news .ycombinator.com But of course, he doesn't mean junk clickbait tech articles!... Those are useful!
News as in Usenet.
I Hate the News (2006)
171–180 of 192 posts
Re: I Hate the News (2006)
#172How would Lawrence Lessig feel about this article? Lessig obviously believes that the U.S. political parties' activities are consequential to everyone's lives. Aaron seems to reject the notion of the implicit involvement, in a democracy, of every citizen in the affairs of their government. We supposedly elect (a significant portion of) the government, we pay for its activities, so we should care about what it has don…
I don't think Shwartz was advocating a position of ignorance regarding geopolitical affairs. Just read a book or an essay on important geopolitical topics instead. If you want to know what important legislation is being advanced go to town halls, visit .gov sites, make an activist friend. All those are better ways to find out what's going on than the news. I stopped following the news, other than this site, after yea…
I know what you mean; after all, I don't consume the mainstream news, besides occasionally Democracy Now, which I mostly value for the interviews.
Re: I Hate the News (2006)
#173I'm gonna be the guy, and risk the downvotes. Its been long enough, and if we're gonna be idolizing this guy we need to have a serious discussion about the naivete of him.
Aaron Swartz claims that politics, news and all that doesn't affect his life. And then a few years later, when he makes the news, he commits suicide. In particular, it was clear that his morals were not lined up to what the powers that be are.
Instead of working to better understand the risks in the "piracy" that he was undertaking, maybe he could have paid attention to the news and garnered a better understanding of people around him.
This "I hate the News" article glorifies ignorance in the most terrible way possible. Especially since it was that ignorance that eventually gave way to Aaron Swartz's untimely demise.
Aaron Swartz eventually did wish to become involved in politics. He took documents from a university and published them online, in the name of "opening up information". If he did so with the naive "I hate the news" attitude however, then he was flying blind. He had no idea how others perceived him, including the FBI and other police powers.
That was his mistake. And it is a mistake I hope no one else makes. If you are going to put your neck on the line and perform a protest that toes the lines of the law... be sure you are ready and willing to receive the attention of the media that will fall down upon you.
On the one hand, we have Martin Luther King Jr. who broke the law, and managed to turn those crimes into a strength. A victory that changed the country for the better.
On the other, we have Aaron Swartz who (probably) broke the law, and instead turned those crimes into a tragic weakness. A weakness that ends in the most horrible way possible.
Note: I supported Aaron Swartz's cause. I've donated money to his prosecution when it came up years ago. So my money and actions are where my heart's at. The irony in this article is rather strong however, especially when we take it into context.
Re: I Hate the News (2006)
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think you agree with Swartz at all. You used an article that explains why someone does not read the news to promote your news site. According to the article, Swartz wasn't looking for an alternative way to consume news: he decries the news industry as a whole. I'm all for self-promotion on HN when it's relevant, but Grasswire appears to be exactly the kind of thing Swartz would not be interested in. If you we…
I started the news site because I have the same frustrations Swartz has. Most of the news is bullshit and a worthless time-suck. All of the examples he uses, all of the websites out there, feel completely irrelevant to me and not interesting whatsoever. I disagree with him that it's 100% - I think it's just 99.9%, and that .01% is valuable. Perhaps that's a major difference, but Swartz's point was that it's not valua…
The article decries constantly checking up on the news filling your mind with things that do not actually effect you which leads you to a more unproductive day. I signed up for grasswire a couple minutes ago and at the first moment I'm bombarded with a twitter-like feed of random news events all that have nothing to do with me.
How is this addressing the frustrations you claim to have in common with Swartz?
Re: I Hate the News (2006)
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with actionable news is that you have to allow some individual(s) to make the decision for lots of other people what is actionable. Chances are you have someone in the audience whose creativity is greater than the filter's and could have figured out an action that was overlooked. With old news, it does seem like there's a class of news subjects that are picked before ripe in a sense, and it'd be great to…
"Allowing some individuals to make the decision for lots of other people" is the purpose of a representative democracy. It may not be ideal, but it's necessary because of the size of the group and the logistical nightmare of implementing a pure form on such a scale. Which is, I think, the issue to which this article is a response.
> "Allowing some individuals to make the decision for lots of other people" is the purpose of a representative democracy.
Lots of forms of government do that. The purpose of democracy is to provide a more graduated use of force spectrum for countervailing force than 'get screwed' or 'civil war' to attempt to keep those decisions roughly in line with what the electorate would choose were they in that position.
Results vary.
Re: I Hate the News (2006)
#176Ironically, I found out about Aaron Swartz from the news. I'm reminded of "Nietzsche says God is dead; God says Nietzsche is dead". Aaron Swartz says the news is irrelevant. The news says Aaron Swartz is relevant.
Re: I Hate the News (2006)
#177> There is voting, of course, but to become an informed voter all one needs to do is read a short guide about the candidates and issues before the election. I have often wondered how people can make uninformed decisions easily. Now I know. Only reading a short guide, is akin to reading a Wikipedia article for a monumentally important decision, and not bothering to check the edit history, let alone the references.
That would be infinitely better than the paid infommercials most people current claim as their "research".
Re: I Hate the News (2006)
#178Go watch the Selma (movie)? That incident (where news coverage sparked public opinion, leading to political action) provides a great counter-example to the idea that news/journalism is a waste of time.
Re: I Hate the News (2006)
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Allowing some individuals to make the decision for lots of other people" is the purpose of a representative democracy. It may not be ideal, but it's necessary because of the size of the group and the logistical nightmare of implementing a pure form on such a scale. Which is, I think, the issue to which this article is a response.
This is a separate question from how to organize our government; the notion of 'representative democracy' doesn't apply to news (at least in the proposed or present form). The problem with news, as described in the essay, is that it's mostly not useful. The above solutions talk about ways of filtering it in order to make it more useful. Filtering, however, isn't the only way of solving this problem. For example, you…
> the notion of 'representative democracy' doesn't apply to news (at least in the proposed or present form).
I think it does. Serious news publications are de facto appointed representatives of the public, to hold politicians and officials to account, with their influence largely decided by the number of people who buy their newspaper.
Re: I Hate the News (2006)
#180I feel the same way about the news, but I suspect we are both wrong to have this exact reaction. While the bullet points are correct, not wanting to know the news comes from a place of self-centeredness. This is betrayed in the statement that "it doesn't affect me." I ought to have my ears open for problems that I might be able to help solve, but instead I have buried myself deep in my own affairs.
I hope this doesn't come off as an attack. It is not directed at the author or any individual. I just feel like this is an undercurrent in society that is easily overlooked.