Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

News is bad for you

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 239 posts

Re: News is bad for you

#181

Post by pshin45 »

It's pretty ridiculous to make a blanket statement like "News is bad for you", which is akin to saying "Food is bad for you". Certain food/news is definitely bad for you, especially in large/excessive quantities, but that doesn't mean we don't need it.

The amount of bad food/news in the world has increased exponentially in recent history due to the ease and low cost of production and distribution.

But like we've seen with food, the more unhealthy options proliferate, the more of a premium there is for e.g. home-cooked, organic meals. I like to think that Hacker News, on most days, is my source of healthy and nourishing news, and it's up to me to discern and sift through the junk that might occasionally get mixed in.

Re: News is bad for you

#182

Post by zobzu »

base698 wrote: post #65
tokenadult wrote: post #17

Whether news is bad for you or not probably depends more than a little on what the source is. I don't watch television—for years our TV was in a box in a closet, brought out mostly just for watching the Olympics. But I do look at Google News and try to train it to give me mostly long-form suggestions about science and world issues from diverse sources with professional reporting and editing. That helps. The claim tha…

You've entirely missed the point. News is bad because it focuses on the sensational and misses the actionable. Ie bitcoin articles focus on the speculative aspect and not that it's a more useful, less friction method of payment. Business shows focus on day to day movement instead of broad sweeping trends that are game changers. The medium is partly the problem.

Oh man. News that focuses on actionable. Utopia !

I actually believe this renewed news spam (brought by ourselves through the internet) probably makes us all dumber as a whole, over time.

Re: News is bad for you

#183

Post by dba7dba »

I recommend a book by C. John Sommerville, titled 'How the News Makes Us Dumb' from 1999.

One interesting paragraph on backcover: 'news began to make us dumber when we insisted on having it daily'.

As anyone who's tried to make or create (even just writing something about a topic) something would know, creating takes time. Now when something needs to be created daily or even hourly, you end up putting out junk.

Re: News is bad for you

#184

Post by bmelton »

overgard wrote: post #166
tokenadult wrote: post #17

Whether news is bad for you or not probably depends more than a little on what the source is. I don't watch television—for years our TV was in a box in a closet, brought out mostly just for watching the Olympics. But I do look at Google News and try to train it to give me mostly long-form suggestions about science and world issues from diverse sources with professional reporting and editing. That helps. The claim tha…

That's sort of like saying "whether candy is bad for you depends on what candy you eat". Sort of true, but, you're still eating candy.

Which also ignores that point that not all candy is bad for you, and even candy that's not necessarily good for you in quantity might be perfectly fine in moderation.

Chocolate, for example, decreases the risk of stroke, is good for your skin, improves vision, stimulates brain activity, etc. How much of and how often you eat it affects whether it's still beneficial compared to its negative effects, which include high cholesterol, diabetes, weight gain, etc.

Someone eating candy isn't necessarily doing something bad, despite the stigma. Equally, they are not doing something necessarily good.

Re: News is bad for you

#185

Post by nswanberg »

base698 wrote: post #165
steveklabnik wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ie bitcoin articles focus on the speculative aspect and not that it's a more useful, less friction method of payment. ... what if bitcoin, currently, _is_ only about the speculative aspect, and is not actually more useful with less friction?

If that is the case, then I used a bad example, but I really don't think I did. Off topic, but... I recently bought a days usage from put.io with bitcoin. They got their money instantly, I don't have to worry about a hacker getting my credit card info or using more bitcoins in my wallet than I gave. I didn't have to enter a bunch of personal information to prove my identity.

I think it was a great example for a possibly not as great point. I think both you and tokenadult would prefer to read a paper on using bitcoin in vending machines http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Awww.t... rather than something more sensationalist like http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2013/05/robocoin/ ( with titles along the lines of Bitcoin ATMs: Valhalla Incarnate or the Looming Death of Civilization?)

And I like your example of a use of bitcoin apart from speculation. The sensationalist articles love bitcoin because it is new, but also because a few people have become rich and poor from speculating on it and its future is uncertain, which leaves lots of room in the stories for "raising concerns".

But as tokenadult pointed out, we can avoid those articles and the sources that tend to deliver them.

Re: News is bad for you

#187

Post by blei »

base698 wrote: post #65
tokenadult wrote: post #17

Whether news is bad for you or not probably depends more than a little on what the source is. I don't watch television—for years our TV was in a box in a closet, brought out mostly just for watching the Olympics. But I do look at Google News and try to train it to give me mostly long-form suggestions about science and world issues from diverse sources with professional reporting and editing. That helps. The claim tha…

You've entirely missed the point. News is bad because it focuses on the sensational and misses the actionable. Ie bitcoin articles focus on the speculative aspect and not that it's a more useful, less friction method of payment. Business shows focus on day to day movement instead of broad sweeping trends that are game changers. The medium is partly the problem.

Tangential comment:

News is bad because it focuses on the sensational and misses the actionable.

That's actually what frustrates me most about this article. For people who do plan to continue following news (likely including most readers of the article), the article isn't very actionable.

I would love to see a few smart people work together, look through the author's points, and outline a few ways to mitigate the legitimate problems summarized in each point. The article might be useful for other people who haven't considered these points before, but in its current state of merely spreading awareness, it's not very useful for me.

Re: News is bad for you

#188

Post by admstockdale »

AlexandrB wrote: post #164
admstockdale wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No you don't need to read 10+ hours of news about the same story unless there's new information and it has an effect on you. I didn't make that point so I'm not sure what you're getting at. There's plenty people can do: develop a means to protect ourselves from the governments spying, activism, find out who was responsible at the top and try and get them removed. I used to work in television news. I agree with you th…

> No you don't need to read 10+ hours of news about the same story unless there's new information and it has an effect on you. I didn't make that point so I'm not sure what you're getting at. The NSA story keeps coming back around as new information is revealed. The initial revelation was in May of this year and information is still tricking out. Following the news means taking in at least this much information on th…

I have not consumed 10+ hours of information about the NSA revelations and I feel I have a solid understanding of the situation.

When we read something like the NSA reports, we don't just think of what we can do right now to protect ourselves, but about how we change policies for the future. We look into what we need to develop. We look at how to protect ourselves without sacrificing privacy.

News is education. If you consume news about Kim & Kanye I would agree with you and call it information pollution. Good journalism is educating us. There's plenty of good journalism out there. Whether we want to read it and support it is another thing.

Re: News is bad for you

#189

Post by marcosdumay »

AlexandrB wrote: post #43
admstockdale wrote: post #11

This is a rather ignorant stance to take. I know a lot of people don't like the doom & gloom of news. But it's needed. I recently discussed with someone who doesn't consume news about the NSA revelations. They were shocked. They said "why didn't anyone tell me?" Instead of blocking things out and being happy with our ignorance, we need to change how news is done. If you whine about something, change it. The Guardian…

> I know a lot of people don't like the doom & gloom of news. But it's needed. I recently discussed with someone who doesn't consume news about the NSA revelations. They were shocked. They said "why didn't anyone tell me?" So I've been following the NSA news closely. But I'm not American! What actionable information has following the minute of the NSA revelations provided me? I can't influence the US government in an…

Another non-USian here. Most information is always unactionable. In fact, that's a more general principle: most of anything is trash. So, expect to waste some time for getting the usefull bits.

Some of what I got as actionable info: 1 - Don't trust services. That's different from "avoid services", and very different from "avoid US services". Some times you can use non-trusted services, other times you can't. 2 - The US is messing with standard crypto. I'm avoiding eliptical crypto while I understand it's history better. I increased some RSA keys, sometimes over the old 2k bits "maximum amount anybody would ever need". I got some ideas for what to do when you don't trust your crypto algos, but I didn't need to use them. 3 - Don't trust closed source software. I already knew that one as an abstract thing (just like #1), but it was reveled that it's a completely real thing. (Also, now I have facts I can throw at somebody.) 4 - Don't trust your LAN or your hardware. Yeah, the first part is good practice - but easy to ignore. The remaining means that one must evaluate all his data worth, and prepare if needed. Ok, not really an action, unless you have data that isn't worthless.

Re: News is bad for you

#190

Post by base698 »

mynewwork wrote: post #179
base698 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that is the case, then I used a bad example, but I really don't think I did. Off topic, but... I recently bought a days usage from put.io with bitcoin. They got their money instantly, I don't have to worry about a hacker getting my credit card info or using more bitcoins in my wallet than I gave. I didn't have to enter a bunch of personal information to prove my identity.

When a hacker gets your credit card info, you're liable for $50 and have the hassle of a few days without your card until you get new one. When a hacker gets your bitcoin wallet, they can empty out your entire account.

That's why you have multiple wallets, which you can create with a click of a button. It's effortless to create as many wallets as required for you to feel safe.
Post reply on HN