Live data from Hacker News

Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

raptitude.com

461–470 of 741 posts

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#461

Am I paranoid or do certain topics get upvoted with suspicious frequency lately? Now that shit is popping off in Europe there is an uptick in NSA/CIA/America bad posts with anti-free press sprinkled on top. Every post about events unfolding in Europe were flagged and didn't even reach the front page here until the last few days. In the Jeff Geerling post Dang revealed that there are groups of inauthentic actors on th…

> Am I paranoid or do certain topics get upvoted with suspicious frequency lately?

Given the ease of targeting sites for manipulation, HN is probably prominent enough to be worth some psyops effort, though nothing on the scale of the major social media platforms. So, it wouldn't be unexpected though I haven't noticed it, particularly.

> Now that shit is popping off in Europe there is an uptick in NSA/CIA/America bad posts with anti-free press sprinkled on top. Every post about events unfolding in Europe were flagged and didn't even reach the front page here until the last few days.

There's a fairly normal thing here that well-covered potential political events, even fairly extreme ones that don't offer particularly novel discussion opportunities, tend to get down voted along with routine political events. But at a certain level of significance of actual rather than potential events, there's often a phase transition where the down voting is less aggressive (sometimes, there may also be, usually limited, mod intervention to allow some discussion.) So, I’m not convinced that that is particularly suspicious in this case, though the particular content bias may (or may not) reflect some influence of “inauthentic actors”.

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#462
post #4

I fully agree with this. Scanning Google News or a couple of the more professional international news services like BBC / Al Jazeera / Reuters I still feel pretty well informed (and confident that there's usually nothing of immediate consequence to me) but it doesn't grow into "expert analysis" or impact my feelings much. Here's another thing I noticed: how manipulated / manipulative it is. And not just news and I do…

For me the real eye opener was this bit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMDPql6rweo

Yikes! Lucy did a nice job talking around the ethics question at the end. She may be good at her job, but its pretty offensive that her job even exists.

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#463

As someone who just stepped back into pop culture after being in prison for years (so might as well been on the moon) my first shock was just how horrible it all is now. There is no news worth watching. Cable news is just a pile of filth excremented by a Labrador Retriever that solely eats baby diapers. I thought I will watch Bloomberg since if real money is involved it can't be too manipulative. Nope, wrong. The int…

A fair perspective. It's also possible that your isolation from media has let you return to see what was wrong with that media all along. Possibly you were simply blind to how bad it was before, or just used to it. I concur that it is worse than it was, but I would say 10-30% worse not "completely different." It would be nice if there was a little less hate generally.

Man the first time I surfed the web it was crazy information overload. I had to nope out and walk away.

I think I just feel let down by people the number of people I looked up to being publically hateful. People that are too smart to think that it is ok. I just don't understand how they got there.

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe sites like Twitter were, but it wasn't EVERYTHING like it is now. There just wasn't so much hateful speaking. There wasn't so much tribalization, otherization. Sure Reddit sucked but it wasn't hateful. Now it seems everything is full of unnecessary snide comments about whomever is perceived as the out group or other tribe with no self awareness of the ugliness of the comments. Educated conservative university p…

Agreed...The Joe Rogan thing is crazy (assuming this is what you're talking about). He gets lumped in with Conservatives because EVERYONE must be lumped in to the left or the right these days. You can't be in the middle anymore.

Yeah that one I really really confuses me.

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#465
Succinctly put, Gell-Mann amnesia is the best reason to scale back on news.

Everyone has their bailiwick of expertise. Mine happens to be northeast Asian matters, having lived there decades after growing up in the US, speaking and reading the three main languages (albeit to different degrees of proficiency), and teaching university Asian history classes, half in English, half in the local language.

The problem is that only very, very rarely did I ever read or hear something in the English-language news about China, Japan, or Korea that I found enlightening or even mostly fair. It was all superficial pablum, often highly misleading.

So, I can only conclude the same might be said for other topics about which I am generally clueless.

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#466
The thing about trying to follow the news, rather than following news coverage, is that correcting for bias requires:

1. Reading/viewing multiple source, from different countries.

2. Reading against the text, using claims from one biased source to contrarily interpret another source, but also holding those claims in suspicion, allowing for the second source to potentially disprove or at least recast what the first source wanted you to know.

3. Watching for things like subtext, timing of stories, _absence_ of coverage, distribution of sources etc.

4. Often, reading languages other than the one you're most fluent in - at least to some extent.

5. Getting used to the most significant and controversial stories being a mess of not just conflicting coverage, but personal and collective accusations which are often at least half-true even if they are a distraction, having to live with how some authors combine conspiracy-theorism or zealotry on some points with decent journalistic work on others...

---

Bottom line: It's frustrating, it's time consuming, it draws you away from your social surrounding who either know nothing about things or are repeating shallow slogans they heard in some mainstream news show.

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#467
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah enormous difference. It is indeed a good idea to avoid TV news. My suggestion: Go to a news stand instead and grab a copy of The Economist. One who does that will learn much about the world. About countries one rarely hear about in other media outlets. About advances in science and technology. In my opinion, time spent reading The Economist is not wasted. Well that’s my 2¢ anyway ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I agree, it's a great magazine. But don't forget that even the Economist is only providing a shallow overview of any given topic (despite the apparent depth); has a specific partisan viewpoint / world philosophy; and is frequently wrong. Most people know that at an intellectual level, of course. But it's all too easy to read something like an Economist article and come away thinking "oh, I learned a lot / have a dece…

All true, and yet often it is the best someone can do when they are looking for a quick breakdown of the week.

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#468
post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My personal favorite recommendation in this vein is The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/ . They've got some great writers and editors and often deliver pretty unique insights. Their articles tend towards long-ish-form, but not nearly as long as e.g. the New Yorker. They're a little less world-focused and more US-centric, but not completely. There is some bias (isn't there always?), but I've seen them cover a si…

I friggin love the Atlantic even though most of the time they have a way different political view than me. They don't hide their view but instead of assuming it's universal they give details and context for their views, where as the Economist seems to hide their agenda and present the underlying story to lead you to their point of view based on the facts and details they choose to report. The Atlantic has discourse a…

> the Economist seems to hide their agenda

I think that they are pretty clear about their agenda to be honest. E.g. they explained and even gave a name to their stance ("extreme centre"), they openly endorse candidates in many elections worldwide, they often include sentences in articles such as "this paper believes that..." etc.

I don't agree with some of their points, but by making them explicit they also make them easy to filter out IMHO

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#469

There are things that happen in the news that may affect your day to day life. Apart from the obvious things such as covid, there are a lot of things going on all the time that may influence your voting decisions (not just in the run up, but the entire time someone is in office), purchasing decisions, where you go on vacation, who you want to work for, how you get to work today etc. I guess if that is fine for you, t…

this is a false dichotomy. I'm the textbook "i do not watch the news person" and when things like Covid happen you cannot just ignore them. Not only that, but there are many things where paradoxically I'm better informed than people "watching the news". You see, there is being informed and there is actually spending your mental resources on problems you don't have or you have 0 say in them. to debunk some of the thin…

> The odds of you landing in Ukraine are 0 unless you really want to go there.

Oh yeah, you'll definitely find out eventually, but timing matters. This whole debacle started a fair amount of time before Putin gave the order to invade and most travelers book holidays further in advance. In that time, you could have cancelled and rescheduled your commitments around this news, but instead you'll spend most of that time clueless.

> how can you be in a drought season and not see the drought

Uh, are you saying that if I live in a nice little house or apartment unit in a Californian city, I can just see the drought by looking outside? Perhaps if you live near farmland, but the effects of drought have never been noticeable to me in the urban jungle. Even if they are, how the govt responds to drought is not obvious. It's not always just a tiered pricing change. California, as just one example, will apply restrictions on when and how you use sprinklers.

> BBQ in during fire season? I think there are legal and economic things in place that should prevent this

...like what? By the time there are legal consequences, isn't it too late?

I agree with your central thesis that you shouldn't spend time worrying about problems that you don't have, but making that distinction isn't straightforward and your stated counterpoints are muddled themselves.

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#470
post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My personal favorite recommendation in this vein is The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/ . They've got some great writers and editors and often deliver pretty unique insights. Their articles tend towards long-ish-form, but not nearly as long as e.g. the New Yorker. They're a little less world-focused and more US-centric, but not completely. There is some bias (isn't there always?), but I've seen them cover a si…

I loved the Atlantic until they started sponsoring "happiness" seminars with Deepak Chopra.

Can you explain what the issue is with this? I don’t understand the reference.
Post reply on HN