6 ms·

Amen, faster and more frequent news is certainly broken. However, I worry that we are fighting against human nature. The use of smartphones has demonstrated, I

Amen, faster and more frequent news is certainly broken. However, I worry that we are fighting against human nature. The use of smartphones has demonstrated, I believe, that people will blindly chase their dopamine hits coming from a variety of formats because it is ingrained in human nature. The dopamine reward pathway gives a good feeling and people are naturally inclined to follow the path of least resistance to more hits. If an organization or app tries to fight this, then people will simply use it less. People will naturally gravitate towards (thus pushing the market towards) easy methods of getting a little dopamine rush. The consumption of fast and frequent journalism is just a symptom of human nature and I have my doubts that there will be a unilateral disarmament by apps and companies to use such tools. I personally try to recognize this and cut myself short when i keep scrolling, keep refreshing on my phone, etc. However, I am not that good at stopping myself and I am aware of when I do it and work on it. What about people who are unaware of their habits? Looking down at your phone and refreshing likely has become second nature for billions of people. How can industries fight against this human nature? (I did not cite any sources I know, if I'm dead wrong on any points please let me know!)

gnud 8y ago
This is really not a new fight. It used to be tabloids vs "real" news - I'm not sure how different today's online battle is. Except for some reason, most of the "real" news are becoming tabloids when moving online.
- currymj 8y ago
  It may be that now editors and journalists get instant feedback about number of clicks, shares, ad impressions and so on, so that they can chase dopamine hits just as much as the audience can.
hhs 8y ago
Interesting view. With respect to the news industry: the TV format seems to have evolved. Have you seen HBO's Last Week Tonight? In a half-hour, John Oliver (and his writing team) recap the key news in 5-6 minutes and then finish by investigating one topic in depth. That is quite a model. It looks like shows similar to this are being made now, such as Netflix's Patriot Act. But the print industry hasn't changed much. I wonder how they will evolve?
stcredzero 8y ago
The use of smartphones has demonstrated, I believe, that people will blindly chase their dopamine hits coming from a variety of formats because it is ingrained in human nature. The dopamine reward pathway gives a good feeling and people are naturally inclined to follow the path of least resistance to more hits. If an organization or app tries to fight this, then people will simply use it less. The way this has been resolved in the past, is that the "trash" news is relegated to the riffraff, and more reliable sources of news are used by the wealthy. The problem, is that even the mainstream news was of the trashy click-bait variety, even in the past going back many decades, if not hundreds of years. Even the news sources that are supposed to be higher end will succumb to the greater speed and greatly accelerated news cycle. How can industries fight against this human nature? Industries need to have faith in basic human nature. They need to let everything go viral and stop picking winners and losers. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, after all. We need to have faith that the truth will eventually win out. In 2019, when there has been suppression of speech, that has merely given ammunition to the toxic voices. This also takes the form of bad actors pretending to be on the side of the angels, acting in bad faith by using emotional tactics which act to hide the truth. Contrarian voices need to be protected. This is precisely what Freedom of Speech is for. Lots of those are going to be toxic, but some of them are going to turn out to be valuable. In the past, Freedom of Speech meant that bad messages could be discredited on their merits. The problem in 2019, is that people are trying to do end-runs around Freedom of Speech not through argument, but through reputation smearing and de-platforming. Basically, short circuiting Freedom of Speech by hacking the right to hear. Do this for a good message, and it only de-legitimizes the good message and gives ammunition to the bad ones.
- sampleinajar 8y ago
  > The problem in 2019, is that people are trying to do end-runs around Freedom of Speech not through argument, but through reputation smearing and de-platforming. This is absolutely not a new phenomenon. "Red scare" anyone? Free speech has never protected an individual from social consequences only government/state consequences. We probably agree that it's not a good thing, but it's definitely not new nor has it ever not existed.
  - 8y ago
jimbokun 8y ago
"However, I worry that we are fighting against human nature." I mean, trying to stop people from getting addicted to opioids is fighting against human nature, too.
vishnugupta 8y ago
> How can industries fight against this human nature? They don't but in fact, monetize. As you've pointed out this constant need for refresh/dopamine has become second nature for billions. This is a fabulous opportunity for industries to monetize this attention.

gnud 8y ago

This is really not a new fight. It used to be tabloids vs "real" news - I'm not sure how different today's online battle is. Except for some reason, most of the "real" news are becoming tabloids when moving online.

currymj 8y ago
It may be that now editors and journalists get instant feedback about number of clicks, shares, ad impressions and so on, so that they can chase dopamine hits just as much as the audience can.

hhs 8y ago

Interesting view. With respect to the news industry: the TV format seems to have evolved. Have you seen HBO's Last Week Tonight? In a half-hour, John Oliver (and his writing team) recap the key news in 5-6 minutes and then finish by investigating one topic in depth. That is quite a model. It looks like shows similar to this are being made now, such as Netflix's Patriot Act. But the print industry hasn't changed much. I wonder how they will evolve?

stcredzero 8y ago

The use of smartphones has demonstrated, I believe, that people will blindly chase their dopamine hits coming from a variety of formats because it is ingrained in human nature. The dopamine reward pathway gives a good feeling and people are naturally inclined to follow the path of least resistance to more hits. If an organization or app tries to fight this, then people will simply use it less. The way this has been resolved in the past, is that the "trash" news is relegated to the riffraff, and more reliable sources of news are used by the wealthy. The problem, is that even the mainstream news was of the trashy click-bait variety, even in the past going back many decades, if not hundreds of years. Even the news sources that are supposed to be higher end will succumb to the greater speed and greatly accelerated news cycle. How can industries fight against this human nature? Industries need to have faith in basic human nature. They need to let everything go viral and stop picking winners and losers. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, after all. We need to have faith that the truth will eventually win out. In 2019, when there has been suppression of speech, that has merely given ammunition to the toxic voices. This also takes the form of bad actors pretending to be on the side of the angels, acting in bad faith by using emotional tactics which act to hide the truth. Contrarian voices need to be protected. This is precisely what Freedom of Speech is for. Lots of those are going to be toxic, but some of them are going to turn out to be valuable. In the past, Freedom of Speech meant that bad messages could be discredited on their merits. The problem in 2019, is that people are trying to do end-runs around Freedom of Speech not through argument, but through reputation smearing and de-platforming. Basically, short circuiting Freedom of Speech by hacking the right to hear. Do this for a good message, and it only de-legitimizes the good message and gives ammunition to the bad ones.

sampleinajar 8y ago
> The problem in 2019, is that people are trying to do end-runs around Freedom of Speech not through argument, but through reputation smearing and de-platforming. This is absolutely not a new phenomenon. "Red scare" anyone? Free speech has never protected an individual from social consequences only government/state consequences. We probably agree that it's not a good thing, but it's definitely not new nor has it ever not existed.
- 8y ago

jimbokun 8y ago

"However, I worry that we are fighting against human nature." I mean, trying to stop people from getting addicted to opioids is fighting against human nature, too.

vishnugupta 8y ago

> How can industries fight against this human nature? They don't but in fact, monetize. As you've pointed out this constant need for refresh/dopamine has become second nature for billions. This is a fabulous opportunity for industries to monetize this attention.