6 ms·

Is modern mass media a mind prison?

• hyperhello 3y ago
  I’ve noticed that everything at the top of Reddit is about how important screen time is. I’ve also noticed how your standards for hangout buddies skyrocket when you spend time alone. I think the lesson here is that we’re not getting enough good solitude, and chasing that situation with bad solitude, but I’m not sure what the line looks like yet.
  • bongodongobob 3y ago
    As someone who is 40, single, and works remotely, I'd say the exact opposite.
    • 65C816 3y ago
      What’s it like from your perspective? I’m currently single and work remotely as well.
    • horrysith 3y ago
      [dead]
    • mikepurvis 3y ago
      But I think the point is that good solitude is time in nature, time writing or reading (but, an actual book), time spent in meditation or working with your hands. Bad solitude when you’re physically alone but perhaps engaging in fake togetherness activities— online gaming, social media, work zoom calls, dumping memes into five different group chats.
  • Zambyte 3y ago
    > how important screen time is. To have or to avoid? I'm OOTL on this.
  • TuringNYC 3y ago
    >> I’ve also noticed how your standards for hangout buddies skyrocket when you spend time alone. I love your comment. I remember the pressure in my early 20s to "go out" into the city, etc. I dont mind socializing, but I found it odd that people would socialize with others they didnt respect, sometimes even back-biting others. What is the point of spending time if you dont truly like the people you spend time with? I especially see this behaviour amongst wealthier colleagues who "go out" almost as habit with seemingly no satisfaction coming from it. Once solitude is an option, it is a great hurdle level to evaluate how else time might be spent. I no longer feel socially awkward to opt out socially and just spend an evening reading a book. But I equally love spending hours at a cafe if it is with people I respect and like.
    • sublinear 3y ago
      > What is the point of spending time if you dont truly like the people you spend time with? I especially see this behaviour amongst wealthier colleagues who "go out" almost as habit with seemingly no satisfaction coming from it. They're probably trying to cast a broader net, but I agree most people don't do it right and keep fishing in the same spots.
• Solvency 3y ago
  I think people grossly overestimate the amount of real human beings embroiled in these online communities of niche collectivism outrage. Developers are not immune to this either, because they are chronically online and whether they like it or not, they're catching wind of the exact same volume of clickbaity activity. Joe Rogan is notorious for this, as he vehemently believes every single thing he sees or hears from Twitter as being reflective of the state of the rest of the real world. This is because he, ultimately, is actually sequestered from real society, operating in a tight little bubble of an elite privileged few. And this is no different from other small, vocal, and ultimately isolated communities of people who spend all day together… Just online. I live in a suburban part of Southern California, I deal with regular people of all shapes and sizes and ages and races daily basis in person. 99.99% of them have absolutely no idea about any of this nonsense. not a single thing from this article would even register on their personal radars. unless it was served up to them on a platter by which ever partisan news network they happen to check in with once in a while. and don't even get me started on the fact that the vast majority of this Internet activity is ultimately bots, bored trolls, and paid schills. also: why is this article focused on modern mass media? Simply look thousands of years ago at the original mass media mind prison called religion.
  • bloqs 3y ago
    This is absolutely the psychosis of today and tomorrow. Just watching my own father in isolation in algorithm walls on twitter and Facebook is astonishing
  • bongodongobob 3y ago
    This is it. I never got into Instagram reels, fb shorts, whatever it's all called until I had a period of unemployment this year. I got sucked in because I was absolutely fascinated by how disconnected this online world is from real life. It's an onion of strawmans and hypotheticals that didn't actually happen that people are getting outraged over. People are frothing over the mere idea that someone would have a thought or carry out an action that they deem unethical. It's pure insanity and I really believe the source is Russian and Chinese cyber ops. I'm liberal as fuck, but the stereotypical blue haired anti-gendered person raving about communism isn't real, per se. It's like a few hundred people that got pushed to the top. And people lose their shit over it. It's brilliant.
• slily 3y ago
  This article is really not helping by labeling something like half of the US as bigots. I actually believe that mainstream media is more balanced nowadays compared to a few years ago. I think that they've caught on to the fact that trust has eroded in recent years and are adjusting. However critics have not yet realized that. Funny to get flagged by people who don't have anything to say in response by the way. Whenever politics are involved I take it as validation.
  • smitty1e 3y ago
    I mean: "The Fitzwilliam Museum has suggested that paintings of the British countryside evoke dark “nationalist feelings”." Winston Smith got nothin' on these guys. Via https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/03/the-dark-side-of-art.php https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/03/the-dark-side...
  • LegitShady 3y ago
    >I actually believe that mainstream media is more balanced nowadays compared to a few years ago. I think that they've caught on to the fact that trust has eroded in recent years and are adjusting. However critics have not yet realized that. It's not that the critics haven't caught on, its that the same people/orgs/editors who weren't trustworthy last year aren't trustworthy this year just because they're trying to appear more trustworthy - it should make you more suspicious that these shrieking propagandists are trying to earn your trust, not less suspicious.
    • slily 3y ago
      I'm not saying you shouldn't view mainstream media with suspicion anymore, but coverage is definitely more balanced than it used to be (not everywhere, but in some of the traditionally trustworthy publications like the New York Times). Conversely, social media networks are increasingly divisive and radical, so if that's your alternative I don't recommend it. If I have to make a recommendation, the Wall Street Journal has been consistently high-quality in my experience.
      • 3y ago
• bluesounddirect 3y ago
  Logout , delete your social media disconnect and just listen to wfmu.org . You will feel better . Don’t believe give it a try .
  • wahnfrieden 3y ago
    Or CIUT
  • Dudhbbh3343 3y ago
    Why are you inserting a space before all of your punctuation?
  • andrewinardeer 3y ago
    It was Punk Hour or something and a kid was yelling 'Burn it down!'.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
• Geee 3y ago
  I don't think the changes in behavior have anything to do with mass media. People don't really follow mass media these days. People simply default to maximizing comfort (minimizing effort), which leads them to all these choices. It's unfortunate that maximizing comfort does not maximize happiness, which inevitably leads humanity into increased unhappiness. Someone should really invent a way of life which aligns comfort with happiness.
  • Zambyte 3y ago
    > People don't really follow mass media these days. Hm, I would call a large portion of media on social media "mass media". Even though it's distributed in a new form, I do think a lot of people follow what I would call "mass media".
  • jhanoncomm 3y ago
    Mass media might mean large traditional TV, Movie and Newspaper organisations but I take it to mean also Google, Meta, X, Netflix, Reddit and so on. Your other points I agree with. But I believe you cannot be happy without discomfort. That is less from Taoism perspective but more to so with how the brain and body actually work. A lot of hip remedies (medicinal psychedelics, ice baths, weight training for wellness as opposed to vanity/sport) are based on pain followed by gain. As opposed to alcohol, doom scroll etc. that are the reverse.
  • maxglute 3y ago
    Being in a confirmation bubble is comfort and happiness most of the time. Or at least not be confronted with unhappiness.
  • DavidPiper 3y ago
    > Someone should really invent a way of life which aligns comfort with happiness. They have: Consumerism. (You could also argue Hedonism if you equate pleasure with dopamine, but I feel like hedonism has a stigmatised "grossly self-indulgent" connotation that hasn't yet been applied to merely consuming things.)
    • 3y ago
• barrysteve 3y ago
  Some 'Normal' people are losing their minds too. The double stack effect of people losing their mind in real life and then finding an echo chamber to blame it on, is hard to escape solo. Critical thinking and solid reasoning goes out the window too easily.
• npunt 3y ago
  > "In-person interaction is hazardous to your body, mind and reputation. The only truly safe space is at home, in front of a screen." > This is the one conspiracy theory I truly believe, that mass media’s relentless “stranger danger” propaganda serves the same purpose as a cult’s rules against fraternizing with the heretics. And it’s the worst kind of conspiracy in that I don’t think the conspirators have any idea what they’re doing. Great insight. All mediums promote themselves so they can remain competitive against other mediums. 'Stranger danger' is a powerful way to promote, it hijacks our natural inclination to focus on data that helps us assess risk. We've seen this grow from having like 3 tv news stations to 24h cable news and now to UGC video. As production & distribution tech has increased adoption (from 100s of producers to billions), it's increased the quantity and quality of content that can deliver this stranger danger message. Meanwhile our paleolithic emotions remain unchanged. Whether it's cults, media, social media, politics, etc, the incentives of maximal extraction are always to divide & conquer. Our isolation and a lot of our strife is the product of our extractive economy slowly winning out over our agency.
  • IncreasePosts 3y ago
    >> The only truly safe space is at home, in front of a screen. Justine Sacco would disagree!
• api 3y ago
  Why is this surprising? These systems are doing what we programmed them to do: maximize engagement with media by selecting and prioritizing the most engaging content. (That happens to be the craziest, most divisive, most triggering stuff because we are wired that way, but the algorithm doesn’t care. It just followed gradient descent and found a local minimum and gave us Qanon and cancel mobs.) This comes at the expense of friendships, relationships, hobbies, and self care. It has to because people have only so much attention and time. So it’s ruining our minds and destroying society, but at least people click ads. Acting like this is a surprise is like “this machine gun perforates things with bullets when I point it at things! How is this happening?!?!” Well, it’s because that there gun was… uhh… designed to do that… People don’t want to admit that this was a deliberate choice.
• thorncorona 3y ago
  can we please stop upvoting blog spam? this is pure blogspam of the 2010s era
• smsm42 3y ago
  I don't think it's the mass media. I mean, the media - especially social networks - play a role, but ultimately it's people who make it the hellscape it sometimes is. It's not some feature of technology or business or "capitalism" or anything - it's ultimately people being shitty to each other, again and again. If anybody wants to make it better, that's where they should focus their effort - not introducing regulations to have screen time limits, or banning certain algorithms or media sites, or introducing large print warnings on social media sites (I am not sure if anybody proposed it yet but I'm sure they will) - but trying to push cultural norms towards being shitty to other people is bad. It's much harder to pull off, but I think it's the only hope.
• jackcosgrove 3y ago
  Mass media is not the problem. Personalized media is the problem. Mass media fosters consensus while personalized media fosters divergent views. There are pluses and minuses to both, but I feel like mass media is the wrong term to use to diagnose the problem.
  • pksebben 3y ago
    These days, what's the difference? It's not like the messages you get in your feed are much different from some-or-another nightly news. Mass-personalized algorithmic media is everywhere.
  • TuringNYC 3y ago
    >> Mass media is not the problem. Personalized media is the problem. Mass media fosters consensus while personalized media fosters divergent views. I'd say Mass Media is a huge problem if you happen to not be a member of the majority. Think about being a PoC in the 1980s where every villain in mass media looks like you. Think about being a PoC parent in the 1980s and having your children see people like you be vilified. Personalized media is great IMHO.
    • Dibby053 3y ago
      >Think about being a PoC in the 1980s where every villain in mass media looks like you. The implication being that all PoC have a common look? I find the unintended racism in this sentence pretty hilarious.
      • TuringNYC 3y ago
        The implication being that Mass Media villains inevitably tended to be African American, Russian, or Arab. They were often portrayed as speaking English poorly, uneducated, and klutzy. Speak to an African American child of the 1980s and, yes, they notice this. Not sure why you would find this funny, this was a very serious issue where Mass Media decided to centrally write and cast only a handful of minority groups as villains.
    • 3y ago
• ordinaryradical 3y ago
  I’m the most calm and happy I’ve been in a long time. I threw away almost all of my social media and news consumption. The more I’ve come to stand outside of it, the sillier and more crazed the culture has seemed. We really need a collective break and some wisdom building work. Laron Lanier’s book, Ten Arguments for Deleting your Social Media Accounts Right Now, is still a great read and one I often recommend to my friends. I think now that we’re mostly dealing with socially acceptable forms of addiction, and the sooner we realize that and start treating it like a public health crisis the better off we’ll be.
  • pksebben 3y ago
    Suuuuper hard second. Getting of the facestagramitter was possibly the single kindest thing I've ever done for myself. Came with a news blackout, and as it turns out you can stay more or less exactly the same amount of informed because people will happily burst that bubble every time the rage machine hits critical mass. Not mad about it, any more. I do sometimes wish there were things to talk about that didn't come from the internet. HN is the last open-forum-ish place I can't really bring myself to get rid of, and I'm not sure I want to. Doesn't have the same stank as the rest, at least not bad enough to jump ship.
    • m000 3y ago
      > Came with a news blackout, and as it turns out you can stay more or less exactly the same amount of informed because people will happily burst that bubble every time the rage machine hits critical mass. Not mad about it, any more. So, you're essentially relying on other people taking the toll on being on social media to keep yourself informed. No offence intended, but isn't this similarly selfish with being an antivaxxer? I.e. believing you have some sort of personal epiphany, while in reality you are just enjoying the benefit of everyone else being involved in a moderately risky activity? Again, I do not wish to be judgemental, everyone have their own tolerances that they are entitled to manage and keep personal. Just saying that if everyone gets off social media tomorrow, I don't think it will be for the best of humanity, even though social media do have the potential to be individually harmful. > I do sometimes wish there were things to talk about that didn't come from the internet. Before the internet discussion topics would just come from the news (TV or printed). However, TV and printed press have degraded so much in the past decades, that relying solely on them to set our discussion agenda would be a catastrophe. Social media, as tolling as they may be, seem to be the only thing that makes us aware of a global descent to a dystopic future.
• DavidPiper 3y ago
  Another opportunity on Hacker News to recommend Niel Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death". Best book I've read in the last 5 years and goes deep on this issue as it presented ~40 years ago with televised mass media. The books has aged pretty flawlessly - still 100% applicable to the internet age. A few comments here revealing a core point: It is a feature, not a bug, that people don't consciously realise it's happening to them.
  • zingababba 3y ago
    Franco Berardi has the best handle on the current phenomena IMO. "The Soul at Work", "Futurability", "And: Phenomenology of the End"... all fantastic.
  • temeya 3y ago
    Seconding Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death," for its prescience, and I would also recommend Alfie Bown's "Candy Crush and Capitalism," as it makes a connection to how our notions of distracting ourselves acts as a way to emphasize the importance of our work, whatever it may be.
• user3939382 3y ago
  The problem is corporate media which runs as a wing of the US State Dept. If we had state run media that identified itself as such it basically wouldn’t be different.
  • brikym 3y ago
    Definitely. Two things come to mind. 1. Weapons of mass destruction. 2. TikTok only becoming a real issue once they were publishing the 'wrong' kind of propaganda re the Israel Palestine conflict.
    • _heimdall 3y ago
      Politics will always be politics. We can't expect politicians to stop playing the game, especially when its a requirement to get to the highest levels of office.
      • m000 3y ago
        > We can't expect politicians to stop playing the game Maybe not on their own accord. But if not at all, then how are we living in a democracy?
  • m000 3y ago
    In USSR, Pravda always used the subtitle "Organ of the Central Committee of the CPSU" in its title header. So, you could probably rephrase this as "I wish modern day western press was as transparent as Soviet press", without being too much of a hyperbole.
• karaterobot 3y ago
  The more news you watch, the more insane you get. The more news the world watches, the more insane it gets. Notice that I am not saying that insane people obsess over the media, I am saying that people who obsess over the media go insane. To be even more clear: social media is making you unhappy. It is not making you aware of your unhappiness, it is causing it. It isn't pointing out how bad the world is, it's making the world bad.
  • horrysith 3y ago
    [dead]
  • pas 3y ago
    there are wellbeing studies, is the proliferation of news / social media visible on these graphs? (do people settle into a new worse baseline too fast for these studies to pick this up? does this insanity show up on psychiatric stats? IIRC the data for young girls shows that their mental health got worse the more time they spent on social media, is there something similar for other cohorts?) probably it's time to look for natural experiments that could show how big of a radicalizing effect certain channels/videos/outlets have.
  • ben_w 3y ago
    "that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them" - Not Mark Twain https://quoteinvestigator.com/2016/12/03/misinformed/?amp=1 https://quoteinvestigator.com/2016/12/03/misinformed/?amp=1
• shaunxcode 3y ago
  The Society of the Spectacle: redux.
• xtiansimon 3y ago
  I tend to be sympathetic to the alliterative title’s implied meaning, but this piece is rambling.