5 ms·

> quitting (and deleting!) reddit, twitter, facebook, instagram, and maybe even HN. I've completely dropped twitter/facebook/etc, but have found that I keep co

> quitting (and deleting!) reddit, twitter, facebook, instagram, and maybe even HN. I've completely dropped twitter/facebook/etc, but have found that I keep coming back to HN and reddit primarily to keep some level of awareness of things that happen outside of my "bubble". How would you maintain that level of awareness while still dropping those social media platforms?

DontGiveTwoFlux 6y ago
You could subscribe to a newspaper or magazine.
- d3nj4l 6y ago
  I haven't found a mainstream newspaper yet with the occasional gem of thought/ opinion that I've gotten off HN/ Reddit.
  - modwilliam 6y ago
    Have you tried The Economist?
    - DenisM 6y ago
      Do you find it even-handed or skewed? Like, can you think of an article that would be in support of something Trump (or republicans in general) do?
      - modwilliam 6y ago
        It's stated to have a liberal slant, so especially on social issues it would disagree with Trump. It's also explicitly said bad things about Trump's demeanor or attitudes. However, it does praise some actions that Trump and the Republicans have done with regards to covid19. I overall find that it greatly tones down the extreme takes / perspectives I see on Reddit, and finds lots of nuance
        rabidrat 6y ago
        The Economist is definitely not liberal. It's intended to be nonpolitical but its conscious opinions lean conservative. Disagreeing with Trump or talking about Trump in a negative manner does not make one liberal, no matter what US political pundit will tell you.
        jcranmer 6y ago
        The Economist leans "liberal" in the sense of liberal economics, or UK's Liberal Democrat Party. In the US, this is perhaps better translated as "libertarian."
        FearNotDaniel 6y ago
        > It's intended to be nonpolitical Nonpartisan, yes. Nonpolitical? Absolutely not. The reason for its foundation was (specifically) to campaign against a policy held dear by the government of the day, and (generally) to promote a specific politico-economic worldview, that of free market capitalism with a strong emphasis on cross-border trade. Sometimes this can make their positions appear a little more left-leaning than a classic US libertarian could stomach, such as supporting the existence of the EU, if not every one of its actions; and tending to prefer at least a light touch of regulation on the markets, so long as it keeps the wheels of international commerce turning smoothly. Also, they are at pains to separate their news reporting (usually impeccably balanced and impartial) from their opinion pieces. As an answer to OP's question, I would actually second the recommendation of The Economist as an excellent way to keep abreast of world events while cunningly sidestepping the hysteria and sensationalism of nearly all other media (yes, including most "serious newspapers" these days). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist#History
        blaser-waffle 6y ago
        I remember when Rex Tillerson was appointed to State, and how they wrote a glowing article about how fucking great he was and how he'll improve foreign relations and make international capital work again and bla bla bla. Four years later he's gone, even allegedly called Trump a "fucking moron" on the way out.
      - ahelwer 6y ago
        The Economist is basically the flag-bearer of pro-capitalist policy, so yes their views would largely be supported by the entire US political establishment.
        DenisM 6y ago
        >would largely be supported by the entire US political establishment Well that's just the thing! We observe Trump attacked from all sides of the establishment - the left, (some of) the right, and the entire government bureaucracy ("the deep state"). There is a rift somewhere in the system, and we're not discussing it...
      - Spooky23 6y ago
        Sort of. Trump in particular and modern republicans in general are focused on a different set of priorities. The Economist loves free markets and a more laissez faire. GOP types quack about that stuff but lack in delivery.
      - AsyncAwait 6y ago
        Yes. What you wouldn't find there generally is support for any left-wing, (actual left, not "liberal") policy.
    - Spooky23 6y ago
      The economist is like NPR to me. Awesome content, but if you read pay attention closely, you can basically write the story without reading, because you know what the answers will be. The paper NYT and WSJ are a great way to go. You get clear editorial contrasts and lots of content. Science Times and other feature sections are always a treat.
      - blaser-waffle 6y ago
        That's generally my experience, but I appreciate how most articles in the Economist have 1) an attempt to genuinely outline both sides of the argument, and 2) an attempt to clearly -- "clearly" is relative at times -- take a side in the discussion. Most of the time that side is going to be the free market technocratic solution, hence the parent comment about being able to predict where the article will go, but even then I feel like I have an idea what the argument is and where the sides are.
- inakarmacoma 6y ago
  For ads and fake news?
cellularmitosis 6y ago
By scheduling time for them, if you have the available self-discipline. Spending 30 minutes once per day on reddit is enough to keep you in the loop, and if it is on your calendar at a specific time, your chances of sticking to it are good. Scheduled violations of the rules seem to paradoxically help you follow the rules. Tim Ferris advocates for one dietary cheat day per week, with the idea that it takes incredible will power to give up donuts forever, but almost anyone can put it off until Friday. Schedule your cheats. Edit: scheduling is also great for beating procrastination. “I will change my oil at 7:30pm Tuesday” is way more effective than “I need to change my oil soon”
- _t0du 6y ago
  I had a therapist a while ago that spent a lot of time talking with me about how discipline and motivation aren't real. His point was that lots of people lose before they start by feeling like they aren't disciplined or motivated people inherently. And ultimately, the only way to measure motivation or discipline is to measure something else - "I was motivated to stay fit because I went to the gym" He also spent a lot of time with me on understanding that motivation and discipline are most times just thin wrappers around what people actually want. Thinking less about "If I were just more disciplined I would be able to do this" and more about "If I actually wanted to do this I probably would", and then focusing on what you actually want, or why you don't want something, is probably a much more valuable of a use of time for some people than thinking about motivation or discipline. I am not posting this to say "If you're a disciplined person, you're wrong" - but moreso "If you're a person that believes you struggle with motivation/discipline, maybe you can rethink those concepts".
  - lifeisstillgood 6y ago
    Thank you - I am motivated to want what I want - so solve the wanting of the motivation / willpower.
  - SZJX 6y ago
    While I agree that the so-called inherent motivation is an important aspect to take care of, some skills that help remove external distractions and help you focus better could be equally useful. No matter how motivated somebody is, if they have a poor mental hygiene of constantly distracting themselves with social media, or don't have separate areas for work and for entertainment in their apartment, or as a more extreme example, is constantly disrupted by noise, they will likely suffer from suboptimal productivity. Both aspects are worth being taken care of.
aendruk 6y ago
RSS feed of only the most significant items, e.g. HN over 500 votes, subreddit top 10 in the last month.
- stjohnswarts 6y ago
  If you don't like maintaining RSS feeds https://hckrnews.com https://hckrnews.com is great as well
- frankdilo 6y ago
  Or use this service i made https://mailbrew.com https://mailbrew.com and get all of that via email.
kazga 6y ago
I recommend the book "Digital Minimalism" for some excellent advice on exactly those sort of questions

DontGiveTwoFlux 6y ago

You could subscribe to a newspaper or magazine.

d3nj4l 6y ago
I haven't found a mainstream newspaper yet with the occasional gem of thought/ opinion that I've gotten off HN/ Reddit.
- modwilliam 6y ago
  Have you tried The Economist?
  - DenisM 6y ago
    Do you find it even-handed or skewed? Like, can you think of an article that would be in support of something Trump (or republicans in general) do?
    - modwilliam 6y ago
      It's stated to have a liberal slant, so especially on social issues it would disagree with Trump. It's also explicitly said bad things about Trump's demeanor or attitudes. However, it does praise some actions that Trump and the Republicans have done with regards to covid19. I overall find that it greatly tones down the extreme takes / perspectives I see on Reddit, and finds lots of nuance
      - rabidrat 6y ago
        The Economist is definitely not liberal. It's intended to be nonpolitical but its conscious opinions lean conservative. Disagreeing with Trump or talking about Trump in a negative manner does not make one liberal, no matter what US political pundit will tell you.
        jcranmer 6y ago
        The Economist leans "liberal" in the sense of liberal economics, or UK's Liberal Democrat Party. In the US, this is perhaps better translated as "libertarian."
        FearNotDaniel 6y ago
        > It's intended to be nonpolitical Nonpartisan, yes. Nonpolitical? Absolutely not. The reason for its foundation was (specifically) to campaign against a policy held dear by the government of the day, and (generally) to promote a specific politico-economic worldview, that of free market capitalism with a strong emphasis on cross-border trade. Sometimes this can make their positions appear a little more left-leaning than a classic US libertarian could stomach, such as supporting the existence of the EU, if not every one of its actions; and tending to prefer at least a light touch of regulation on the markets, so long as it keeps the wheels of international commerce turning smoothly. Also, they are at pains to separate their news reporting (usually impeccably balanced and impartial) from their opinion pieces. As an answer to OP's question, I would actually second the recommendation of The Economist as an excellent way to keep abreast of world events while cunningly sidestepping the hysteria and sensationalism of nearly all other media (yes, including most "serious newspapers" these days). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist#History
      - blaser-waffle 6y ago
        I remember when Rex Tillerson was appointed to State, and how they wrote a glowing article about how fucking great he was and how he'll improve foreign relations and make international capital work again and bla bla bla. Four years later he's gone, even allegedly called Trump a "fucking moron" on the way out.
    - ahelwer 6y ago
      The Economist is basically the flag-bearer of pro-capitalist policy, so yes their views would largely be supported by the entire US political establishment.
      - DenisM 6y ago
        >would largely be supported by the entire US political establishment Well that's just the thing! We observe Trump attacked from all sides of the establishment - the left, (some of) the right, and the entire government bureaucracy ("the deep state"). There is a rift somewhere in the system, and we're not discussing it...
    - Spooky23 6y ago
      Sort of. Trump in particular and modern republicans in general are focused on a different set of priorities. The Economist loves free markets and a more laissez faire. GOP types quack about that stuff but lack in delivery.
    - AsyncAwait 6y ago
      Yes. What you wouldn't find there generally is support for any left-wing, (actual left, not "liberal") policy.
  - Spooky23 6y ago
    The economist is like NPR to me. Awesome content, but if you read pay attention closely, you can basically write the story without reading, because you know what the answers will be. The paper NYT and WSJ are a great way to go. You get clear editorial contrasts and lots of content. Science Times and other feature sections are always a treat.
    - blaser-waffle 6y ago
      That's generally my experience, but I appreciate how most articles in the Economist have 1) an attempt to genuinely outline both sides of the argument, and 2) an attempt to clearly -- "clearly" is relative at times -- take a side in the discussion. Most of the time that side is going to be the free market technocratic solution, hence the parent comment about being able to predict where the article will go, but even then I feel like I have an idea what the argument is and where the sides are.
inakarmacoma 6y ago
For ads and fake news?

cellularmitosis 6y ago

By scheduling time for them, if you have the available self-discipline. Spending 30 minutes once per day on reddit is enough to keep you in the loop, and if it is on your calendar at a specific time, your chances of sticking to it are good. Scheduled violations of the rules seem to paradoxically help you follow the rules. Tim Ferris advocates for one dietary cheat day per week, with the idea that it takes incredible will power to give up donuts forever, but almost anyone can put it off until Friday. Schedule your cheats. Edit: scheduling is also great for beating procrastination. “I will change my oil at 7:30pm Tuesday” is way more effective than “I need to change my oil soon”

_t0du 6y ago
I had a therapist a while ago that spent a lot of time talking with me about how discipline and motivation aren't real. His point was that lots of people lose before they start by feeling like they aren't disciplined or motivated people inherently. And ultimately, the only way to measure motivation or discipline is to measure something else - "I was motivated to stay fit because I went to the gym" He also spent a lot of time with me on understanding that motivation and discipline are most times just thin wrappers around what people actually want. Thinking less about "If I were just more disciplined I would be able to do this" and more about "If I actually wanted to do this I probably would", and then focusing on what you actually want, or why you don't want something, is probably a much more valuable of a use of time for some people than thinking about motivation or discipline. I am not posting this to say "If you're a disciplined person, you're wrong" - but moreso "If you're a person that believes you struggle with motivation/discipline, maybe you can rethink those concepts".
- lifeisstillgood 6y ago
  Thank you - I am motivated to want what I want - so solve the wanting of the motivation / willpower.
- SZJX 6y ago
  While I agree that the so-called inherent motivation is an important aspect to take care of, some skills that help remove external distractions and help you focus better could be equally useful. No matter how motivated somebody is, if they have a poor mental hygiene of constantly distracting themselves with social media, or don't have separate areas for work and for entertainment in their apartment, or as a more extreme example, is constantly disrupted by noise, they will likely suffer from suboptimal productivity. Both aspects are worth being taken care of.

aendruk 6y ago

RSS feed of only the most significant items, e.g. HN over 500 votes, subreddit top 10 in the last month.

stjohnswarts 6y ago
If you don't like maintaining RSS feeds https://hckrnews.com https://hckrnews.com is great as well
frankdilo 6y ago
Or use this service i made https://mailbrew.com https://mailbrew.com and get all of that via email.

kazga 6y ago

I recommend the book "Digital Minimalism" for some excellent advice on exactly those sort of questions