4 ms·

I largely agree with Aaron Swartz on this matter[1]: news is a waste of time. Well, maybe except when it's about your industry, in which case it's only 95% a wa

by oefrha 4y ago

I largely agree with Aaron Swartz on this matter[1]: news is a waste of time. Well, maybe except when it's about your industry, in which case it's only 95% a waste of time. I mostly "stay informed" as a way to slack off. [1] http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews Some quotes: > But if that’s true on a scale of minutes, why longer? Instead of watching hourly updates, why not read a daily paper? Instead of reading the back and forth of a daily, why not read a weekly review? Instead of a weekly review, why not read a monthly magazine? Instead of a monthly magazine, why not read an annual book? > With the time people waste reading a newspaper every day, they could have read an entire book about most subjects covered and thereby learned about it with far more detail and far more impact than the daily doses they get dribbled out by the paper. But people, of course, wouldn’t read a book about most subjects covered in the paper, because most of them are simply irrelevant.

coldtea 4y ago
>Well, maybe except when it's about your industry, in which case it's only 95% a waste of time Industry news is 105% waste of time... (Hype, marketing, snake-oil, fads)
- TheRealDunkirk 4y ago
  I would pay $100 for a book documenting how Microsoft ran the trade press in the 90's and 00's. You can't tell me that they didn't throw gobs of money at outfits like Ziff-Davis and IDG after what has been revealed in their underhanded funding of SCO v IBM.
  - boomboomsubban 4y ago
    Is there any reason to think it's more than buying ads and giving exclusive contact? That leads to the kind of influence that doesn't need any vast conspiracy, Microsoft controlled the information they want and the money they need.
    - coldtea 4y ago
      >That leads to the kind of influence that doesn't need any vast conspiracy That's already a conspiracy, as ad spendings are only supposed to buy you ads, not editorial influence.
      - boomboomsubban 4y ago
        It needs explicit conspiring to be a conspiracy. Editors could just choose not to piss them off without Microsoft doing anything.
        coldtea 4y ago
        Everybody knew what their role was and what was asked from them, didn't have to be spelt out
- leokennis 4y ago
  I treat industry news as a glimpse of the far future. I.e. I read about some "awesome new database", and I try to make a mental note to check in 5 years which companies totally failed on it and why, and which companies use it with some success and if so for what use cases. But yes...don't use industry news to guide your decisions. Let other suckers do that for you, and then you can avoid their mistaken :-)
dfxm12 4y ago
I agree that consuming up to the minute reporting of TV news and social media is not good (and can be paralyzing), but I used to read daily & especially weekly newspapers when they were more of a thing. They aren't just news, but I think that's besides the point. There is skill in understanding your sphere of influence as it relates to what's important to you. Some high level examples: The mentioned China and NK conflict? Outside of my sphere of influence and interest. It probably would mostly be a waste of time to read stuff like that. The mentioned soldiers in Iraq? Some of them could have been my buddies, so while it was outside of my sphere of influence, it was definitely of interest. Then there's local news, including new things to do, see, hear, eat, etc. and these are well within both my sphere of influence and interests. This is definitely valuable to me.
- browningstreet 4y ago
  Mainstream news tries to subvert that filter too. You'll see a trending headline above the fold of some horrible personal disaster and find out it's in a place far, far away. I always feel like those stories should all have country tags, and then I realize I keep succumbing to their tactics just by visiting.
2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
plonk 4y ago
> With the time people waste reading a newspaper every day, they could have read an entire book about most subjects covered and thereby learned about it with far more detail and far more impact than the daily doses they get dribbled out by the paper. I wouldn't make the time investment to read a whole book about Chinese economic policy, but I like to read a summary in something like The Economist. I agree that reading the NYT headlines every day is a waste of time though. Depends what he called "news".
- qiskit 4y ago
  > but I like to read a summary in something like The Economist. What makes you think anyone at the economist knows anything or would know anything about chinese economic policy. Even if they did, what makes you think they wouldn't spin it or mislead? The only thing the economist is good for is revealing the western elites' political opinions of china. If the economist says nice things about china, it means our elites want to exploit cheap chinese labor for their financial benefit. If the economist says bad things about china, it means our elites want better deal on exploiting cheap chinese labor. > I agree that reading the NYT headlines every day is a waste of time though. Depends what he called "news". The economist is a greater waste of time. At least the NYT is well written. Arguably the best written "news" out there. Though at the end of the day, it's ultimately a waste of time as well. Reading the news is like the blind leading the deaf. But we have to waste our time somehow.
  - plonk 4y ago
    > What makes you think anyone at the economist knows anything or would know anything about chinese economic policy. I don't know enough to evaluate that, so replace it with whatever they are more versed in, like US economic policy. It's just an example. > The only thing the economist is good for is revealing the western elites' political opinions of china. But even their negative articles about China are two-sided. They usually don't catastrophise. I've read a lot of them and they don't fit with the Econ being a mouthpiece for "western elites".
webdoodle 4y ago
Aaron was so ahead of his time. We need more like him.
jancsika 4y ago
> But if that’s true on a scale of minutes, why longer? Instead of watching hourly updates, why not read a daily paper? Instead of reading the back and forth of a daily, why not read a weekly review? Instead of a weekly review, why not read a monthly magazine? Instead of a monthly magazine, why not read an annual book? > With the time people waste reading a newspaper every day, they could have read an entire book about most subjects covered and thereby learned about it with far more detail and far more impact than the daily doses they get dribbled out by the paper. But people, of course, wouldn’t read a book about most subjects covered in the paper, because most of them are simply irrelevant. This just screams to me that Aaron Swartz didn't have any experience with realtime programming. book *send_scoop_the_week_before_the_election(scoop *s) { book *b = block_for_months_if_not_years(s); return b; }
potamic 4y ago
Mainstream news is also in the business of manufacturing consent. When you see the big picture that what you're consuming is not facts, but an elaborate operation to sell you a narrative and make you feel a certain way, you feel like staying far away from it.
systemvoltage 4y ago
Agreed. News used to be concerned with local municipalities, less so with state gov, and Sunday paper for national/intl news. We've just got billions of people glued to know what Andrew Cuomo is doing in NYC. The effects of this centralization/globalisation are massive. Local gov are becoming more corrupt because there is no one to police from a journalistic standpoint.

by oefrha 4y ago

coldtea 4y ago

>Well, maybe except when it's about your industry, in which case it's only 95% a waste of time Industry news is 105% waste of time... (Hype, marketing, snake-oil, fads)

TheRealDunkirk 4y ago
I would pay $100 for a book documenting how Microsoft ran the trade press in the 90's and 00's. You can't tell me that they didn't throw gobs of money at outfits like Ziff-Davis and IDG after what has been revealed in their underhanded funding of SCO v IBM.
- boomboomsubban 4y ago
  Is there any reason to think it's more than buying ads and giving exclusive contact? That leads to the kind of influence that doesn't need any vast conspiracy, Microsoft controlled the information they want and the money they need.
  - coldtea 4y ago
    >That leads to the kind of influence that doesn't need any vast conspiracy That's already a conspiracy, as ad spendings are only supposed to buy you ads, not editorial influence.
    - boomboomsubban 4y ago
      It needs explicit conspiring to be a conspiracy. Editors could just choose not to piss them off without Microsoft doing anything.
      - coldtea 4y ago
        Everybody knew what their role was and what was asked from them, didn't have to be spelt out
leokennis 4y ago
I treat industry news as a glimpse of the far future. I.e. I read about some "awesome new database", and I try to make a mental note to check in 5 years which companies totally failed on it and why, and which companies use it with some success and if so for what use cases. But yes...don't use industry news to guide your decisions. Let other suckers do that for you, and then you can avoid their mistaken :-)

dfxm12 4y ago

I agree that consuming up to the minute reporting of TV news and social media is not good (and can be paralyzing), but I used to read daily & especially weekly newspapers when they were more of a thing. They aren't just news, but I think that's besides the point. There is skill in understanding your sphere of influence as it relates to what's important to you. Some high level examples: The mentioned China and NK conflict? Outside of my sphere of influence and interest. It probably would mostly be a waste of time to read stuff like that. The mentioned soldiers in Iraq? Some of them could have been my buddies, so while it was outside of my sphere of influence, it was definitely of interest. Then there's local news, including new things to do, see, hear, eat, etc. and these are well within both my sphere of influence and interests. This is definitely valuable to me.

browningstreet 4y ago
Mainstream news tries to subvert that filter too. You'll see a trending headline above the fold of some horrible personal disaster and find out it's in a place far, far away. I always feel like those stories should all have country tags, and then I realize I keep succumbing to their tactics just by visiting.

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago

plonk 4y ago

> With the time people waste reading a newspaper every day, they could have read an entire book about most subjects covered and thereby learned about it with far more detail and far more impact than the daily doses they get dribbled out by the paper. I wouldn't make the time investment to read a whole book about Chinese economic policy, but I like to read a summary in something like The Economist. I agree that reading the NYT headlines every day is a waste of time though. Depends what he called "news".

qiskit 4y ago
> but I like to read a summary in something like The Economist. What makes you think anyone at the economist knows anything or would know anything about chinese economic policy. Even if they did, what makes you think they wouldn't spin it or mislead? The only thing the economist is good for is revealing the western elites' political opinions of china. If the economist says nice things about china, it means our elites want to exploit cheap chinese labor for their financial benefit. If the economist says bad things about china, it means our elites want better deal on exploiting cheap chinese labor. > I agree that reading the NYT headlines every day is a waste of time though. Depends what he called "news". The economist is a greater waste of time. At least the NYT is well written. Arguably the best written "news" out there. Though at the end of the day, it's ultimately a waste of time as well. Reading the news is like the blind leading the deaf. But we have to waste our time somehow.
- plonk 4y ago
  > What makes you think anyone at the economist knows anything or would know anything about chinese economic policy. I don't know enough to evaluate that, so replace it with whatever they are more versed in, like US economic policy. It's just an example. > The only thing the economist is good for is revealing the western elites' political opinions of china. But even their negative articles about China are two-sided. They usually don't catastrophise. I've read a lot of them and they don't fit with the Econ being a mouthpiece for "western elites".

webdoodle 4y ago

Aaron was so ahead of his time. We need more like him.

jancsika 4y ago

> But if that’s true on a scale of minutes, why longer? Instead of watching hourly updates, why not read a daily paper? Instead of reading the back and forth of a daily, why not read a weekly review? Instead of a weekly review, why not read a monthly magazine? Instead of a monthly magazine, why not read an annual book? > With the time people waste reading a newspaper every day, they could have read an entire book about most subjects covered and thereby learned about it with far more detail and far more impact than the daily doses they get dribbled out by the paper. But people, of course, wouldn’t read a book about most subjects covered in the paper, because most of them are simply irrelevant. This just screams to me that Aaron Swartz didn't have any experience with realtime programming. book *send_scoop_the_week_before_the_election(scoop *s) { book *b = block_for_months_if_not_years(s); return b; }

potamic 4y ago

Mainstream news is also in the business of manufacturing consent. When you see the big picture that what you're consuming is not facts, but an elaborate operation to sell you a narrative and make you feel a certain way, you feel like staying far away from it.

systemvoltage 4y ago

Agreed. News used to be concerned with local municipalities, less so with state gov, and Sunday paper for national/intl news. We've just got billions of people glued to know what Andrew Cuomo is doing in NYC. The effects of this centralization/globalisation are massive. Local gov are becoming more corrupt because there is no one to police from a journalistic standpoint.