5 ms·

Man, I don't get it. News is bad for you so become deliberately ignorant? Don't get distracted by the world so you can work more? It's like saying traffic light

by tootie 4y ago

Man, I don't get it. News is bad for you so become deliberately ignorant? Don't get distracted by the world so you can work more? It's like saying traffic lights distract you from driving.

landemva 4y ago
More time to play in white water river parks and more time well wasted on ski lifts. I sometimes chat with tourists and listen when they tell me what is important to them. 'Deliberately ignorant' is your value judgment. Spend some time in rural eastern Europe, and the perspective changes for the better. Media propaganda is simply unimportant.
- tootie 4y ago
  I don't understand this at all. Work and family restrict my travel. Reading news on my phone is inherently portable. And I'm not sure what visiting rural Easter Europe is supposed to prove. A lot of it is engulfed in war and I can't imagine those people are better off being completely ignorant of what Russia is doing. Certainly many of them are to everyone else's detriment. Media propaganda is obviously a bad thing, but reading credible news isn't. Unless you want to descend into abject solipsism
  - ben_w 4y ago
    Are you going to do anything about the war in eastern Europe? If the news causes no change in your actions, you might as well have put a small pebble in front of the phone and had it, instead of your eyes, absorb the photons emitted by the screen.
    - landemva 4y ago
      You suggest I do what? I could talk to people about two decades of NATO encroachment on (shall not be spoken) R. Or discuss with people how in the weeks prior to conflict, VP Harris was in Munich and said Ukraine should join NATO. Or discuss how comedian and Vogue model Zelinsky said Ukraine should re-acquire nuclear weapons. While true, none of those fit the rythmn of the mainstream narrative.
      - koonsolo 4y ago
        Well, joining NATO at this point seems like a wise decision, don't you agree? If you want to call it "NATO encroachment on Russia", why doesn't Russia attack NATO then? Why the hell would Ukraine join NATO? I thought Russia was their brother? Any idea why they would want to join NATO? Ah! Maybe it's because they don't want to be invaded by the brother neighbour that likes to invade little countries around them. NATO expansion is Russia's fault, don't be stupid and claim otherwise. Look at how this war already quickly expanded NATO. Keep listening to your Russian propaganda.
      - tootie 4y ago
        I'm not sure what you're getting at aside from asserting Russian propaganda. Ukraine has every right join NATO and if Russia thinks that's a provocation then they should take a look in the mirror. NATO isn't a mutual defense association, not an anti-Russia club. The only reason they think so is because they keep invading countries.
        landemva 4y ago
        February 20 Zelensky in Munich started to talk back the 1994 no-nukes agreement. https://www.farsnews.ir/en/news/14001201000618/Ukraine-Threaens-Rennce-Is-Nn-Nclear-Sas https://www.farsnews.ir/en/news/14001201000618/Ukraine-Threa... https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280401fbb https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000... Donbas vote on self-autonomy has curiously not been allowed. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49903996 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49903996 "Proposed in 2016 by Germany's then-foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the plan details free and fair elections in the east under Ukrainian law, verification by the OSCE international security organisation, and then self-governing status in return." 'Ukraine has every right join NATO ...' Maybe. Just as Cuba had every right to host USSR nuclear missiles in 1962? 'Why the hell would Ukraine join NATO? I thought Russia was their brother?' Yes, eastern Ukraine aligns with R. Western Ukraine hates R. The movie 'Mr. Jones' may enlighten you about the starvation, and the NYT propaganda at the time.
        ben_w 4y ago
    - fleddr 4y ago
      I think this is a brilliant remark, although it likely will be taken the wrong way. I've personally come to the conclusion that us humans aren't designed to take on the misery of the entire human population, and that we should stop projecting this assumption. If there's no difference between caring and not caring, we should be quite a lot more humble in virtue signaling, or best just shut up.
  - spacemark 4y ago
    Yes, deliberate ignorance pendulum swings too far. Of course "free" information is not very useful because someone else is paying for it, motivated by their interests not yours. So do the adult thing and don't throw up your hands and give up, instead pay just a bit for useful information. That way you know a bit more about who is funding it and why.
  - elenaferrantes 4y ago
    "Media propaganda is obviously a bad thing, but reading credible news isn't." I would tend to agree with you but since Covid hysteria I do not believe in mainstream media anymore. So that’s an issue because I’m not able to find credible news anymore.
JacobThreeThree 4y ago
Agreed. People just want their worldview spoon-fed to them. Once they realize that it's not healthy, it's too daunting to actually put in the effort needed to construct their own worldview and apply it to their life, thus the head-in-sand ignorance approach. I'm surprised Aaron Swartz, of all people, had this view.
- dageshi 4y ago
  No, they just realise it's not productive anymore. It's a time sink that pushes misery and drama into your life without any practical way to do anything about it. I don't think the human mind is designed to absorb all the worlds ills and misery, the news amplifies the worst of what's going on in the world and delivers it to you minute by minute, the only rational way of dealing with it is to either cut it out or become unspeakably cynical about it all.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    I realised a long time ago that even shedding merely a single tear every time an evil deed is done would lead to dying of dehydration in one's sleep. I mostly try to cut out the news, but the options are not limited to just cutting it out or becoming cynical: an ex went into politics with a genuine desire to make the world right. She is (or was) Green Party (US), so not making much progress, but it is at least a different path. I definitely agree our minds aren't fit for this world: more people online than heartbeats in our lifetimes, combined with a psychology that treats a list of more than 7-ish items as infinite.
maccard 4y ago
> News is bad for you so become deliberately ignorant? I actively avoid news (to the point of changing channels on the TV and Radio when it comes on), and yet somehow I still managed to be kept aware of what's going on, and avoid being ignorant. > It's like saying traffic lights distract you from driving. It's actually more like saying every pedestrian in a city is going to jump in front of you when you're driving. You can be aware of pedestrians, cars, bikes, and be a careful considerate driver without needing to fear that every person is trying to jump in front of your car, in the same way that you can be an informed person without getting daily updates on the top 10 stories in the UK right now.
koonsolo 4y ago
I much rather want to talk to the person who reads books written by experts, than to talk to the person who watches the news every day. I'm sorry but there just isn't any comparison. Have you ever read news about something you are an expert at? It's just laughable inaccurate. News is entertainment, not information. If you want information, read a book written by an expert at the field.
- misterprime 4y ago
  Also, if you engage with someone who consumes from a different news bubble than you do, it's incredibly irritating, while engaging with someone who consumes from the same news bubble as you is incredibly boring.
- tootie 4y ago
  News is as much about breadth as depth. There's relevant news on topics I'm never going to read a book about. And a lot of news is very much written by experts and a lot books written by biased cranks.
- q7xvh97o2pDhNrh 4y ago
  > I much rather want to talk to the person who reads books written by experts, than to talk to the person who watches the news every day. I'm inclined to prefer the book-readers too, but the way this is phrased sets up a bit of a false dichotomy. Lots of stuff that's happening now and is of interest won't make it into books for a while. And there is something moderately interesting (and educational) about following along, thinking about where the world will go and why, and seeing if you turn out to be right a few days/weeks later. For a while, my entire daily news consumption was just listening to the FT News Briefing [1] during my commute. It's about 10 minutes, and -- most days -- it was just the right amount of news. [1]: https://www.ft.com/ft-news-briefing https://www.ft.com/ft-news-briefing
  - koonsolo 4y ago
    > Lots of stuff that's happening now and is of interest won't make it into books for a while. Can you give an example?
aeze 4y ago
Reading news that will have little to zero impact on your life takes away time you can spend doing more meaningful activities. It doesn't just have to be 'work'. It can be hobbies, spending time with your kids, whatever you want.
- tootie 4y ago
  Not all news is global. And besides we all vote. I hope. Do you live your life with no perspective of your world?
  - aeze 4y ago
    I agree, and that's why my comment targeted news that has 'little to zero impact on your life'. "Believe me it is better to understand the balance-sheet of one's own life than of the corn trade." - Seneca
edub 4y ago
I can't square it either. Lets say that you live in a world where rich people want to control the narrative by making entertaining news shows to distract the populace from what is important, but needed a way to trick the people that sought to dig deeper from more authoritative sources that are less TV-entertainy... then I think it would make sense to tell the people that are digging deeper that it is bad for them and they should stop paying attention to the news for their own mental health and productivity. I recognized that I was over consuming the news during the Trump presidency and needed a reset, and decided to not spend any more time reading the news than the short summaries that Axios posts and ignore all other forms (including John Oliver, although I do still watch Closer Look). It appears that my actions and aspirations don't seem to be making the world a better place, but it is too depressing a thought to think that the best thing for me to do is be ignorant to the bad things in the world. I plan on trying out subscribing to Delayed Gratification to see if that is a better path. https://www.slow-journalism.com/ https://www.slow-journalism.com/
JoshCole 4y ago
Rhetoric is a dangerous sword - its sharpest edge is the pommel. You seem to think you've pointed out a logical inconsistency in Aaron's argument structure. What you actually did was propose that news does not exist; actually, that information itself doesn't exist. In the actual argument they claimed that news wasn't the best information source in an argmax over sources on the basis that other mediums have selective pressures which more strongly correlate with utility generation - partly because of medium influences and partly because things which aren't new are subject to selective pressures for longer and thus the filtering mechanism of that selective pressure is more discriminating. You aren't engaging with that argument, but you act like you are. So when you claim that no information is the alternative proposition you've actually made a mathematical claim: that the count(set{news, **other_sources}) == 0. This is clearly nonsensical because the minimum size of the argmax over information sources necessarily included news and so was obviously at least one, but often more. So your basically asking people who would agree with you on the basis of your argument to take on the claim that 0=N. Yet if it does then it follows that news doesn't exist in the set where you only get to choose news. So they have to not only believe that you are right, but also that news is not a source that they can choose, but this contradicts your premise. Some questions to ponder to help you get it: 1. Why aren't you trying to refute the existence of evolution and natural selection? 2. Why aren't you trying to disprove that approximation accuracy is a function of the computation that goes into the approximation? If you really thought you were right you would be trying to tear down the works of Charles Darwin and would be laughing at Donald Knuth for the stupidity of classifying things by computational complexity. Yet you aren't.
fleddr 4y ago
There's a lot of wiggle room between sane consumption and addiction. And addiction is becoming the norm. I'd add that even if you were to consume no news at all, you'd still get the summary of it one way or another. I'll now continue with my hot take: being informed, even being an expert, on anything outside your field of work is overrated, if not useless. Say you've been following the recent war in great depth. Or the pandemic. Or US politics. You've invested hundreds of hours reading about it and have developed an understanding far above average. Now what? What are you going to do with it? Debate online, a lost cause? What is the tangible benefit of understanding without purpose?
- Panzer04 4y ago
  Agreed - I think one could argue they enjoy reading it, but in a practical sense 99% of news is largely useless, especially from feeds, since there's no real reason to expect news from the feed to be relevant to you. Arguably the same goes for most things (eg HN too), with an occasional relevant article showing up every so often. In general, I think reading news/forums is more for enjoyment/addiction than practicality, though.
- wildmanx 4y ago
  You'll have witnessed history unfold in front of your very own eyes. You'll know the difference between what the history books will claim 20 years from now and the public debate shift based on that, and what you've actually witnessed. Granted, you are (likely) not actually on the ground where the tanks and rockets and soldiers meet, but you are another layer or two closer to being a witness of history. Which you are not if you ignore it.
  - naasking 4y ago
    > You'll know the difference between what the history books will claim 20 years from now and the public debate shift based on that, and what you've actually witnessed. No, you'll know the propaganda you're being fed which often only gets revealed 20 years later. Like what happened in Iraq. Every time you think you're being informed by the media, you should consider if you would have believed them 18 years ago when the media was full of pundits manufacturing consent for war against Iraq by claiming they had WMDs. The playbook doesn't really change, only the story being told. You only get the real story much later.
tw600040 4y ago
if news were what it should be, then yes. But given that news is what's being presented as news today, it does more harm than good.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
BeFlatXIII 4y ago
If it's truly important, it will filter to you naturally.
naasking 4y ago
> It's like saying traffic lights distract you from driving. It's more like saying that a mindset primed on "The Fast and The Furious" is not suitable for good driving.

by tootie 4y ago

Man, I don't get it. News is bad for you so become deliberately ignorant? Don't get distracted by the world so you can work more? It's like saying traffic lights distract you from driving.

landemva 4y ago

More time to play in white water river parks and more time well wasted on ski lifts. I sometimes chat with tourists and listen when they tell me what is important to them. 'Deliberately ignorant' is your value judgment. Spend some time in rural eastern Europe, and the perspective changes for the better. Media propaganda is simply unimportant.

tootie 4y ago
I don't understand this at all. Work and family restrict my travel. Reading news on my phone is inherently portable. And I'm not sure what visiting rural Easter Europe is supposed to prove. A lot of it is engulfed in war and I can't imagine those people are better off being completely ignorant of what Russia is doing. Certainly many of them are to everyone else's detriment. Media propaganda is obviously a bad thing, but reading credible news isn't. Unless you want to descend into abject solipsism
- ben_w 4y ago
  Are you going to do anything about the war in eastern Europe? If the news causes no change in your actions, you might as well have put a small pebble in front of the phone and had it, instead of your eyes, absorb the photons emitted by the screen.
  - landemva 4y ago
    You suggest I do what? I could talk to people about two decades of NATO encroachment on (shall not be spoken) R. Or discuss with people how in the weeks prior to conflict, VP Harris was in Munich and said Ukraine should join NATO. Or discuss how comedian and Vogue model Zelinsky said Ukraine should re-acquire nuclear weapons. While true, none of those fit the rythmn of the mainstream narrative.
    - koonsolo 4y ago
      Well, joining NATO at this point seems like a wise decision, don't you agree? If you want to call it "NATO encroachment on Russia", why doesn't Russia attack NATO then? Why the hell would Ukraine join NATO? I thought Russia was their brother? Any idea why they would want to join NATO? Ah! Maybe it's because they don't want to be invaded by the brother neighbour that likes to invade little countries around them. NATO expansion is Russia's fault, don't be stupid and claim otherwise. Look at how this war already quickly expanded NATO. Keep listening to your Russian propaganda.
    - tootie 4y ago
      I'm not sure what you're getting at aside from asserting Russian propaganda. Ukraine has every right join NATO and if Russia thinks that's a provocation then they should take a look in the mirror. NATO isn't a mutual defense association, not an anti-Russia club. The only reason they think so is because they keep invading countries.
      - landemva 4y ago
        February 20 Zelensky in Munich started to talk back the 1994 no-nukes agreement. https://www.farsnews.ir/en/news/14001201000618/Ukraine-Threaens-Rennce-Is-Nn-Nclear-Sas https://www.farsnews.ir/en/news/14001201000618/Ukraine-Threa... https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280401fbb https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000... Donbas vote on self-autonomy has curiously not been allowed. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49903996 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49903996 "Proposed in 2016 by Germany's then-foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the plan details free and fair elections in the east under Ukrainian law, verification by the OSCE international security organisation, and then self-governing status in return." 'Ukraine has every right join NATO ...' Maybe. Just as Cuba had every right to host USSR nuclear missiles in 1962? 'Why the hell would Ukraine join NATO? I thought Russia was their brother?' Yes, eastern Ukraine aligns with R. Western Ukraine hates R. The movie 'Mr. Jones' may enlighten you about the starvation, and the NYT propaganda at the time.
        ben_w 4y ago
  - fleddr 4y ago
    I think this is a brilliant remark, although it likely will be taken the wrong way. I've personally come to the conclusion that us humans aren't designed to take on the misery of the entire human population, and that we should stop projecting this assumption. If there's no difference between caring and not caring, we should be quite a lot more humble in virtue signaling, or best just shut up.
- spacemark 4y ago
  Yes, deliberate ignorance pendulum swings too far. Of course "free" information is not very useful because someone else is paying for it, motivated by their interests not yours. So do the adult thing and don't throw up your hands and give up, instead pay just a bit for useful information. That way you know a bit more about who is funding it and why.
- elenaferrantes 4y ago
  "Media propaganda is obviously a bad thing, but reading credible news isn't." I would tend to agree with you but since Covid hysteria I do not believe in mainstream media anymore. So that’s an issue because I’m not able to find credible news anymore.

JacobThreeThree 4y ago

Agreed. People just want their worldview spoon-fed to them. Once they realize that it's not healthy, it's too daunting to actually put in the effort needed to construct their own worldview and apply it to their life, thus the head-in-sand ignorance approach. I'm surprised Aaron Swartz, of all people, had this view.

dageshi 4y ago
No, they just realise it's not productive anymore. It's a time sink that pushes misery and drama into your life without any practical way to do anything about it. I don't think the human mind is designed to absorb all the worlds ills and misery, the news amplifies the worst of what's going on in the world and delivers it to you minute by minute, the only rational way of dealing with it is to either cut it out or become unspeakably cynical about it all.
- ben_w 4y ago
  I realised a long time ago that even shedding merely a single tear every time an evil deed is done would lead to dying of dehydration in one's sleep. I mostly try to cut out the news, but the options are not limited to just cutting it out or becoming cynical: an ex went into politics with a genuine desire to make the world right. She is (or was) Green Party (US), so not making much progress, but it is at least a different path. I definitely agree our minds aren't fit for this world: more people online than heartbeats in our lifetimes, combined with a psychology that treats a list of more than 7-ish items as infinite.

maccard 4y ago

> News is bad for you so become deliberately ignorant? I actively avoid news (to the point of changing channels on the TV and Radio when it comes on), and yet somehow I still managed to be kept aware of what's going on, and avoid being ignorant. > It's like saying traffic lights distract you from driving. It's actually more like saying every pedestrian in a city is going to jump in front of you when you're driving. You can be aware of pedestrians, cars, bikes, and be a careful considerate driver without needing to fear that every person is trying to jump in front of your car, in the same way that you can be an informed person without getting daily updates on the top 10 stories in the UK right now.

koonsolo 4y ago

I much rather want to talk to the person who reads books written by experts, than to talk to the person who watches the news every day. I'm sorry but there just isn't any comparison. Have you ever read news about something you are an expert at? It's just laughable inaccurate. News is entertainment, not information. If you want information, read a book written by an expert at the field.

misterprime 4y ago
Also, if you engage with someone who consumes from a different news bubble than you do, it's incredibly irritating, while engaging with someone who consumes from the same news bubble as you is incredibly boring.
tootie 4y ago
News is as much about breadth as depth. There's relevant news on topics I'm never going to read a book about. And a lot of news is very much written by experts and a lot books written by biased cranks.
q7xvh97o2pDhNrh 4y ago
> I much rather want to talk to the person who reads books written by experts, than to talk to the person who watches the news every day. I'm inclined to prefer the book-readers too, but the way this is phrased sets up a bit of a false dichotomy. Lots of stuff that's happening now and is of interest won't make it into books for a while. And there is something moderately interesting (and educational) about following along, thinking about where the world will go and why, and seeing if you turn out to be right a few days/weeks later. For a while, my entire daily news consumption was just listening to the FT News Briefing [1] during my commute. It's about 10 minutes, and -- most days -- it was just the right amount of news. [1]: https://www.ft.com/ft-news-briefing https://www.ft.com/ft-news-briefing
- koonsolo 4y ago
  > Lots of stuff that's happening now and is of interest won't make it into books for a while. Can you give an example?

aeze 4y ago

Reading news that will have little to zero impact on your life takes away time you can spend doing more meaningful activities. It doesn't just have to be 'work'. It can be hobbies, spending time with your kids, whatever you want.

tootie 4y ago
Not all news is global. And besides we all vote. I hope. Do you live your life with no perspective of your world?
- aeze 4y ago
  I agree, and that's why my comment targeted news that has 'little to zero impact on your life'. "Believe me it is better to understand the balance-sheet of one's own life than of the corn trade." - Seneca

edub 4y ago

I can't square it either. Lets say that you live in a world where rich people want to control the narrative by making entertaining news shows to distract the populace from what is important, but needed a way to trick the people that sought to dig deeper from more authoritative sources that are less TV-entertainy... then I think it would make sense to tell the people that are digging deeper that it is bad for them and they should stop paying attention to the news for their own mental health and productivity. I recognized that I was over consuming the news during the Trump presidency and needed a reset, and decided to not spend any more time reading the news than the short summaries that Axios posts and ignore all other forms (including John Oliver, although I do still watch Closer Look). It appears that my actions and aspirations don't seem to be making the world a better place, but it is too depressing a thought to think that the best thing for me to do is be ignorant to the bad things in the world. I plan on trying out subscribing to Delayed Gratification to see if that is a better path. https://www.slow-journalism.com/ https://www.slow-journalism.com/

JoshCole 4y ago

Rhetoric is a dangerous sword - its sharpest edge is the pommel. You seem to think you've pointed out a logical inconsistency in Aaron's argument structure. What you actually did was propose that news does not exist; actually, that information itself doesn't exist. In the actual argument they claimed that news wasn't the best information source in an argmax over sources on the basis that other mediums have selective pressures which more strongly correlate with utility generation - partly because of medium influences and partly because things which aren't new are subject to selective pressures for longer and thus the filtering mechanism of that selective pressure is more discriminating. You aren't engaging with that argument, but you act like you are. So when you claim that no information is the alternative proposition you've actually made a mathematical claim: that the count(set{news, **other_sources}) == 0. This is clearly nonsensical because the minimum size of the argmax over information sources necessarily included news and so was obviously at least one, but often more. So your basically asking people who would agree with you on the basis of your argument to take on the claim that 0=N. Yet if it does then it follows that news doesn't exist in the set where you only get to choose news. So they have to not only believe that you are right, but also that news is not a source that they can choose, but this contradicts your premise. Some questions to ponder to help you get it: 1. Why aren't you trying to refute the existence of evolution and natural selection? 2. Why aren't you trying to disprove that approximation accuracy is a function of the computation that goes into the approximation? If you really thought you were right you would be trying to tear down the works of Charles Darwin and would be laughing at Donald Knuth for the stupidity of classifying things by computational complexity. Yet you aren't.

fleddr 4y ago

There's a lot of wiggle room between sane consumption and addiction. And addiction is becoming the norm. I'd add that even if you were to consume no news at all, you'd still get the summary of it one way or another. I'll now continue with my hot take: being informed, even being an expert, on anything outside your field of work is overrated, if not useless. Say you've been following the recent war in great depth. Or the pandemic. Or US politics. You've invested hundreds of hours reading about it and have developed an understanding far above average. Now what? What are you going to do with it? Debate online, a lost cause? What is the tangible benefit of understanding without purpose?

Panzer04 4y ago
Agreed - I think one could argue they enjoy reading it, but in a practical sense 99% of news is largely useless, especially from feeds, since there's no real reason to expect news from the feed to be relevant to you. Arguably the same goes for most things (eg HN too), with an occasional relevant article showing up every so often. In general, I think reading news/forums is more for enjoyment/addiction than practicality, though.
wildmanx 4y ago
You'll have witnessed history unfold in front of your very own eyes. You'll know the difference between what the history books will claim 20 years from now and the public debate shift based on that, and what you've actually witnessed. Granted, you are (likely) not actually on the ground where the tanks and rockets and soldiers meet, but you are another layer or two closer to being a witness of history. Which you are not if you ignore it.
- naasking 4y ago
  > You'll know the difference between what the history books will claim 20 years from now and the public debate shift based on that, and what you've actually witnessed. No, you'll know the propaganda you're being fed which often only gets revealed 20 years later. Like what happened in Iraq. Every time you think you're being informed by the media, you should consider if you would have believed them 18 years ago when the media was full of pundits manufacturing consent for war against Iraq by claiming they had WMDs. The playbook doesn't really change, only the story being told. You only get the real story much later.

tw600040 4y ago

if news were what it should be, then yes. But given that news is what's being presented as news today, it does more harm than good.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

BeFlatXIII 4y ago

If it's truly important, it will filter to you naturally.

naasking 4y ago

> It's like saying traffic lights distract you from driving. It's more like saying that a mindset primed on "The Fast and The Furious" is not suitable for good driving.