Avoiding outrage fatigue while staying informed

https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/how-to-avoid-outrage-fatigue-and-tune-in-without-burning-out/

757 766 1 year ago

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.

lm28469• 1 year ago

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

baal80spam• 1 year ago

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

parliament324• 1 year ago

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?

trimethylpurine4• 1 year ago

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.

NoMoreNicksLeft• 1 year ago

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.

keybored5• 1 year ago

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.

cal85• 1 year ago

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.

dageshi2• 1 year ago

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.

DasCorCor3• 1 year ago

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.

parliament324• 1 year ago

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?

Lendal2• 1 year ago

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?

FredPret3• 1 year ago

Democracy works if everyone votes for the thing(s) they care about. You likely don’t need a news site for information about that.

parliament324• 1 year ago

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.

hkpack• 1 year ago

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.

throw0101c• 1 year ago

> 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...

trimethylpurine4• 1 year ago

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.

softwaredoug• 1 year ago

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.

smgit• 1 year ago

"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"

etblg• 1 year ago

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.

macrocosmos2• 1 year ago

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.

Fin_Code• 1 year ago

Just view a topic on Reddit then on X. You can't be outraged both ways and it should cancel out.

darthrupert• 1 year ago

This more than doubles the outrage. You'll have to hate yourself for being so mistaken before.

cratermoon• 1 year ago

as if "both" ways is all there is.

comrade1234• 1 year ago

I basically just get my news from the onion now.

addandsubtract• 1 year ago

Onion news are just news from the future.

RIMR3• 1 year ago

I hope you're right about that: https://theonion.com/trump-executed-1850257714/

smcnally• 1 year ago

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.”

yowayb3• 1 year ago

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.

rpastuszak• 1 year ago

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)

gergo_b3• 1 year ago

You cannot logic someone out of something they didn't logic themselves into. 90% of what we feel is primal in-group survival.

browningstreet• 1 year ago

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..

breakingrules3• 1 year ago

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.

jfkrrorj2• 1 year ago

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.

gadders3• 1 year ago

There was just as much "large pain" being inflicted on people in the previous 4 years, it just didn't affect you personally.

keybored5• 1 year ago

Is your comment propaganda?

yowayb3• 1 year ago

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.

crispyambulance• 1 year ago

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?

andrewflnr• 1 year ago

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.

pavon2• 1 year ago

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.

   #<id> {
      display: hidden;
   }

I have so many of these. There is some upkeep with redesign, and for some sites with high churn I've given up, but in general it makes the web much more tolerable.

ranger207• 1 year ago

There's a browser addon, Enhancer for Youtube, that lets you hide recommended videos, among other things

teddyh• 1 year ago

I recommend: <https://lawrencehook.com/rys/>

adishy• 1 year ago

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).

arp2423• 1 year ago

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).

bashfulpup• 1 year ago

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.

godshatter3• 1 year ago

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.

burgerrito2• 1 year ago

There's a Firefox add-on called Distraction free YouTube I used in the past. Maybe try that one

lawn2• 1 year ago

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.

lordfrito3• 1 year ago

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?

root_axis• 1 year ago

Would you consider your own comment to be a form of propaganda? I'm genuinely asking.

lordfrito3• 1 year ago

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?

mandmandam• 1 year ago

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

Epa095• 1 year ago

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.

jacobn• 1 year ago

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.

like_any_other• 1 year ago

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.

godshatter3• 1 year ago

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.

genewitch5• 1 year ago

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.

karaterobot• 1 year ago

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.

joshdavham12• 1 year ago

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.

pavon2• 1 year ago

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.

flyinghamster• 1 year ago

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.

nosioptar2• 1 year ago

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.

ryandrake2• 1 year ago

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."

nosioptar2• 1 year ago

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.

the_snooze2• 1 year ago

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.

upcoming-sesame6• 1 year ago

If that could somehow be automated that would be cool

dschuessler• 1 year ago

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.

icedrift• 1 year ago

Am I on the wrong page or were there only 4 articles on North America for all of January?

awongh• 1 year ago

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?

tim333• 1 year ago

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.

johnnyanmac10• 1 year ago

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.

gkrimer• 1 year ago

Yes. And pay for the news sources that prove valuable to you. Professional journalism is essential.

Cthulhu_• 1 year ago

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.

yostrovs2• 1 year ago

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.

taylodl• 1 year ago

Scientific American started "getting into politics" in the mid 20th century, so your comment is about 70 years late.

yostrovs2• 1 year ago

[flagged]

munchler3• 1 year ago

I grew up reading SciAm in the 70's and 80's, and I don't remember a single article about politics.

blackeyeblitzar• 1 year ago

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.

_fat_santa• 1 year ago

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.

mixmastamyk• 1 year ago

Twenty+ years ago an aunt of mine regularly called our local news on channel four the Channel Fear news.

jquery3• 1 year ago

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.

seneca2• 1 year ago

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.

tayo42• 1 year ago

In the last week what headline and story do you think was overblown by the NYT?

trimethylpurine4• 1 year ago

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.

polyfish42• 1 year ago

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!

dimal• 1 year ago

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.

bjt• 1 year ago

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...

padolsey2• 1 year ago

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.

FredPret3• 1 year ago

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.

joshdavham12• 1 year ago

One thing to consider for those of us who are more sensitive to online outrage is to just quit social media all together. I’m technically gen z and I’ve been off of social media (aside from HN, WhatsApp and discord) for years and you wouldn’t believe how great it’s been for my overall state of mind.

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.

dr_dshiv• 1 year ago

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.

gbin• 1 year ago

I have seen an increasing amount of Trump non sense popping up more and more from the VC community the past 6 months on LI

scarface_74• 1 year ago

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.

joshdavham12• 1 year ago

It’s also not very addictive.

For me, it's quite addictive unfortunately, even though I agree that it's pretty dull.

1970-01-01• 1 year ago

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.

codinhood• 1 year ago

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.

jjulius• 1 year ago

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.

Arete3141592• 1 year ago

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.

LeroyRaz3• 1 year ago

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...)

neom4• 1 year ago

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.

bartekpacia• 1 year ago

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?

adolph2• 1 year ago

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.

barbazoo3• 1 year ago

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.

93po• 1 year ago

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.

Damogran6• 1 year ago

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.

nineplay3• 1 year ago

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.

gleenn• 1 year ago

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.

teuobk• 1 year ago

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.

lbarron6868• 1 year ago

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.

alistairSH• 1 year ago

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.

datavirtue2• 1 year ago

I can't imagine identifying myself on a forum...much less reddit.

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK3• 1 year ago

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.

upcoming-sesame6• 1 year ago

Interesting. What's your setup ?

ge967• 1 year ago

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

jmyeet• 1 year ago

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.

jordanpg• 1 year ago

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.

ziddoap3• 1 year ago

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.

mywittyname• 1 year ago

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.

niceice2• 1 year ago

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.

dbtc• 1 year ago

My suggestion: music! Give the eyes a break.

concordDance• 1 year ago

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.

natnat• 1 year ago

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 :)

carlosjobim3• 1 year ago

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.

nonethewiser4• 1 year ago

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.

su8898• 1 year ago

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.

ge967• 1 year ago

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

joshdavham12• 1 year ago

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.

analog312• 1 year ago

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.

ysavir• 1 year ago

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.

iugtmkbdfil834• 1 year ago

<< 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 ).

joshdavham12• 1 year ago

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 :)

iancmceachern• 1 year ago

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.

sporkydistance6• 1 year ago

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.

xorvoid2• 1 year ago

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.

jbombadil• 1 year ago

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")

vaylian3• 1 year ago

If HN is social media, then old online forums from the time before "social media" are also social media.

JTyQZSnP3cQGa8B2• 1 year ago

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?

firecall• 1 year ago

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.

joshdavham12• 1 year ago

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.

n144q2• 1 year ago

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).

dudu24• 1 year ago

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..."

daft_pink• 1 year ago

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.

myth2018• 1 year ago

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.

samspot• 1 year ago

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.

prpl• 1 year ago

Just use the webapp too, when possible. Remove all native apps on your phones. Don’t read emails.

amelius• 1 year ago

4. If you do scroll social media and you see a bad post then "punish" the platform by leaving.

Helmut10001• 1 year ago

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.

polishdude20• 1 year ago

Is WhatsApp really considered social media? I mainly use it as my sms alternative.

lukan• 1 year ago

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.

johnnyanmac10• 1 year ago

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.

BrenBarn2• 1 year ago

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.

ActorNightly• 1 year ago

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.

PaulHoule• 1 year ago

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

gergo_b3• 1 year ago

Wow that sounds awesome. I was thinking of doing something like that but never had the time to commit.

sneak• 1 year ago

Discord suffers from the same problems; censorship platforms in general have the same cancer everywhere.

2OEH8eoCRo0• 1 year ago

Have more self respect and consume a better information diet of printed media.

nicbou• 1 year ago

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.

huijzer• 1 year ago

I’m still on social media (HN, YouTube and Reddit), but blocked all other news sites. They’re mostly about outrage too.

corytheboyd• 1 year ago

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.

joshdavham12• 1 year ago

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'.

IBCNU• 1 year ago

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.

jjice• 1 year ago

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.

stevage3• 1 year ago

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.

lykahb• 1 year ago

I think that the social media is okay as long as no algorithmic feed gets involved. Visiting a few select tech subreddits doesn't affect me negatively. On other platforms the feed can't be avoided as easily.

djh85• 1 year ago

True. Curate who you follow carefully, and stay away from that "for you" tab

s1mplicissimus• 1 year ago

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...)

zombiwoof• 1 year ago

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

warkdarrior• 1 year ago

Much of the German population in the 1930s and 1940s was not aware of concentration camps, and learned of them once the Allies arrived.

carlosjobim3• 1 year ago

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.

burgerrito2• 1 year ago

Always prioritize your own wellbeing first.

johnnyanmac10• 1 year ago

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.

joshdavham12• 1 year ago

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!

WesternWind2• 1 year ago

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.

chikere232• 1 year ago

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

yowayb3• 1 year ago

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.

smrtinsert2• 1 year ago

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.

arvinsim• 1 year ago

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

htamas• 1 year ago

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?

joshdavham12• 1 year ago

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.

eleveriven2• 1 year ago

Many people don't even realize how much better they'd feel until they step away for a while.

leokennis• 1 year ago

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.

gergo_b3• 1 year ago

the same can be said about any social media. you can block/unfollow/mute anything, but it creeps through anyway.

0xEF2• 1 year ago

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.

jimt1234• 1 year ago

...equivalent of digital junk food

Love it! Well, I hate that this situation exists, but the metaphor is great.

Dowwie• 1 year ago

what are your sources for news?

joshdavham12• 1 year ago

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.

nonethewiser4• 1 year ago

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.

joshdavham12• 1 year ago

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.

asadotzler• 1 year ago

HN, WhatsApp, and Discord are also junk food depending on how you use them.

TiredOfLife• 1 year ago

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.

shirro• 1 year ago

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.

recroad2• 1 year ago

So the only things you check are HN, WhatsApp and Discord?

joshdavham12• 1 year ago

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.

mckirk3• 1 year ago

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.

RIMR3• 1 year ago

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...

tofof2• 1 year ago

At least the toggles even for free users let you immediately disable market stuff, right alongside changing theme.

upcoming-sesame6• 1 year ago

Nice but I find the summary too short without any expansion if you want to learn more

mckirk3• 1 year ago

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.)

tofof2• 1 year ago

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.

mckirk3• 1 year ago

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.

jeffbee2• 1 year ago

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!

SpicyLemonZest• 1 year ago

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.

jeffbee2• 1 year ago

I was referring to a noticeable subgroup of HN commenters.

gsaines• 1 year ago

TLDR Summary: limit your intake of social media and news.

nomilk2• 1 year ago

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!

barbazoo3• 1 year ago

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.

nomilk2• 1 year ago

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

localghost30002• 1 year ago

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.

ourmandave• 1 year ago

This exactly, even before November.

I finally saw the futility when there were 10,000 articles about Trump tweeting "covfefe".

xorvoid2• 1 year ago

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.

localghost30002• 1 year ago

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.

throw7• 1 year ago

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".

morpheos1372• 1 year ago

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.

easymodex• 1 year ago

I know, but what do I do about global warming and microplastics? Our leaders don't seem to care.

morpheos1372• 1 year ago

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?

DFHippie• 1 year ago

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.

UniverseHacker2• 1 year ago

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.

kccoder• 1 year ago

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.

marban• 1 year ago

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

65• 1 year ago

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.

nineplay3• 1 year ago

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.

fransje26• 1 year ago

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..

lowbloodsugar• 1 year ago

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.

yakhinvadim4• 1 year ago

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/

j_bum• 1 year ago

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.

yakhinvadim4• 1 year ago

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.

josefresco• 1 year ago

Neat! Sounds similar to another app I've used: https://www.boringreport.org

starik36• 1 year ago

That's a pretty cool website! What prompt do you use to determine what is and isn't significant?

yakhinvadim4• 1 year ago

Can't share the full prompt, but I share methodology on the about page: https://www.newsminimalist.com/about

WaitWaitWha• 1 year ago

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.

turbojet13212• 1 year ago

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.

mcjiggerlog• 1 year ago

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/

gdubya• 1 year ago

That transcription reads very much like a NotebookLM "podcast" summarising the actual article at https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/outrage-fatigue-i...

jsbg2• 1 year ago

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.

breaker-kind• 1 year ago

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.

jsbg2• 1 year ago

the goal of fascist political propaganda is to convince you that you can't do anything about the state of the world

What are you doing about it?

sporkydistance6• 1 year ago

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.)

metalman• 1 year ago

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!

miki123211• 1 year ago

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.

lannisterstark• 1 year ago

Or you could just read actual wire services. AP/Reuters etc have close to no clickbait.

cenamus• 1 year ago

Yeah, news ticker sounds like the perfect solution. If something relevant comes up you can still look up some full articles

yakhinvadim4• 1 year ago

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.

biophysboy• 1 year ago

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

roguecoder3• 1 year ago

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.

teamonkey3• 1 year ago

I subscribed to International Intrigue, which sends a digestible summary by email every day.

https://www.internationalintrigue.io/

zcar2• 1 year ago

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?

arp2423• 1 year ago

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.

neuroelectron2• 1 year ago

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.

roguecoder3• 1 year ago

Tiny Tiny RSS is still awesome, twelve years later. It is super-easy to self-host: https://tt-rss.org/

denkmoon• 1 year ago

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)

neuroelectron2• 1 year ago

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.

redeux• 1 year ago

…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.

snapcaster2• 1 year ago

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

declan_roberts• 1 year ago

Self proclaimed "news junkies" are some of the most insufferable people I know.

deltarholamda• 1 year ago

"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)

stackedinserter3• 1 year ago

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.

svilen_dobrev• 1 year ago

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..

johnnyanmac10• 1 year ago

So what's your alternative? Living in ignorance until it's too late?

turbojet13212• 1 year ago

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

lmm5• 1 year ago

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.

dennis_jeeves2• 1 year ago

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.

Clubber3• 1 year ago

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).

snapcaster2• 1 year ago

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

UberFly• 1 year ago

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.

RIMR3• 1 year ago

This one: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/how-to-st...

matteoraso• 1 year ago

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.

verisimi• 1 year ago

Why is it even important to stay informed?

So that you stay in formation with everyone else, of course!

jpollock• 1 year ago

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.

settsu• 1 year ago

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.

roguecoder3• 1 year ago

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.

stackedinserter3• 1 year ago

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.

ck2• 1 year ago

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.

     - From "They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45"

awfulneutral2• 1 year ago

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.

flocciput• 1 year ago

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...

rqtwteye• 1 year ago

I mainly read Reuters now. It's refreshingly boring.

munchler3• 1 year ago

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.

fritzo• 1 year ago

Have you tried Science News? I currently read neither, but at one point I switched from the fluffy Scientific American to the no-nonsense Science News.

munchler3• 1 year ago

Thank you for the suggestion. I will give it a try.

gadders3• 1 year ago

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...

vlan0• 1 year 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.

glial• 1 year ago

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...

logifail• 1 year ago

"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.

esafak5• 1 year ago

That's the perk of not being in a targeted minority.

MetaWhirledPeas• 1 year ago

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.

daedrdev• 1 year ago

I just feel like there are a few recent things to actually be outraged about

unnamed76ri• 1 year ago

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

Glyptodon2• 1 year ago

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?

philomath_mn• 1 year ago

I think violence is going to become more common

What kind and why?

Glyptodon2• 1 year ago

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.

pjc504• 1 year ago

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.

blooalien• 1 year ago

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... :(

starky• 1 year ago

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.

dayofthedaleks• 1 year ago

Consider watching Paul Shraeder's _First Reformed_.

We're all nearly powerless but our choices do matter.

LeoPanthera3• 1 year ago

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!

returningfory24• 1 year ago

Edit: decided I don't want to engage on this issue.

palmotea2• 1 year ago

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.

Trasmatta• 1 year ago

That's exactly where the fatigue comes from. Knowing how bad things are without knowing what to do about it.

computerthings• 1 year ago

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.

johnnyanmac10• 1 year ago

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.

jncfhnb• 1 year ago

Violence against everything got us the fair housing act of 1968

I don’t think it will work against an autocrat

josh_p• 1 year ago

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.

smrtinsert2• 1 year ago

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.

Eextra953• 1 year ago

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.

Terr_2• 1 year ago

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

internet_points• 1 year ago

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

basisword2• 1 year ago

> 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?

righthand3• 1 year ago

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.

munksbeer2• 1 year ago

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.

xpe3• 1 year ago

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?

Gud• 1 year ago

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.

xpe3• 1 year ago

Can you give some specific policy directions you are advocating so I can better understand what you mean?

stackedinserter3• 1 year ago

Those who have outrage are the same people that think they are calm, reasonable, considerate and don't have outrage, at all.

anthk• 1 year ago

https://neuters.de

Simple, no ads, and with just the headlines it's enough.

cess11• 1 year ago

"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?

toasterlovin2• 1 year ago

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.

esafak5• 1 year ago

I don't think people become journalists with that mindset.

toasterlovin2• 1 year ago

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?

upcoming-sesame6• 1 year ago

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.

Venkatesh10• 1 year ago

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.

nanreh• 1 year ago

This is not a good article. Shocked that it got so much attention here. It's full of garden variety common sense.

modeless• 1 year ago

"Mute words" goes a long way. Every platform should have it.

josefritzishere• 1 year ago

This has been very difficult over the last couple weeks.

puttycat• 1 year ago

I highly recommend to install a browser extension that hides the social feed off of social media sites. Incredibly effective.

BenFranklin100• 1 year ago

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.

alkonaut• 1 year ago

I just quit Twitter and changed to Bluesky and all the bots and spam and outrage just disappeared.

throwaway_2494• 1 year ago

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.

0xbadcafebee• 1 year ago

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.

GGByron• 1 year ago

"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.

nsonha• 1 year ago

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.

esafak5• 1 year ago

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.

purple-leafy2• 1 year ago

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.

Spooky232• 1 year ago

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:

purple-leafy2• 1 year ago

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

MrLeap• 1 year ago

You're not alone, there's dozens of us.

Arete3141592• 1 year ago

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.)

andhuman• 1 year ago

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.

musicale4• 1 year ago

I used to read SA to stay informed.

dboreham2• 1 year ago

South Africa?

musicale4• 1 year ago

Obviously.

hdivider• 1 year ago

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.

majestik• 1 year ago

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.

majgr3• 1 year ago

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.

CrimsonRain3• 1 year ago

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...

purplezooey• 1 year ago

Digging up a tiny, poorly funded left-wing publication as a whipping post doesn't support the point you are making.

notTooFarGone• 1 year ago

but what about THIS anecdote????!

magicalhippo3• 1 year ago

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/

majgr3• 1 year ago

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.

mib322• 1 year ago

I’m getting outrage just by reading this comment.

edit: it makes me curious about how that works!

0xEF2• 1 year ago

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.

prox2• 1 year ago

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.

myrmidon4• 1 year ago

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.

Tade0• 1 year ago

They've lost majority in the 2023 elections.

The current president (serving his second term) is a big fan of Trump though.

lazide6• 1 year ago

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.

_7acn3• 1 year ago

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.

throwaway2902• 1 year ago

How do they limit freedom and what kind? Is it like blocking websites and police searches or like "you can't drink booze outside"?

madeofpalk2• 1 year ago

- 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.

ovalanche• 1 year ago

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.

dieselgate• 1 year ago

Good points about how to better use social media but I don’t personally think the benefits outweigh the downsides

skeeter20204• 1 year ago

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?

user39393822• 1 year ago

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.

tuukkah10• 1 year ago

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.

1659447091• 1 year ago

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/

bluebarbet• 1 year ago

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.

clydethefrog2• 1 year ago

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.

croissants• 1 year ago

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.

skeeter20204• 1 year ago

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.

wonderwonder8• 1 year ago

"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.

pjc504• 1 year ago

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.

skeeter20204• 1 year ago

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.

nervousvarun• 1 year ago

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.

clydethefrog2• 1 year ago

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

koolba7• 1 year ago

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.

btreecat2• 1 year ago

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.

pjc504• 1 year ago

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.

sjsdaiuasgdia3• 1 year ago

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.

michaelt2• 1 year ago

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.

vharuck• 1 year ago

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.

wvh• 1 year ago

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.

graemep• 1 year ago

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.

lostmsu3• 1 year ago

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)

myrmidon4• 1 year ago

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.

mistermann3• 1 year ago

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.

delfinom• 1 year ago

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.

Bhilai2• 1 year ago

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?

otterley• 1 year ago

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.

jajko2• 1 year ago

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'.

BurningFrog• 1 year ago

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.

michaelmdresser• 1 year ago

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.

troyvit3• 1 year ago

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.

culi2• 1 year ago

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/

jandrese• 1 year ago

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.

xocnad• 1 year ago

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.

anyonecancode• 1 year ago

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.

intermerda• 1 year ago

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”.

StableAlkyne• 1 year ago

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.

mihaaly• 1 year ago

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.

Karrot_Kream4• 1 year ago

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.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF2• 1 year 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).

jrm4• 1 year ago

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.

m_fayer• 1 year ago

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.

ohthehugemanate• 1 year ago

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.

nobodywillobsrv• 1 year ago

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.

eleveriven2• 1 year ago

The real challenge is rewiring our own habits

mib322• 1 year ago

This article just says to turn off the phone and go outside. Saved you 5 minutes

ein0p• 1 year ago

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.

paganel• 1 year ago

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.

KoftaBob• 1 year ago

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.

sharpshadow• 1 year ago

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.

adolph2• 1 year ago

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

biohcacker84• 1 year ago

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.

silentsanctuary• 1 year ago

That’s an incredible superpower: you could just choose to be happy and bypass most of the hierarchy of needs!

LeroyRaz3• 1 year ago

"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.

Lord_Zero• 1 year ago

Social media, rage bait, politics are more polarized than ever before. Now it's basically like rooting for your favorite sports team.

Avoiding outrage fatigue while staying informed

Related Stories