a ready-made idea for a high value AI app. Present to me the view of my favorite websites with all outrage clickbait hidden or re-worded in neutral, non-clickbait language. Better yet if you can also focus on the topics that I actually want to read about. Currently all the news apps without exception are the polar opposite of this, so I don't use them.
Funny this is a thing that people in some country need to work through. Personally, I have to fight the feeling of sadness and guilt every time I read about things going on around me that I should but do not do something to help. For the things that I am powerless against, honestly I have zero emotion, much less outrage.
So if Trump announced some action that would impinge on you, you would have zero emotion? Your stoicism may be a reflection of the fact that you estimate you will not be affected.
Consuming quality content over overconsumption is the key. Plus if you have already crossed multiple levels of outrage fatigue, then at that point you should be aware of it, hence becoming more calm in future. If you see what is in front of you and know you cannot change anything, why outrage? why fatigue? just move on.
> Feltman: Yeah, and what is it about outrage that helps misinformation spread?
> Lewis: So I think part of it is the fact that it’s more engaging. It, you know, activates your emotions, and so people are more primed to respond to that.
This is why upvote-style forums, like Hacker News, need to be treated with heavy scrutiny. They are hard-wired to bubble out of control when an opinion is the right combination of popular and passionate.
One way we can improve this situation, as contributors, is to try to stick to more logical, dispassionate responses. This is difficult to do because we all feel like what we are writing is the most important thing in the world and everyone else needs to read it.
> Lewis: So I think part of it is the fact that it’s more engaging. It, you know, activates your emotions, and so people are more primed to respond to that.
This is why upvote-style forums, like Hacker News, need to be treated with heavy scrutiny. They are hard-wired to bubble out of control when an opinion is the right combination of popular and passionate.
One way we can improve this situation, as contributors, is to try to stick to more logical, dispassionate responses. This is difficult to do because we all feel like what we are writing is the most important thing in the world and everyone else needs to read it.
Not exactly a social network but I am kind of addicted to the Google Home curated list of news - that thing on Android (maybe just Pixel?) when you swipe all the way to the left.
I read it every morning in bed.
It contains all the topics I'm interested in as it knows me probably better than I know myself.
I read it every morning in bed.
It contains all the topics I'm interested in as it knows me probably better than I know myself.
If you're outraged by anything that does not directly impact your life you're doing life wrong. We all have limited time and energy. I have never been able to understand people who get emotional over things they read online that have no impact on their day to day life.
> I have never been able to understand people who get emotional over things they read online that have no impact on their day to day life.
Maybe they have more empathy for the plight of others?
Also, it is often the case that the events of today which don't directly affect you, if not stopped, will affect you before you know it, at which point it is too late to do anything about.
Maybe they have more empathy for the plight of others?
Also, it is often the case that the events of today which don't directly affect you, if not stopped, will affect you before you know it, at which point it is too late to do anything about.
> If you're outraged by anything that does not directly impact your life you're doing life wrong.
This is a pointless truism. Everything relies on "does not directly impact your life", and there's no useful guidance on that point.
This is a pointless truism. Everything relies on "does not directly impact your life", and there's no useful guidance on that point.
It's not pointless at all- it's the core idea behind Stoic philosophy aka "the dichotomy of control," and has proven very effective at improving people's mental health through modern therapy methods like CBT and ACT.
One can still do everything in their power to prepare for, and mitigate things outside their control, while still keeping in mind what is in your control and isn't so you don't become emotionally dependent on outcomes outside your control, which is ruinous for mental health.
Having empathy, and caring about doing the right thing actually work better when you stop obsessing over and wasting all of your energy on things you cannot control.
One can still do everything in their power to prepare for, and mitigate things outside their control, while still keeping in mind what is in your control and isn't so you don't become emotionally dependent on outcomes outside your control, which is ruinous for mental health.
Having empathy, and caring about doing the right thing actually work better when you stop obsessing over and wasting all of your energy on things you cannot control.
You do have influence. How much is up to your ingenuity and effort. You may choose not to exercise it.
Of course you do, that's the whole point: to focus on what you actually can control- your own actions, which absolutely includes using your own ingenuity and effort to influence things for the better.
I know, but what do I do about global warming and microplastics? Our leaders don't seem to care.
Assuming this is not a joke, do whatever makes you feel best knowing that you as an individual have negligible impact on the outcome. Personally I don't worry one bit about these two issues because (1) they do not seem to effect my daily life except when I need to drink through a crappy cardboard straw (2) I do not expect them to impact my daily life in the foreseeable future (3) most important I as an individual can not change the way things are and I find I am happiest when I don't worry about things I can't control so I choose not to worry and some how despite my indolent individual choice the world goes on and the sky doesn't fall. (4) I personally believe the harms of these two things have been greatly exaggerated by people with an interest in doing so. (5) my time on earth is limited why waste it being manipulated by words and pictures I see on a screen to be pointlessly anxious or outraged for someone else's benefit at the cost of my own happiness?
I think it's always worth keeping in mind that every single piece of media you consume was created primarily to benefit its creator and almost always the relationship is parasitic (you're the host). Only rarely does media engage in mutualism.
I don't think people become journalists with that mindset.
And yet the things they write primarily benefit themselves (nobody pays the rent by reading the news). So, then: how does that shape what journalists write?
It will not lessen your outrage, but I recently built a news search engine that pulls from 200 selected sources for a more limited, spam-free experience.
https://mozberg.com
This article just says to turn off the phone and go outside. Saved you 5 minutes
[deleted]
Been there, done that. I've tried to stay informed but not outraged for the last 8 years and it didn't make a damn bit of difference. I got involved in local issues, I phone banked, I tried to put my money where it would do the most good.
I'm out. I'm hiding away and hoping nothing affects me personally, and if it does I'm not going to think there's anything I could have done about it.
We're not in control anymore. Not unless there are any tech billionaires lurking on HN, and they don't give a shit about us.
I'm out. I'm hiding away and hoping nothing affects me personally, and if it does I'm not going to think there's anything I could have done about it.
We're not in control anymore. Not unless there are any tech billionaires lurking on HN, and they don't give a shit about us.
> Not unless there are any tech billionaires lurking on HN, and they don't give a shit about us.
If I understand correctly, they are mostly busy taking over the country at the moment. No time for HN..
If I understand correctly, they are mostly busy taking over the country at the moment. No time for HN..
Well while for the most folks which feel a fatigue now, we felt the fatigue the last years.
Now daily the old fatigue gets slayed away by the great president of the United States and we have joy.
Now daily the old fatigue gets slayed away by the great president of the United States and we have joy.
Is your outrage changing anything?
Is your outrage helping or hurting your mental health?
Is your outrage helping or hurting your relationships?
Choose a different path
Choose a different path
Personally, I fixed the problem by not bothering with "staying informed" at all. I ditched media outside of local news entirely, and just don't engage with things that I can't do anything about. It would boil down to "focus on things you can control." Sure, it's fun to be outraged together with your friends about "X leader in Y country does Z crazy thing" but.. can you do anything about it? Does your opinion matter? Is there value in engaging with it? Turns out the answer is almost always no (unless you're suffering from main-character-syndrome, of course), so what's the point?
Focus on you. What are you doing today? What do you need to reflect on from yesterday? What do you need to plan for tomorrow? Don't waste cycles on things that are out of your scope.
Focus on you. What are you doing today? What do you need to reflect on from yesterday? What do you need to plan for tomorrow? Don't waste cycles on things that are out of your scope.
> It would boil down to "focus on things you can control"
If it only was so simple. How to define such things? Case in point: the biggest "outrage factor" seems to be politics. Well - _can_ you control your country's government? Yes, you can - however not directly. And this means that "I don't care about politics" stance is bad.
edit: spelling
If it only was so simple. How to define such things? Case in point: the biggest "outrage factor" seems to be politics. Well - _can_ you control your country's government? Yes, you can - however not directly. And this means that "I don't care about politics" stance is bad.
edit: spelling
It's an excellent point, but is there value in you (as an American, I presume) being around-the-clock outraged for the next four years? Or does it make sense for you to do some research and make a decision in the few weeks leading up to an election? What can you "control" here in the other 206 weeks of the current term?
I'm not saying you shouldn't care about politics at all. But politics in a country you're not a citizen of are irrelevant. And politics in your own country only really matter when it's time to vote, right? So what's the value in "staying informed" outside of that narrow window?
I'm not saying you shouldn't care about politics at all. But politics in a country you're not a citizen of are irrelevant. And politics in your own country only really matter when it's time to vote, right? So what's the value in "staying informed" outside of that narrow window?
> And politics in your own country only really matter when it's time to vote, right?
Not really, since by the time you get to vote, it might, for example, so happen that there are no real opposition candidates, because they are effectively blocked from running. Or the opposition is there, but is locked out from all the usual mass propaganda outlets (TV etc).
Not really, since by the time you get to vote, it might, for example, so happen that there are no real opposition candidates, because they are effectively blocked from running. Or the opposition is there, but is locked out from all the usual mass propaganda outlets (TV etc).
Not that it would've ever changed my vote, but the candidate was going to win my state regardless of how I voted. Even if I and every other person who is psychologically capable of choosing the other candidate... they were always going to win this state. So no, I can't control my government. I've known this a long while now, I'm not a fool.
>es, you can - however not directly. And this means that "I don't care about politics" stance is bad.
Though you might not be aware of it, you're repeating propaganda that actually aids some nebulous group of people. It seeks to recruit me and my efforts to further their purposes, none of which overlap my own significantly. I can't exert significant indirect influence either. And if I were to pool my insignificant influence with others (such as you suggest) to influence government, it would almost certainly be towards ends I do not agree with. I can be used by others, so to speak, but no one's on my side.
I might get to watch one group I don't agree with go killdozer on another group I don't agree with, and it will be entertaining to watch supposing I can maintain enough distance from the carnage.
>es, you can - however not directly. And this means that "I don't care about politics" stance is bad.
Though you might not be aware of it, you're repeating propaganda that actually aids some nebulous group of people. It seeks to recruit me and my efforts to further their purposes, none of which overlap my own significantly. I can't exert significant indirect influence either. And if I were to pool my insignificant influence with others (such as you suggest) to influence government, it would almost certainly be towards ends I do not agree with. I can be used by others, so to speak, but no one's on my side.
I might get to watch one group I don't agree with go killdozer on another group I don't agree with, and it will be entertaining to watch supposing I can maintain enough distance from the carnage.
Of course you can affect your country’s government. You can take five minutes every few years to decide who to vote for (spending more on that seems like a waste of time considering the payoff).
More than that though. You can protest and organize however much you like. There’s no cap on that.
And that is how insidious “news” is. The news broadcasts the hegemonic mindset. The same mindset that says that citizens’ only role is to vote every few years. Other than that they are supposed to stay home. Certainly not make a ruckus or anything.
And that’s what many conclude. That they are only supposed to be political in a direct, consequential sense by voting. Then it is clearly absurd, from a cost-benefit analysis standpoint, to stay ever-constantly informed on politics all the time.
More than that though. You can protest and organize however much you like. There’s no cap on that.
And that is how insidious “news” is. The news broadcasts the hegemonic mindset. The same mindset that says that citizens’ only role is to vote every few years. Other than that they are supposed to stay home. Certainly not make a ruckus or anything.
And that’s what many conclude. That they are only supposed to be political in a direct, consequential sense by voting. Then it is clearly absurd, from a cost-benefit analysis standpoint, to stay ever-constantly informed on politics all the time.
You can control it. But if you're controlling it based on the media's interpretation then you are the one being controlled. Turn off the TV and vote based on how things affect you locally. I think that's what the previous commenter means.
If you're a citizen of a democracy and you only focus on you, then when it comes time to vote you'll be voting randomly. Or maybe you don't vote and thereby cede control to your neighbors to make decisions for you over the environment in which you live. Assuming you decide to vote then, and since you don't live in a vacuum, your vote will be based on whatever random stuff leaked through to you during the time you were "focusing on you". Actually it's not random. It's whoever spent the most time and money on the propaganda that influences/buys your vote.
So it's not really that simple is it?
So it's not really that simple is it?
> when it comes time to vote you'll be voting randomly
Not at all, I think citizens have an obligation to vote, and an obligation to do their research when it's time to vote. But let's say that takes you a week. Why bother being focused on the outrage during the rest of the term? What value is there to you being mad at whatever politician on week 15 of their 208 week term? If anything, I'd say "staying informed" is a hinderance, because you'll always just be focused on the issue-of-the-day and build mental biases rather than being able to take a wider view of what the politician implemented, and how it played out over a period of time afterwards.
Whether you're influenced by facts or "propaganda" unfortunately depends entirely on your own research and critical thinking skills, and has little to do with timing.
Not at all, I think citizens have an obligation to vote, and an obligation to do their research when it's time to vote. But let's say that takes you a week. Why bother being focused on the outrage during the rest of the term? What value is there to you being mad at whatever politician on week 15 of their 208 week term? If anything, I'd say "staying informed" is a hinderance, because you'll always just be focused on the issue-of-the-day and build mental biases rather than being able to take a wider view of what the politician implemented, and how it played out over a period of time afterwards.
Whether you're influenced by facts or "propaganda" unfortunately depends entirely on your own research and critical thinking skills, and has little to do with timing.
Do you know about referendums? Recall elections? Snap elections? Midterm elections? Strikes and protests? Or how about just letting your representative know how you'll vote in their next election to deter bad behavior they're conducting in the current moment?
Must be nice for the current American administration to have 4 years of no democratic oversight to do whatever they want.
Must be nice for the current American administration to have 4 years of no democratic oversight to do whatever they want.
There might not be much of a difference in your mental health condensing 2-4 years' of rage into just one week.
Perhaps another strategy could be to maintain an awareness of the motivations and tactics of publishers/content creators, and that could be enough as an inoculation.
I imagine a clown on the street trying to enrage me, and I being aware of what it's trying to do, instead just laugh at it.
Today I walked into a restaurant with a cable TV news channel blaring on about the "invasion of men" into women's college sports. They offered no proof, just a continuous barrage of commentary. As I waited for my sandwich I watched one after another, with just continuous outrage. No proof, no on-site reporters, no B tape, nothing at all to support the claims being made. It was like watching bad science fiction of an alternate universe. I chuckled nervously as I looked around and wondered if the others there actually believed it. None of them were laughing.
Perhaps another strategy could be to maintain an awareness of the motivations and tactics of publishers/content creators, and that could be enough as an inoculation.
I imagine a clown on the street trying to enrage me, and I being aware of what it's trying to do, instead just laugh at it.
Today I walked into a restaurant with a cable TV news channel blaring on about the "invasion of men" into women's college sports. They offered no proof, just a continuous barrage of commentary. As I waited for my sandwich I watched one after another, with just continuous outrage. No proof, no on-site reporters, no B tape, nothing at all to support the claims being made. It was like watching bad science fiction of an alternate universe. I chuckled nervously as I looked around and wondered if the others there actually believed it. None of them were laughing.
Democracy works if everyone votes for the thing(s) they care about. You likely don’t need a news site for information about that.
Except in most "democracies" there is no direct voting on issues. Instead you vote for parties or people who you believe align with your values.
To find out about those people/parties you probably need "news"
How on earth do you need a newspaper to tell you which political party aligns with your values?
Depending on where you live, there’s 2-10 parties. You know who they are and what they want. If you want to affect the outcome you can get involved in your local politics; being glued to NYT.com all day isn’t changing one thing except wasting time.
Depending on where you live, there’s 2-10 parties. You know who they are and what they want. If you want to affect the outcome you can get involved in your local politics; being glued to NYT.com all day isn’t changing one thing except wasting time.
There is an equilibrium to find. democracy isn't just showing up every 4 or 5 years to drop a piece of paper in a box.
Most countries have rights to protest, organise, strike, for a reason. Most of these rights were gained after long fights in which single individual was meaningless but together they moved contains. You have to know when to pull back but you also have to know when to dive in
Most countries have rights to protest, organise, strike, for a reason. Most of these rights were gained after long fights in which single individual was meaningless but together they moved contains. You have to know when to pull back but you also have to know when to dive in
What am I doing today? Taking care of my son. Trying to have another child. What do I need to plan for tomorrow? How am I going to vaccinate my child next year? How do I get my wife medical care if she has another unviable pregnancy? How small of a life you must lead that you can just not engage.
All fair points. I'm having trouble understanding how this relates to the outrage-centered media, however.
Current top stories on the CNN frontpage are:
> Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship is blocked nationwide
> Trump’s Gaza plan is the most outlandish in region’s peacemaking history
> China is building a giant laser to generate the energy of the stars, satellite images appear to show
Is your child not a citizen? Are you child's vaccines related to Gaza, somehow? Will China's laser affect your wife's pregnancy?
Why do you feel the need to engage with this?
Current top stories on the CNN frontpage are:
> Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship is blocked nationwide
> Trump’s Gaza plan is the most outlandish in region’s peacemaking history
> China is building a giant laser to generate the energy of the stars, satellite images appear to show
Is your child not a citizen? Are you child's vaccines related to Gaza, somehow? Will China's laser affect your wife's pregnancy?
Why do you feel the need to engage with this?
So your argument to not engaging is that my argument isn’t sufficiently updated to the onslaught of news today? RFK passed committee yesterday. Trump planning to use our military for a middle east genocide isn’t something that I should worry about?!? Where were you on 9/11?
Will worrying stop Trump? I believe that is the overarching point here.
Stressing over things you can't/won't impact is largely a waste of time and energy. Your worry wont help Gaza.
Stressing over things you can't/won't impact is largely a waste of time and energy. Your worry wont help Gaza.
Worrying is a precursor for planning and action. I have agency. We all do. Sad that you squander yours.
Definitionally there is no action that you will or can take about the things I said not to worry about, since I made that the condition. Comon man, at least read the comment.
I didn't say "never worry about anything ever".
I didn't say "never worry about anything ever".
Unfortunately, I'm not sure that it is a viable strategy long term.
When you finally decide to pay attention, there is a chance that you will not be able to easily absorb everything that leads to the situation so you will lack any perspective of the past events.
We live in an extremely dense and complex times, staying informed is very difficult as it is even when you try to pay attention.
When you finally decide to pay attention, there is a chance that you will not be able to easily absorb everything that leads to the situation so you will lack any perspective of the past events.
We live in an extremely dense and complex times, staying informed is very difficult as it is even when you try to pay attention.
You can do all three: (1) focus on you etc, (2) take an interest in global events, and (3) not get outraged. It really is possible.
Perhaps it depends on the individual, but I never found it possible.
The news just made me sad, sad and angry most of the time, it's just a stream of 24/7 misery and if there's not enough misery going on locally the news will find misery from around the world to fill the run time.
The news just made me sad, sad and angry most of the time, it's just a stream of 24/7 misery and if there's not enough misery going on locally the news will find misery from around the world to fill the run time.
What helped me is to realize: Sadness and anger come from within, not from the outside. Nobody can "make" you mad. They will do what they do, and it's up to us to decide if and how to emotionally respond to it. We are not amoebas that simply respond to stimulus. We have agency over our own thoughts and feelings. This is something I try to teach my kid, and I think it's also helped her deal with others who she would previously say "made her mad."
I think "deciding whether to emotionally respond" to something... isn't emotion?
Emotion is something you feel, not something you decide to allow yourself to feel.
Like, if I hear about someone being raped or murdered, how am I not going to have an emotional reaction of sadness or anger to that? And ultimately what use was that emotion? I cannot prevent the event happening, it has already happened, I am just a voyeur to someone else's tragedy.
Most of the news is like that. It's events that have already happened, that I can do nothing about but I'm vaguely meant to be up to date with because.... reasons? Some vague concept that everyone is meant to have an inch deep understanding of current events so they've got something to gossip about?
I truly don't see the point or the benefit.
Emotion is something you feel, not something you decide to allow yourself to feel.
Like, if I hear about someone being raped or murdered, how am I not going to have an emotional reaction of sadness or anger to that? And ultimately what use was that emotion? I cannot prevent the event happening, it has already happened, I am just a voyeur to someone else's tragedy.
Most of the news is like that. It's events that have already happened, that I can do nothing about but I'm vaguely meant to be up to date with because.... reasons? Some vague concept that everyone is meant to have an inch deep understanding of current events so they've got something to gossip about?
I truly don't see the point or the benefit.
> Emotion is something you feel, not something you decide to allow yourself to feel.
Recognizing your emotions when you are making a decision is key. The emotions you feel will largely be outside your control but you can catch a thought you disagree with when you have it and wonder what triggered that thought. If the trigger was an emotion, you can wonder what triggered the emotion. Ask "five whys" (google it if you don't know what I mean). You have more control over this than you seem to think; you will just have to practice exercising it.
Recognizing your emotions when you are making a decision is key. The emotions you feel will largely be outside your control but you can catch a thought you disagree with when you have it and wonder what triggered that thought. If the trigger was an emotion, you can wonder what triggered the emotion. Ask "five whys" (google it if you don't know what I mean). You have more control over this than you seem to think; you will just have to practice exercising it.
The simplest way to control your inner life is to not let whatever miserable output in. In other words turn it off.
It’s really entitled (by whom? who knows) to say that people have control over their inner lives as a response to the News being misery-inducing (according to them). Yeah. So turn it off. You don’t own the outside world your attention.
It’s really entitled (by whom? who knows) to say that people have control over their inner lives as a response to the News being misery-inducing (according to them). Yeah. So turn it off. You don’t own the outside world your attention.
* you don’t owe
https://neuters.de
Simple, no ads, and with just the headlines it's enough.
Simple, no ads, and with just the headlines it's enough.
Those who have outrage are the same people that think they are calm, reasonable, considerate and don't have outrage, at all.
> …limiting yourself to checking the news a couple times a day instead of, like, every hour or, you know, getting those alerts on your phone all the time.
A couple times a day? Who needs to check the news that often? I’ve not checked the news at all this year and it hasn’t negatively impacted me at all.
A couple times a day? Who needs to check the news that often? I’ve not checked the news at all this year and it hasn’t negatively impacted me at all.
I highly recommend to install a browser extension that hides the social feed off of social media sites. Incredibly effective.
I just quit Twitter and changed to Bluesky and all the bots and spam and outrage just disappeared.
[deleted]
One thing I first started noticing in the 2000s on sites like kuro5hin were young conservatives.
Like I mean 20 year old's using conservative talking points, mostly in an absolutist aggressive sort of way. Many I guess were coming at it from Rand's 'philosophical' writings. (Basically an overly intellectual cover for being an asshole).
I remember asking them on that site with a post: "Why are you young guys conservative?" I mean they weren't religious, or at least none of them cited this as a motivation, they weren't rich so they had nothing to 'conserve'. I remember being like WTF?
Looking back on it now I think most of them were in it for the trolling. Conservative thought often skews insensitive and absolutist, so I guess these dudes were using it as a basis to troll more sensitive posters.
Now 25years later and we are living the consequences of a 4chan presidency.
Like I mean 20 year old's using conservative talking points, mostly in an absolutist aggressive sort of way. Many I guess were coming at it from Rand's 'philosophical' writings. (Basically an overly intellectual cover for being an asshole).
I remember asking them on that site with a post: "Why are you young guys conservative?" I mean they weren't religious, or at least none of them cited this as a motivation, they weren't rich so they had nothing to 'conserve'. I remember being like WTF?
Looking back on it now I think most of them were in it for the trolling. Conservative thought often skews insensitive and absolutist, so I guess these dudes were using it as a basis to troll more sensitive posters.
Now 25years later and we are living the consequences of a 4chan presidency.
From TFA: There’s actually a recent study by William Brady, an assistant professor of management and organizations at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management. He and his colleagues found that outrage actually helps misinformation spread more widely, especially online on social media.
No specific study was linked from the transcript. Brady's works indexed by Google Scholar there is "Misinformation exploits outrage to spread online" by KL McLoughlin, WJ Brady, A Goolsbee, B Kaiser, K Klonick, MJ Crockett, published in Science 386 (6725), 991-996. [1] Two of moral outrage's properties are interestingly counter to one another. Expressions of outrage are often orthogonal to truth/falsity and expressing outrage imbues trustworthiness.
[O]utrage expressions can serve communicative goals that do not depend on information accuracy, such as signaling loyalty to a political group or broadcasting a moral stance. Consequently, outrage-evoking misinformation may be difficult to mitigate with interventions such as fact-checking or accuracy prompts that assume users want to share accurate information.
[I]ndividuals who express outrage are seen as more trustworthy. This suggests that news sources might gain a credibility advantage by posting outrageous content.
0. https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=ysiWkJMAAAAJ...
1. https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.adl2829
No specific study was linked from the transcript. Brady's works indexed by Google Scholar there is "Misinformation exploits outrage to spread online" by KL McLoughlin, WJ Brady, A Goolsbee, B Kaiser, K Klonick, MJ Crockett, published in Science 386 (6725), 991-996. [1] Two of moral outrage's properties are interestingly counter to one another. Expressions of outrage are often orthogonal to truth/falsity and expressing outrage imbues trustworthiness.
[O]utrage expressions can serve communicative goals that do not depend on information accuracy, such as signaling loyalty to a political group or broadcasting a moral stance. Consequently, outrage-evoking misinformation may be difficult to mitigate with interventions such as fact-checking or accuracy prompts that assume users want to share accurate information.
[I]ndividuals who express outrage are seen as more trustworthy. This suggests that news sources might gain a credibility advantage by posting outrageous content.
0. https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=ysiWkJMAAAAJ...
1. https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.adl2829
"Mute words" goes a long way. Every platform should have it.
If you truly need to know breaking news, one of the following is probably true:
- you have a team that will brief you on it
- you will get the news that apply to you from the source
You won’t get either of these from a news website.
As a civilian, you can stay completely up to date with a quick weekly / monthly headline scan.
- you have a team that will brief you on it
- you will get the news that apply to you from the source
You won’t get either of these from a news website.
As a civilian, you can stay completely up to date with a quick weekly / monthly headline scan.
"Pay less attention, otherwise you might become apathetic." Granted, mass media is generally slop (this article being no exception), but that's all the more reason one should observe and think carefully.
What is actually outrageous is that Scientific American publishes articles like this. It's an institution that, like so many, is destroying itself by getting into politics, especially the politics of outrage.
Yep, Scientific American took a huge swing towards activism after the 2016 elections. The other comments claiming it has always been political are gaslighting. It got captured the same way much of mainstream media was. This article is just the latest proof of it.
Active Balancing Habits. Reminders to self of thd things that as an indivual you/I are doing that offset the enshitification.
Like I am now extra happy that I cant stand the taste of store bought eggs, and hope that others can get past thete outrage at the prices, and thrn evauate if they actualy feel better, just by not eating the sulferous nasty things.
And more selfish, me time, personal care, foooood,
foooood, yummy fooood.
and pushing myself to work harder and use my creativity to overcome the inane obsticles to,.....
everything
finnishing all the things on my list
having a lot of lists
crumpling up, checked off lists, and useing the paper to light my stove, which heats my tea
and so when I do face the shitstorm of events, I have the energy to take it, get mad
and put that energy back into the things on my list, or one of the many random, oh.....that needs
doing.....now!
The real challenge is rewiring our own habits
[deleted]
> "No matter what you believe, I’m willing to bet you’ve been feeling a lot of outrage lately. To me personally, it feels unavoidable: I can’t look down at my phone or glance up at a TV without seeing something that makes me upset."
Umm no, I've not felt any outrage.
Not because I'm particularly satisfied with any recent political events, but because I've stopped consuming daily news from outlets where generating outrage has become a financial incentive.
I'm not on FB, my only use of social media is to help co-ordinate my kids' lives. I never watch TV, I've no idea what today's mainstream media clickbait stories are, I'm just not that interested.
Umm no, I've not felt any outrage.
Not because I'm particularly satisfied with any recent political events, but because I've stopped consuming daily news from outlets where generating outrage has become a financial incentive.
I'm not on FB, my only use of social media is to help co-ordinate my kids' lives. I never watch TV, I've no idea what today's mainstream media clickbait stories are, I'm just not that interested.
That's the perk of not being in a targeted minority.
A good way to do this is to avoid reading Scientific American lest one become outraged how a once respected science magazine for lay audiences became overrun by Woke Warriors.
That transcription reads very much like a NotebookLM "podcast" summarising the actual article at https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/outrage-fatigue-i...
While limiting your exposure to "outrage" isn't bad advice, it's just more of the ignoring of the issues that she herself calls out in the beginning of the article.
She mentions that people are using "outrage" issues (abortion, gay rights, critical race theory) "as kind of wedge issues to convince people to vote in ways that might be against their own self-interest"...
GREAT! We need more tips on how to train yourself to recognize when that's happening and not get outraged. It boils down to emotional control. If politicians can't use outrage as a tool of control then they'll have to move on (to something better hopefully, but probably not ;).
Here's one tip. If Trump enrages you every time you see him, watch him in a way that allows you to appreciate something about him! He is a cool cucumber. He sheds attacks like water off an umbrella. (whatever, you come up something)... Remember, the goal here is to not let him control your emotions. This isn't about the facts or morality or how he "lies".
She mentions that people are using "outrage" issues (abortion, gay rights, critical race theory) "as kind of wedge issues to convince people to vote in ways that might be against their own self-interest"...
GREAT! We need more tips on how to train yourself to recognize when that's happening and not get outraged. It boils down to emotional control. If politicians can't use outrage as a tool of control then they'll have to move on (to something better hopefully, but probably not ;).
Here's one tip. If Trump enrages you every time you see him, watch him in a way that allows you to appreciate something about him! He is a cool cucumber. He sheds attacks like water off an umbrella. (whatever, you come up something)... Remember, the goal here is to not let him control your emotions. This isn't about the facts or morality or how he "lies".
[deleted]
>> It's been like what, only two weeks? This shit is exhausting already.
> It's meant to exhaust you.
* https://twitter.com/RadioFreeTom/status/1886247034664964548
Ezra Klein:
> That is the tension at the heart of Trump’s whole strategy: Trump is acting like a king because he is too weak to govern like a president. He is trying to substitute perception for reality. He is hoping that perception then becomes reality. That can only happen if we believe him. […]
> What Trump wants you to see in all this activity is command. What is really in all this activity is chaos. They do not have some secret reservoir of focus and attention the rest of us do not. They have convinced themselves that speed and force is a strategy unto itself — that it is, in a sense, a replacement for a real strategy. Don’t believe them.
* https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/02/opinion/ezra-klein-podcas...
> It's meant to exhaust you.
* https://twitter.com/RadioFreeTom/status/1886247034664964548
Ezra Klein:
> That is the tension at the heart of Trump’s whole strategy: Trump is acting like a king because he is too weak to govern like a president. He is trying to substitute perception for reality. He is hoping that perception then becomes reality. That can only happen if we believe him. […]
> What Trump wants you to see in all this activity is command. What is really in all this activity is chaos. They do not have some secret reservoir of focus and attention the rest of us do not. They have convinced themselves that speed and force is a strategy unto itself — that it is, in a sense, a replacement for a real strategy. Don’t believe them.
* https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/02/opinion/ezra-klein-podcas...
These quotes and articles are awful. Both sides are so insanely annoying to me. The media has gotten completely out of touch with reality and with people.
okeuro49(4)
No matter what you believe, I’m willing to bet you’ve been feeling a lot of outrage lately.
No. I am in control of how I feel like. Nothing else.
No. I am in control of how I feel like. Nothing else.
That’s an incredible superpower: you could just choose to be happy and bypass most of the hierarchy of needs!
[deleted]
[deleted]
TLDR Summary: limit your intake of social media and news.
yergi(1)
bende511(4)
"Lately"?
The genocide in Gaza has been going intensely for more than a year, dead and mutilated children streamed out pretty much every day. Now it has moved to the West Bank.
Similarly a genocidal process has been ongoing in Sudan, perpetrated by a proxy of the UAE, close partner to the US.
Do usians not see these images and only just now with the new administration's inauguration entered a mood of distress?
The genocide in Gaza has been going intensely for more than a year, dead and mutilated children streamed out pretty much every day. Now it has moved to the West Bank.
Similarly a genocidal process has been ongoing in Sudan, perpetrated by a proxy of the UAE, close partner to the US.
Do usians not see these images and only just now with the new administration's inauguration entered a mood of distress?
Why is it an axiom that we need to "stay informed"? The vast majority of news is things that don't affect you, and of the things that do affect you, the vast majority of that is things you can't do anything about. And if they do affect you you're sure to find out without following the news. The news is tailored to make you feel outraged so that you will consume more of it.
As far as social media goes, just don't follow accounts that are annoying. If some accounts are friends in real life but insufferable online, just mute them. Other than friends I follow accounts about food and pottery, I don't see any reason to get off social media, I love it.
As far as social media goes, just don't follow accounts that are annoying. If some accounts are friends in real life but insufferable online, just mute them. Other than friends I follow accounts about food and pottery, I don't see any reason to get off social media, I love it.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
—Martin Niemöller
the goal of fascist political propaganda is to convince you that you can't do anything about the state of the world. clearly, it worked on you.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
—Martin Niemöller
the goal of fascist political propaganda is to convince you that you can't do anything about the state of the world. clearly, it worked on you.
Propagandists are now going to tell you to ignore what you're hearing and seeing. Just put the news away and relax! The same people spent the last four years telling you to be outraged about things that never happened. A man won the women's boxing at the olympics! Outrage!
I don't think it's true that Scientific American spent the last four years telling you to be outraged about things that never happened.
I was referring to a noticeable subgroup of HN commenters.
Reddit, instagram, X, Facebook, TikTok, LinkedIn, Threads, etc are all the equivalent of digital junk food and I’d argue that we’re all a lot more negatively affected by it than we think. There’s a reason ‘brain rot’ was word of the year.