5 ms·

Where is the crossover point from 'ignorance is bliss' to 'uninformed'? There's no doubt in my mind that women (and men) would be happier if they didn't know ab

Where is the crossover point from 'ignorance is bliss' to 'uninformed'? There's no doubt in my mind that women (and men) would be happier if they didn't know about the Roe verdict in America. But wouldn't that lead to less activism on an issue that really matters? It is notoriously difficult to get young voters to turn out and asking them to turn off their phones for the mid-terms (like in the article) when they should be thinking through the issues feels counter-productive in a democracy.

lapcat 4y ago
> It is notoriously difficult to get young voters to turn out and asking them to turn off their phones for the mid-terms (like in the article) The experiment was to turn off social media, not turn off their phones. You can still get news directly from news sources, rather than indirectly from social media, which is not generally the primary source of news.
- damagednoob 4y ago
  That is true however the abstract of the study notes: "In a randomized experiment, we find that deactivating Facebook for the four weeks before the 2018 US midterm election... ...(ii) reduced both factual news knowledge and political polarization;" [1]: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20190658 https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20190658
  - lapcat 4y ago
    1) It was a 4 week experiment. This may show that the participants had become too reliant on Facebook for news. It seems likely that people will adapt after qutting Facebook entirely. 2) How likely is activism to come from people who are only connected to the outside world via Facebook? 3) Reduced "factual news knowledge" is not the same as "didn't know about the Roe verdict". I was somehow aware of the verdict without being on Facebook. It's hard to tell from just the abstract, but we don't know how they define "factual news knowledge". In my opinion, most so-called "news" is just trivia and unimportant. Politician A said X, politician B said not-X, blah blah, ad nauseam. IMO it's actually better to take a step back from the daily trivia and look at the broad historical perspective. Better to read a book than a headline. A person can become "too informed" about things that don't matter, missing the forest for the trees.
Aunche 4y ago
There already is less activism of where it matters. Social media causes all activism ends up blacked holed into "spreading awareness" to a few issues. How many people who are demanding the SC justices to resign actually bother to vote for their state legislature who makes these abortion laws? The majority of Ohioans actually support abortions in most cases, but the only people who vote for smaller elections are Boomers, so that's how they ended up with a ridiculous 6 week abortion ban.
atmosx 4y ago
I am pretty sure, it’s hard that one is hard to miss even without owning a phone.

lapcat 4y ago

> It is notoriously difficult to get young voters to turn out and asking them to turn off their phones for the mid-terms (like in the article) The experiment was to turn off social media, not turn off their phones. You can still get news directly from news sources, rather than indirectly from social media, which is not generally the primary source of news.

damagednoob 4y ago
That is true however the abstract of the study notes: "In a randomized experiment, we find that deactivating Facebook for the four weeks before the 2018 US midterm election... ...(ii) reduced both factual news knowledge and political polarization;" [1]: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20190658 https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20190658
- lapcat 4y ago
  1) It was a 4 week experiment. This may show that the participants had become too reliant on Facebook for news. It seems likely that people will adapt after qutting Facebook entirely. 2) How likely is activism to come from people who are only connected to the outside world via Facebook? 3) Reduced "factual news knowledge" is not the same as "didn't know about the Roe verdict". I was somehow aware of the verdict without being on Facebook. It's hard to tell from just the abstract, but we don't know how they define "factual news knowledge". In my opinion, most so-called "news" is just trivia and unimportant. Politician A said X, politician B said not-X, blah blah, ad nauseam. IMO it's actually better to take a step back from the daily trivia and look at the broad historical perspective. Better to read a book than a headline. A person can become "too informed" about things that don't matter, missing the forest for the trees.

Aunche 4y ago

There already is less activism of where it matters. Social media causes all activism ends up blacked holed into "spreading awareness" to a few issues. How many people who are demanding the SC justices to resign actually bother to vote for their state legislature who makes these abortion laws? The majority of Ohioans actually support abortions in most cases, but the only people who vote for smaller elections are Boomers, so that's how they ended up with a ridiculous 6 week abortion ban.

atmosx 4y ago

I am pretty sure, it’s hard that one is hard to miss even without owning a phone.