7 ms·

We live in the age of fear because the hose of information that floods us is constantly opened further: Letters → Telegram → Telephone → Radio → TV → Internet →

by cel1ne 10y ago

We live in the age of fear because the hose of information that floods us is constantly opened further: Letters → Telegram → Telephone → Radio → TV → Internet → Mobile Internet. Human beings need time to manage their emotions. Time spent waiting. Time being bored. Time when NO new information, not even positive, is arriving. We are constantly distracted and thus increasingly unable to sort out our feelings. That is the reason. And distracted parents that can't give their children at least 15 minutes of absolutely undivided attention per day worsen their offspring's ability to manage emotions even further. That is why Zuckerberg/Facebook's idea "just flood everyone with everything and it will get better" is dead-wrong. What Facebook could do to really help the world is turning off it's platform for one day each week.

acqq 10y ago
> to really help the world is turning off it's platform for a one day each week For this to work, there would have to be solidarity among the other platforms, all of them turning off on the same day (yes, even HN!) But I can actually imagine the world's productivity boost on such a day.
- Raphmedia 10y ago
  The one day of the week where every programmer work on its own social network platform.
- pantalaimon 10y ago
  I don't know why you are downvoted, HN is a big part of my news addiction cycle, but I can't help it. There is a certain satisfaction in reading news, being in the know about new developments - even if 80% of the time it doesn't help you at all/you'll forget about it the next day. I'm wasting so much time on news sites and other pages that inform me about new developments, it's quite sad. Most of the time there isn't even any news to be had - it's just "oh, nothing new here, moving on" in a cycle through different pages - then the thought lingers on that there might be something new by now and I start again from the beginning.
Gruselbauer 10y ago
There is no feasible way for me to agree more with this. I very much belong to those negatively affected by this phenomenon. I'd wager many a HN commenter is. My RSS feeds are a carefully crafted web of information, as much of a not-echo chamber I can create. From stuff I don't agree with on almost anything - Breitbart and its national counterparts, neocon blogs, libertarian thinktanks - to sources I think of as pretty neutral - like the simple feeds of press conglomerates just feeding headlines - to the stuff I agree with vehemently and thus view as most dubious, I get it all, all day, all the time. Even syndicated across devices. I'm very rarely the one to ask "what are you talking about?" and constantly the one to explain topics. It's okay, being the AP of your social circles isn't the worst role to fill. But it does something to you, doesn't it? I feel like my view of this world has darkened over the years. I'm only thirty years old now and I feel like we're headed for disaster on a dozen different concurrent tracks. My view of man has become shrouded in a perpetual gloom, my idea of a future a cycnical dystopia. I know that isn't fair or true, but it's become increasingly hard to think otherwise.
- oarsinsync 10y ago
  > But it does something to you, doesn't it? I feel like my view of this world has darkened over the years. I'm only thirty years old now and I feel like we're headed for disaster on a dozen different concurrent tracks. My view of man has become shrouded in a perpetual gloom, my idea of a future a cycnical dystopia. Mirror, is that you? > My RSS feeds are a carefully crafted web of information, as much of a not-echo chamber I can create Can you share this list? I struggle to find myself content that isn't inside my echo chamber, and would appreciate a bigger selection of sources!
  - Spellman 10y ago
    Pew did some research on large news outlets and how much different groups trusted them. I'd try sampling from their list a mix of ones you agree with and ones you don't. Especially some of the ones not recognized outside of their echo chamber, like Mother Jones, Breitbart, Daily Kos, Drudge Report, Slate, etc. Link: http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/pj_14-10-21_mediapolarization-01/ http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-...
brightball 10y ago
Nailed everything. My goodness. It's like the world needs an EMP day every week.
- astrocat 10y ago
  The Digital Sabbath. Also, while we're reinventing ancient traditions for the modern age, how about a Digital Salat - where you unplug and meditate for a few minutes 5 times a day.
  - mitchty 10y ago
    My solution is NO active looking for news until Friday, and then only for an hour. It has greatly increased my overall happiness. And you really start to see news for the attention drug it seems to have become. You also learn what is really important as you'll hear about it. Yes you miss things but honestly, I've found what is missed is really not all that important.
thex10 10y ago
> What Facebook could do to really help the world is turning off it's platform for one day each week. This sentiment brings to mind the movement to Design for Time Well Spent[0]. I don't know how the movement is doing. But I like to keep its principles in mind whenever I inflict things upon others. [0]: http://timewellspent.io/ http://timewellspent.io/
Bartweiss 10y ago
I was genuinely alarmed when it came out that Facebook use averages 50 minutes/day. I have trouble believing that it can possibly be good for the world to have that number rise. More broadly, the best thing I've done for my focus and mental health is slowing and controlling my information intake. Disabling push notifications, choosing aggregators over direct feeds, and reading international sites for domestic news have all helped reduce and refine my intake. Beyond technical approaches, I've pushed news out of my social media feeds and self-imposed a ban on on-going "personal drama" news stories (Casey Anthony, Oscar Pistorius, etc). This has been good in itself, and has also come with surprising side benefits. I read more long-form content, not by force of will but because I have less occupying my 'media consumption' time. I also consume more "pre-digested" stories - that can lead to spin issues, but it also cuts down on emotional immediacy. I'd rather go through an interesting historical account of a crime than hear about every stage of the unfolding investigation. I've come to value "no new inputs" time more than almost all of my active input stretches. I can't overstate the value of that processing time.
kilroy123 10y ago
Yes, this is very spot on. I try to unplug as much as I can every Sunday. Get outdoors, go visit a museum, or spend a chunk of the day read a good book. I also think unplugging for an entire week or more every year is healthy. Go camping for a week, or go somewhere remote, and get the hell away from the computer and phone.
- wattt 10y ago
  I do this using the Jewish schedule (though I am not myself Jewish). Friday sundown to Saturday sundown. Great time to be offline.
apatters 10y ago
A thousand times this. Making similar arguments, Tim Ferriss introduced concepts he called the "media fast" and "low information diet" when he published The 4-Hour Workweek back in 2007. The overarching idea was that you should devote some time and energy to actively identifying the least useful information you're consuming, and stop consuming it. IIRC, his taxonomy was that information which requires your action or affects you directly in the near future is useful, everything else is not. So he didn't follow election coverage at all for example. I still think of this as one of the most useful ideas I've ever come across and have taken it pretty far over the years, for instance disabling all notifications on my phone, culling my Facebook feed very aggressively (and uninstalling their app), and following very few media sources--because most news is non-useful in this sense. It definitely gives me more peace of mind, and when I slip and start reading more crappy useless information I notice myself getting more anxious. It's also made me feel that the world would be better off without ad-based media as we know it, because the companies which publish it are the ones most responsible for putting out this low information, amygdala-terrorizing crap. If you really need it (and you probably don't), you can get a pretty good, reasonably unbiased feed of what's going on in the world via news wires like Reuters and AP. But we have this giant industry which basically spins and distorts what those organizations produce, slaps ads on it, produces clickbaity headlines and gives it to you for free. It's free because deep down inside, we all know it's not useful. If it was useful we'd pay for it. We're reading it because our lizard brain hungers.
j8m88 10y ago
It's easy for a portion of people on HN to minimize their use of Facebook because most visitors to this site hate ads and have a general dislike and distrust towards the service Facebook offers. On the contrary, the general population doesn't have the same perspective on things since they aren't as technical and probably less educated as many HN visitors so they'll continue to use Facebook disregarding the potential consequences that may arise. Also it doesn't help a lot of people are still using Facebook and still remains a great way to keep up with people.
lsc 10y ago
I have another theory. What if what we are seeing is that what used to be mainstream media is now niche media, though it is still distributed through the same channels? What if the fringe is the same, it is just that the mainstream no longer watches tv, or that cord cutters are politically similar in a way that upset the previous equilibrium? Alternate theory with the same implication: what if television advertising has become so marginal that it no longer supports the serious business framework it once had? Either way, my theory can be phrased as: What if television has become fringe media?
NumberCruncher 10y ago
I helped myself and abandoned FB. You can change your own world even if others ruin theirs.
ArkyBeagle 10y ago
Beautifully put. Now notice how I sent this message to you. We're doomed! DOOOMED! :)

by cel1ne 10y ago

acqq 10y ago

> to really help the world is turning off it's platform for a one day each week For this to work, there would have to be solidarity among the other platforms, all of them turning off on the same day (yes, even HN!) But I can actually imagine the world's productivity boost on such a day.

Raphmedia 10y ago
The one day of the week where every programmer work on its own social network platform.
pantalaimon 10y ago
I don't know why you are downvoted, HN is a big part of my news addiction cycle, but I can't help it. There is a certain satisfaction in reading news, being in the know about new developments - even if 80% of the time it doesn't help you at all/you'll forget about it the next day. I'm wasting so much time on news sites and other pages that inform me about new developments, it's quite sad. Most of the time there isn't even any news to be had - it's just "oh, nothing new here, moving on" in a cycle through different pages - then the thought lingers on that there might be something new by now and I start again from the beginning.

Gruselbauer 10y ago

There is no feasible way for me to agree more with this. I very much belong to those negatively affected by this phenomenon. I'd wager many a HN commenter is. My RSS feeds are a carefully crafted web of information, as much of a not-echo chamber I can create. From stuff I don't agree with on almost anything - Breitbart and its national counterparts, neocon blogs, libertarian thinktanks - to sources I think of as pretty neutral - like the simple feeds of press conglomerates just feeding headlines - to the stuff I agree with vehemently and thus view as most dubious, I get it all, all day, all the time. Even syndicated across devices. I'm very rarely the one to ask "what are you talking about?" and constantly the one to explain topics. It's okay, being the AP of your social circles isn't the worst role to fill. But it does something to you, doesn't it? I feel like my view of this world has darkened over the years. I'm only thirty years old now and I feel like we're headed for disaster on a dozen different concurrent tracks. My view of man has become shrouded in a perpetual gloom, my idea of a future a cycnical dystopia. I know that isn't fair or true, but it's become increasingly hard to think otherwise.

oarsinsync 10y ago
> But it does something to you, doesn't it? I feel like my view of this world has darkened over the years. I'm only thirty years old now and I feel like we're headed for disaster on a dozen different concurrent tracks. My view of man has become shrouded in a perpetual gloom, my idea of a future a cycnical dystopia. Mirror, is that you? > My RSS feeds are a carefully crafted web of information, as much of a not-echo chamber I can create Can you share this list? I struggle to find myself content that isn't inside my echo chamber, and would appreciate a bigger selection of sources!
- Spellman 10y ago
  Pew did some research on large news outlets and how much different groups trusted them. I'd try sampling from their list a mix of ones you agree with and ones you don't. Especially some of the ones not recognized outside of their echo chamber, like Mother Jones, Breitbart, Daily Kos, Drudge Report, Slate, etc. Link: http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/pj_14-10-21_mediapolarization-01/ http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-...

brightball 10y ago

Nailed everything. My goodness. It's like the world needs an EMP day every week.

astrocat 10y ago
The Digital Sabbath. Also, while we're reinventing ancient traditions for the modern age, how about a Digital Salat - where you unplug and meditate for a few minutes 5 times a day.
- mitchty 10y ago
  My solution is NO active looking for news until Friday, and then only for an hour. It has greatly increased my overall happiness. And you really start to see news for the attention drug it seems to have become. You also learn what is really important as you'll hear about it. Yes you miss things but honestly, I've found what is missed is really not all that important.

thex10 10y ago

> What Facebook could do to really help the world is turning off it's platform for one day each week. This sentiment brings to mind the movement to Design for Time Well Spent[0]. I don't know how the movement is doing. But I like to keep its principles in mind whenever I inflict things upon others. [0]: http://timewellspent.io/ http://timewellspent.io/

Bartweiss 10y ago

I was genuinely alarmed when it came out that Facebook use averages 50 minutes/day. I have trouble believing that it can possibly be good for the world to have that number rise. More broadly, the best thing I've done for my focus and mental health is slowing and controlling my information intake. Disabling push notifications, choosing aggregators over direct feeds, and reading international sites for domestic news have all helped reduce and refine my intake. Beyond technical approaches, I've pushed news out of my social media feeds and self-imposed a ban on on-going "personal drama" news stories (Casey Anthony, Oscar Pistorius, etc). This has been good in itself, and has also come with surprising side benefits. I read more long-form content, not by force of will but because I have less occupying my 'media consumption' time. I also consume more "pre-digested" stories - that can lead to spin issues, but it also cuts down on emotional immediacy. I'd rather go through an interesting historical account of a crime than hear about every stage of the unfolding investigation. I've come to value "no new inputs" time more than almost all of my active input stretches. I can't overstate the value of that processing time.

kilroy123 10y ago

Yes, this is very spot on. I try to unplug as much as I can every Sunday. Get outdoors, go visit a museum, or spend a chunk of the day read a good book. I also think unplugging for an entire week or more every year is healthy. Go camping for a week, or go somewhere remote, and get the hell away from the computer and phone.

wattt 10y ago
I do this using the Jewish schedule (though I am not myself Jewish). Friday sundown to Saturday sundown. Great time to be offline.

apatters 10y ago

A thousand times this. Making similar arguments, Tim Ferriss introduced concepts he called the "media fast" and "low information diet" when he published The 4-Hour Workweek back in 2007. The overarching idea was that you should devote some time and energy to actively identifying the least useful information you're consuming, and stop consuming it. IIRC, his taxonomy was that information which requires your action or affects you directly in the near future is useful, everything else is not. So he didn't follow election coverage at all for example. I still think of this as one of the most useful ideas I've ever come across and have taken it pretty far over the years, for instance disabling all notifications on my phone, culling my Facebook feed very aggressively (and uninstalling their app), and following very few media sources--because most news is non-useful in this sense. It definitely gives me more peace of mind, and when I slip and start reading more crappy useless information I notice myself getting more anxious. It's also made me feel that the world would be better off without ad-based media as we know it, because the companies which publish it are the ones most responsible for putting out this low information, amygdala-terrorizing crap. If you really need it (and you probably don't), you can get a pretty good, reasonably unbiased feed of what's going on in the world via news wires like Reuters and AP. But we have this giant industry which basically spins and distorts what those organizations produce, slaps ads on it, produces clickbaity headlines and gives it to you for free. It's free because deep down inside, we all know it's not useful. If it was useful we'd pay for it. We're reading it because our lizard brain hungers.

j8m88 10y ago

It's easy for a portion of people on HN to minimize their use of Facebook because most visitors to this site hate ads and have a general dislike and distrust towards the service Facebook offers. On the contrary, the general population doesn't have the same perspective on things since they aren't as technical and probably less educated as many HN visitors so they'll continue to use Facebook disregarding the potential consequences that may arise. Also it doesn't help a lot of people are still using Facebook and still remains a great way to keep up with people.

lsc 10y ago

I have another theory. What if what we are seeing is that what used to be mainstream media is now niche media, though it is still distributed through the same channels? What if the fringe is the same, it is just that the mainstream no longer watches tv, or that cord cutters are politically similar in a way that upset the previous equilibrium? Alternate theory with the same implication: what if television advertising has become so marginal that it no longer supports the serious business framework it once had? Either way, my theory can be phrased as: What if television has become fringe media?

NumberCruncher 10y ago

I helped myself and abandoned FB. You can change your own world even if others ruin theirs.

ArkyBeagle 10y ago

Beautifully put. Now notice how I sent this message to you. We're doomed! DOOOMED! :)