9 ms·

About a year ago, I stopped consuming news cold turkey (save technology and movie news [the former work-necessary and the latter a personal vice]). I took the e

• Dalewyn 4y ago
  One of the most common bit of wisdom I've heard from older folks is to ignore the news. Don't read the newspaper, don't watch TV news, don't listen to radio news, etc.; they all say nothing in them is worth our time. It's among the most useful piece of advice I've ever had.
  • siva7 4y ago
    Very true but does HN count? Would you be happier without your daily influx of GPT news and tech layoffs?
    • RockRobotRock 4y ago
      HN definitely counts
    • Dalewyn 4y ago
      Yup. I ignore 99% of the threads that come by here, and I wish I could do that without bothering to read the clickbaity (and generally sensationally false) headlines.
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    • hot_gril 4y ago
      I ignore a lot of the big topics. Layoffs don't concern me beyond just knowing that they're happening.
      • deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      • hot_gril 4y ago
        (and of course, not getting laid off)
    • pdimitar 4y ago
      Over the course of the last 3 years I found myself clicking on less and less HN stories. This place definitely feels like it lost the inventor spirit and the clever "how to" articles. A lot of stuff is either political or has very close political outcomes, and the rest is blind hype (ChatGPT won't revolutionize almost anything, and I'll stand by my words, bookmark this comment and show it to me in 5 years, I dare you). Let's not forget the yet-another-500-comments thread arguing pointlessly about whether startups are a good format or not. Or office vs. remote. And several others (but they are not many and it does feel like a tool a la ChatGPT could have generated them). Today I've gotten much bigger value for my time when reading about various CLI tools that process and ingest / export data (recent thread about `miller`) than all of the above, combined. HN, I feel, became more popular, and that has hurt its quality. So yes, I started reducing my consumption of it as well. I treat it like all other news sites 99% of the time, and I am right to do so at least 90% of them. I barely find 2-3 good articles per week these days. Soon I might start checking HN biweekly because the value proposition is just not there.
      • robswc 4y ago
        >ChatGPT won't revolutionize almost anything, and I'll stand by my words, bookmark this comment and show it to me in 5 years, I dare you 1. I'll actually take you up on this, because I'm interested to re-visit the discourse around launch, 5 years from now :) 2. I do agree it's overhyped to a degree. I think it will revolutionize _some_ things but it could turn out like VR. I do use it every day and I don't see a reason not to... I guess we'll see what the future holds!
        • pdimitar 4y ago
          My problem with the hyped up stuff, ChatGPT in particular, is that AI actually does not exist. The practitioners of the area of course have a vested interest to argue until the end of days that ACTUALLY AI does equal ML/DL and stuff but I am like "I see no Skynet so get off my back, we have no AI and that's that". :D But, I guess in 5 years we could argue whether certain progresses are indeed attributed to ChatGPT or is it something else entirely!
    • collinvandyck76 4y ago
      Not as much in my opinion. True, there are spikes of negative and cynical HN threads, but it's not nearly as consistently sustained as general news media.
    • flippinburgers 4y ago
      HN has changed a lot. As others have stated there is a lot of politics injected that I couldn't care less about.
  • LoganDark 4y ago
    Going too far in the other direction can be pretty annoying, too, though. I'm autistic and vehemently ignore and reject most pieces of news, especially political, and that causes tons of terrible things to happen whenever some sort of spoiler gets out and I happen to see it. It's like I'm proud of my great ignorance and having that threatened with mere knowledge sends me into a panic of some sort. It's not just news. If I say "I don't know what that is lol" to someone, 9 times out of 10 their default response to tell me what it is (if it is some cultural/media thing) is the complete opposite of what I want, which is usually just for the other person to move on without telling. Knowing things can't be undone, so I strive not to know most things, apparently.
    • ianai 4y ago
      Reply with a response that will get the response you want. If you want them to leave the topic, say something non-engaging like “ok”. You’re likely to come across not entirely socially acceptable in either case, but that’s probably impossible to counter.
      • LoganDark 4y ago
        > Reply with a response that will get the response you want. This is something that I understand, but unfortunately can't really perform for some reason. I always have to be... "honest", for lack of a better word. I will always say something that makes things worse for me because it's... just how I feel. I used to be a pathological liar, and from a young age I had this one friend who was a living lie detector, and they trained it out of me so hard that I now obsessively tell the truth in all situations even when it would be detrimental. ;-;
        • ianai 4y ago
          That’s not quite lying. It’s just not being interested in a topic and being clear but polite about it.
          • LoganDark 4y ago
  • nomilk 4y ago
    I feel like we're failing to accurately name 'news'. The vast majority of what is offered as 'news' isn't news at all, it's gossip, schadenfreude, arbitrary drama, and frivolous feel-good stories. 'News' has a ring of plausible importance. I wish we had a more accurate name reflecting its mostly unimportant, worthless, and destructive nature.
    • haimez 4y ago
      News is just what’s “New”. It’s name is already prefectly descriptive :)
    • labster 4y ago
      But if we take all of those stories out of the news cycle, the only national news we’d have left is The Onion.
      • Dalewyn 4y ago
        I unironically and sincerely believe The Onion is one of, if not the, the best sources of journalism in our time.
    • Gigachad 4y ago
      I’ve observed that so much of the news is published before the facts are even out. In a race to be first, they present half a story that hasn’t been verified yet. So you are left to either be outraged preemptively or just ignore the story entirely as it’s currently useless.
      • vachina 4y ago
        Yeah, they use words like “allegedly” or “according to unnamed sources” to free themselves from liability in the event when what they report turns out to be inaccurate. In that case might as well not report the news then if they’re not sure.
      • wolverine876 4y ago
        Could you give some recent examples, especially from news organizations with leading reptuations (NY Times, Washington Post, etc.)? To a degree, that's what journalists should do: They are not writing a history book. They can't wait until all the facts are out or we'd never know if someone was arrested or accused until the trial was over.
  • whitemary 4y ago
    I don't think the reason to be informed is to feel good.
• wil421 4y ago
  I like to watch my favorite local news station. They have a lot of minor stories that never make the National media. Although there are local issues like murders, thefts, and controversial topics. It’s still a huge downgrade from the rage inducing large outlets.
  • uncletammy 4y ago
    I expect youre being downvoted for the same reasons I felt the need to reply. I'm skeptical that any "local" news station is able to give you useful content without also pushing strong partisian agendas. What station is it? Asking with an open heart and mind. I would love it if such a thing exists in this day and age.
    • wil421 4y ago
      Hesitant to give out my location but I guess if you combed my comment history someone could find out. I like WSB-TV and the early morning broadcast only. Lots of local news less the 5 o’clock prime time breaking news type stuff. Perhaps the key is picking the right time of day. I also pay for PBS/GPB but I am someone who can filter out partisan topics and welcome both liberal and conservative discussions. At the end of the day I make my own conclusions and I’m not afraid to break party lines.
    • freeone3000 4y ago
      Local news tends to be way more actionable. City council meetings are attended by like... Thirty people? Max? I've shown up to ones where there are more people on the council than in the gallery. It's very easy to get your voice heard if you're in a crowd the size of a small classroom. And the impact is direct! They were going to accept the suburb negotiation for allocation of service renumeration based on assessed value rather than service quantity consumed! I voiced my opposition, as did several others; the motion was eventually decided against. But if you're not reading your local paper, you might not even have known. Of course all three of mine are INCREDIBLY partisan, which is great because they're partisan in different ways :)
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
• hot_gril 4y ago
  I went the other way, expanding the news I read to include more international stuff. Really makes me see the partisan stuff in the US as silly, so I don't get heated about it, just lazily keep up with what's happening. International propaganda is easier to spot cause I'm not living in it, which helps me identify it more at home. Anything I consider real news is still too far away to really upset me but important enough that I want to do something about it in a cool-headed way. And if I weren't doing that, I'd go no-news. That's fine too.
  • tasty_freeze 4y ago
    > Really makes me see the partisan stuff in the US as silly, so I don't get heated about it, Some of the partisan issues are not silly if you are affected by it. To pick a left issue, if you are gay and would like to marry your partner and get the benefits of such legal recognition, the differences are very consequential. To pick a right issue, if you think that Democrats are voting illegally by the millions, then addressing such threats to Democracy is incredibly important. There are many other issues where there is a real difference. As an affluent, well educated, older white guy with job security, I'm well insulated from many of the issues. But I have empathy for the people who can't be so aloof; to say "both sides are equally bad" across the board is lazy enlightened centrism.
    • hot_gril 4y ago
      I don't think they're equally bad, only equally silly. They use the same scare tactics every time, and it helps to look past that. Yes I care about the issues. But how I vote is different: just straight down for whatever is the minority party in my state. Only battleground states get the pandering, and I'll stop doing this if I ever live in a battleground state or they change how voting works. State propositions are a separate thing.
      • whitemary 4y ago
        Same but I just don't vote at all, unless there are any strong trustworthy pro-worker candidates which basically doesn't happen. I will also show up to vote against anti-worker ballot measures, which are more frequent.
• moremetadata 4y ago
  [dead]
• LastTrain 4y ago
  I did about the same thing at about the same time. I’ve spent much more time creating - music, software, retro computing. Much happier, but there is one corner of my brain that feels a bit like I had to give up on humanity to get here and that sucks.
• nradov 4y ago
  I guess it's one of those game theory things. Individually each of us can improve our lives by "defecting" and ignoring the news. But if we all "cooperate" by consuming a lot of news then we have better odds of voting in ways that actually improve the world. An interesting moral dilemma: is it right to become a low-information voter in order to be happier? (I am not judging your choices. I honestly don't know the correct answer.)
  • wolverine876 4y ago
    How could it be 'right' to abidicate resposibility? If others do it, how will anything get done? Claiming powerlessness is an excuse to avoid the stress of our times. Now, more than ever, people need to step up and take responsibility.
  • chmod600 4y ago
    "by consuming a lot of news then we have better odds of voting in ways that actually improve the world" I doubt that's true. Certainly not if we are all reading broadly and shallowly, from a few dozen media sources all trying to trigger outrage. It would be true if we all looked deeply at different topics. Then voting would represent some combination of all of that deep knowledge.
  • bumby 4y ago
    An alternative is to find someone whose thought process you trust who does consume a lot of news and treat them as a human filter. Not too much different than how we use experts in other domains.
• treeman79 4y ago
  I’ve found that one needs to decide if they are going to get involved, or if there is a line that can be crossed that they are willing to get involved. If not, ignore all news. If the line is crossed or going to be crossed soon. Then get involved.
• i_play_stax 4y ago
  Can confirm. Did this myself in mid 2020. So much better.
• dhab 4y ago
  I think it's a bit extreme. I have developed some heurisitics, which so far are (living in Australia): * news.com.au = clickbait * government funded ones = abc, sbs are free and ok * 9 news, 7 news = negative * google news = aggregator of mostly negative news * AFR, Sydney Morning Herald, .. few others = ok My experience with twitter has been the following: * I look at some content I subscribed for (humor, or tech related) * Then it feeds suggestions which spiral downwards into negativity (sometimes extreme - like videos of people getting shot). Soon, I resent twitter and the platform. Experience with youtube: meh, but not as bad as Twitter as described above Experience with Quora: better and interesting Facebook: I avoid TikTok (my wife's): interesting content - but happy to view via my wife's mobile, since it naturally limits my consumption Netflix: good and bad, but ok
  • nomilk 4y ago
    I would swap a lot of these out for primary sources. 'News' sites are just middle-men for a 9:1 blend of unimportant trash and important information. Occasionally they can alert you of something important you need to know about, but once I learn of such topics, I examine primary source(s) and context; very rarely do I get info from the 'news' article itself; it's usually designed to titillate or outrage.
    • wolverine876 4y ago
      > 'News' sites are just middle-men for a 9:1 blend of unimportant trash and important information. You are looking at the wrong sites. There are many - more than I can read - which focus on serious news.
  • ImaCake 4y ago
    I would say both ABC and SMH often lead with clickbait as well. I sometimes check the headlines and it is almost always a waste of time and emotional energy. The top article on abc at the moment is clickbaity and niche, although, I give credit to it actually being of relevance to some people. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-18/leaky-buildings-poor-waterproofing-practices-experts-fear-crisis/102089312 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-18/leaky-buildings-poor-...
• martin82 4y ago
  [flagged]
  • muglug 4y ago
    That mostly-harmless virus killed upwards of 6 million worldwide
    • galaxyLogic 4y ago
      In the US alone it is > 1 million Covid deaths by now. When anybody says millions of deaths is "mostly harmless", while the vaccine that helps fight those deaths is "extremely dangerous", I believe they have a political agenda. Whereas healthcare professionals who give us the statistics and vaccines do not have a political agenda. They have a healthcare agenda. So it's really not like "both sides are bad". Whoever pushes unproven facts is working for the bad side.
  • MaxHoppersGhost 4y ago
    > And just recently your bodily autonomy was invaded by forcing you to take an experimental drug This is very true and terrible >(that has now proven to be extremely dangerous) This is not true, how can you say this? Proof?
  • mrexroad 4y ago
    > against a mostly harmless virus. Wtf. It’s easy to say that now after covid variants have become decreasingly virulent as they became increasingly transmissible, but it was absolutely not mostly harmless. The human species won the lotto with how it evolved, but just spin that to play to our political leanings. I’ll take the downvotes for saying this, but with all respect, please just duck off back to “doing your own research” in whatever echo chamber you prefer.
    • wolverine876 4y ago
      We won the Lotto? Over 6.8 million people, including over 1 million Americans died. Many more suffer from long-term damage. The economic cost was astronomical.
• ar9av 4y ago
  That's not the thrust of the study. Per the article, "Here we analyse the effect of negative words on news consumption... Where it is reported a reason for consumption "...negative information automatically activating threat responses and leading one to deduce that ...motivations may make ‘fear’ and ‘anger’ more influential...
• wolverine876 4y ago
  Who is going to make decisions and hold power in our society, if not you and me? We have responsibilities for it; if it's malfunctioning, that is on us. Who will take care of these responsibilities for you? Expecting someone else to do it is playing a victim and a child - it is us, there's nobody else; there are no parents or authorities to take care of us while we act out. People following your path are why nothing happens. People who act are the reason many do face consequences. Look at the world that was built for you - the freedom, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, the technology, health care, roads, schools, etc. They were built by the prior generations, not by people who quit under stress. What are you building? The best tactic of the people with power is to get people like you to give up yours, because the public has the ultimate power. Why do you think people in power invest so much in persuasion, disinformation, etc.? If you were powerless, it wouldn't matter. If you claim news is useless, what are you doing on HN that is so useful? (And see the headlines from Memeorandum, below.) > there has been zero consequences during my 50 years of life That's a falsehood, and if more need to face consequences, that is up to you and me. > Memeorandum Here are the current headlines. Many have great impact on the future of our country, on the freedom and financial security of hundreds of millions. You don't care about anyone else, including yourself? That's not a persuasive argument. * Trump attorney ordered to testify before grand jury investigating former president * Law enforcement agencies are prepping for a possible Trump indictment as early as next week * ‘The Wire’ Star Lance Reddick Dead at 60 * Wyoming Becomes First State to Outlaw Abortion Pills * My Struggle Session at Stanford Law School * Two gifts to Trump family from foreign nations are missing, report says * ICC issues arrest warrant for Putin over war crimes in Ukraine * House GOP ignored Capitol Police requests to review public Jan. 6 footage, lawyer says * Michigan Is Becoming The Anti-Florida On LGBTQ Rights ― And A Lot More * Biden jokes he's ‘really not Irish’ because he's sober, doesn't have relatives ‘in jail’ * America Has Decided It Went Overboard on Covid-19 * Biden asks Congress to impose tougher penalties on executives of failed banks * Just Because ChatBots Can't Think Doesn't Mean They Can't Lie * Derek Chauvin, ex-officer convicted of killing George Floyd, pleads guilty to federal tax evasion * As crucial legal test for Antifa ideology heads to trial, right-wing media also scrutinized ... etc. (list is getting too long)
  • dirtybird04 4y ago
• starkd 4y ago
  Entirely understandable. But taken too far, it is sort of like a person being raped coming to terms with the abuse and actually learning to like it. News can be addictive, so its important to keep it in check. But too much ignorance makes you an unwitting slave.
• Night_Thastus 4y ago
  Wholeheartedly agree. While not a news site, Reddit has many large subreddits that repost news from other sites. They frequently make it to the front page. Banishing every single one of them off my front page definitely makes scrolling through it less headache-inducing.