6 ms·

"I think following the news is a waste of time." I'm sure this plaid a role in him being so productive. But I do think its my obligation to read the news. Eve

by FrojoS 14y ago

"I think following the news is a waste of time." I'm sure this plaid a role in him being so productive. But I do think its my obligation to read the news. Even if it makes me less productive. Without the news I would have never learned about Aarons hack and his trial. Of course, just knowing the news is not enough. One has to act. In the case of Aaron, we didn't act.

halviti 14y ago
You missed the point of the article entirely. Let's say you knew of Aaron's plight. Would this news have changed your life for the better by you getting this knowledge the day it happened?
- 205guy 14y ago
  And you missed the point as well: if you didn't know who Aaron was, and you didn't click any of the links on HN about him, would your life be any different? I didn't know about Aaron until all the articles started popping up here. Only curiosity drove me to find out the story, no real need or purpose.
pdonis 14y ago
Without the news I would have never learned about Aarons hack and his trial. Maybe it depends on how you define "news". Everything I know about Aaron Swartz, I know from following links I encountered here. True, this is a "news" site, but it's filtered news; I think that's an important point. The problem with "mainstream" news media is not just that they're bad at reporting; they're also bad at filtering, because their filter criterion is what will sell papers/get more viewers, rather than what information is genuinely of value to the most readers.
- eru 14y ago
  > The problem with "mainstream" news media is not just that they're bad at reporting; they're also bad at filtering, because their filter criterion is what will sell papers/get more viewers, Here we filter for karma..
- ersii 14y ago
  I don't read "the news" (meaning mainstream media, if you may) all that often, but when I do - I do like that they're "bad at filtering", or rather, their sheer broadness of topics. It reminds me that there is people with other views of life and that there's more topics out there - than what my more like minded sphere care to interest themselfs with.
scarecrowbob 14y ago
Maybe it is a question of what one considers news. I found out through HN, which I don't consider to be "news" in the sense portrayed by the post. I don't think that it's a matter of productivity. I don;t read news because it presents me with a bunch of inactionable information-- I can't -do- anything about any of the stories that I read in the news and so there's no use building up impotent rage about those things.
VigUi7vv8G2 14y ago
Well, there is a difference between reading "the news" and reading a specialized website about stuff you're interested in. I would have heard about this from the various blogs I read. I'm actually pretty informed about "the news" but I don't read any newspaper sites unless I get links to them, and I certainly don't watch TV news. Part of the problem with that is some people might end up getting all their news from websites that feature crazy conspiracy theory stuff, like Alex Jones or whatever.

by FrojoS 14y ago

halviti 14y ago

You missed the point of the article entirely. Let's say you knew of Aaron's plight. Would this news have changed your life for the better by you getting this knowledge the day it happened?

205guy 14y ago
And you missed the point as well: if you didn't know who Aaron was, and you didn't click any of the links on HN about him, would your life be any different? I didn't know about Aaron until all the articles started popping up here. Only curiosity drove me to find out the story, no real need or purpose.

pdonis 14y ago

Without the news I would have never learned about Aarons hack and his trial. Maybe it depends on how you define "news". Everything I know about Aaron Swartz, I know from following links I encountered here. True, this is a "news" site, but it's filtered news; I think that's an important point. The problem with "mainstream" news media is not just that they're bad at reporting; they're also bad at filtering, because their filter criterion is what will sell papers/get more viewers, rather than what information is genuinely of value to the most readers.

eru 14y ago
> The problem with "mainstream" news media is not just that they're bad at reporting; they're also bad at filtering, because their filter criterion is what will sell papers/get more viewers, Here we filter for karma..
ersii 14y ago
I don't read "the news" (meaning mainstream media, if you may) all that often, but when I do - I do like that they're "bad at filtering", or rather, their sheer broadness of topics. It reminds me that there is people with other views of life and that there's more topics out there - than what my more like minded sphere care to interest themselfs with.

scarecrowbob 14y ago

Maybe it is a question of what one considers news. I found out through HN, which I don't consider to be "news" in the sense portrayed by the post. I don't think that it's a matter of productivity. I don;t read news because it presents me with a bunch of inactionable information-- I can't -do- anything about any of the stories that I read in the news and so there's no use building up impotent rage about those things.

VigUi7vv8G2 14y ago

Well, there is a difference between reading "the news" and reading a specialized website about stuff you're interested in. I would have heard about this from the various blogs I read. I'm actually pretty informed about "the news" but I don't read any newspaper sites unless I get links to them, and I certainly don't watch TV news. Part of the problem with that is some people might end up getting all their news from websites that feature crazy conspiracy theory stuff, like Alex Jones or whatever.