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

Negativity drives online news consumption

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 375 posts

Re: Negativity drives online news consumption

#281

Post by wolverine876 »

bpm140 wrote: post #186

About a year ago, I stopped consuming news cold turkey (save technology and movie news [the former work-necessary and the latter a personal vice]). I took the extra step of banning Twitter and Memeorandum at the router level, so that I couldn't revert easily. I didn't read a single political news story in the ensuing six months. Some of the happiest months of my life. These days I will read the section headlines on M…

Who is going to make decisions and hold power in our society, if not you and me? We have responsibilities for it; if it's malfunctioning, that is on us. Who will take care of these responsibilities for you?

Expecting someone else to do it is playing a victim and a child - it is us, there's nobody else; there are no parents or authorities to take care of us while we act out. People following your path are why nothing happens. People who act are the reason many do face consequences.

Look at the world that was built for you - the freedom, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, the technology, health care, roads, schools, etc. They were built by the prior generations, not by people who quit under stress. What are you building?

The best tactic of the people with power is to get people like you to give up yours, because the public has the ultimate power. Why do you think people in power invest so much in persuasion, disinformation, etc.? If you were powerless, it wouldn't matter.

If you claim news is useless, what are you doing on HN that is so useful? (And see the headlines from Memeorandum, below.)

> there has been zero consequences during my 50 years of life

That's a falsehood, and if more need to face consequences, that is up to you and me.

> Memeorandum

Here are the current headlines. Many have great impact on the future of our country, on the freedom and financial security of hundreds of millions. You don't care about anyone else, including yourself? That's not a persuasive argument.

* Trump attorney ordered to testify before grand jury investigating former president

* Law enforcement agencies are prepping for a possible Trump indictment as early as next week

* ‘The Wire’ Star Lance Reddick Dead at 60

* Wyoming Becomes First State to Outlaw Abortion Pills

* My Struggle Session at Stanford Law School

* Two gifts to Trump family from foreign nations are missing, report says

* ICC issues arrest warrant for Putin over war crimes in Ukraine

* House GOP ignored Capitol Police requests to review public Jan. 6 footage, lawyer says

* Michigan Is Becoming The Anti-Florida On LGBTQ Rights ― And A Lot More

* Biden jokes he's ‘really not Irish’ because he's sober, doesn't have relatives ‘in jail’

* America Has Decided It Went Overboard on Covid-19

* Biden asks Congress to impose tougher penalties on executives of failed banks

* Just Because ChatBots Can't Think Doesn't Mean They Can't Lie

* Derek Chauvin, ex-officer convicted of killing George Floyd, pleads guilty to federal tax evasion

* As crucial legal test for Antifa ideology heads to trial, right-wing media also scrutinized

... etc. (list is getting too long)

Re: Negativity drives online news consumption

#282

Post by wolverine876 »

Gigachad wrote: post #257
nomilk wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like we're failing to accurately name 'news'. The vast majority of what is offered as 'news' isn't news at all, it's gossip, schadenfreude, arbitrary drama, and frivolous feel-good stories. 'News' has a ring of plausible importance. I wish we had a more accurate name reflecting its mostly unimportant, worthless, and destructive nature.

I’ve observed that so much of the news is published before the facts are even out. In a race to be first, they present half a story that hasn’t been verified yet. So you are left to either be outraged preemptively or just ignore the story entirely as it’s currently useless.

Could you give some recent examples, especially from news organizations with leading reptuations (NY Times, Washington Post, etc.)?

To a degree, that's what journalists should do: They are not writing a history book. They can't wait until all the facts are out or we'd never know if someone was arrested or accused until the trial was over.

Re: Negativity drives online news consumption

#283

Post by lynx23 »

nomilk wrote: post #237
Dalewyn wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the most common bit of wisdom I've heard from older folks is to ignore the news. Don't read the newspaper, don't watch TV news, don't listen to radio news, etc.; they all say nothing in them is worth our time. It's among the most useful piece of advice I've ever had.

I feel like we're failing to accurately name 'news'. The vast majority of what is offered as 'news' isn't news at all, it's gossip, schadenfreude, arbitrary drama, and frivolous feel-good stories. 'News' has a ring of plausible importance. I wish we had a more accurate name reflecting its mostly unimportant, worthless, and destructive nature.

I think you are drawing an arbitrary line to defend an industry that doesnt deserve it at all.

In my book, even the supposedly important news are pure poison for the individual, and at the end of the day, unimportant as well.

People that need to push a new or current narrative will likely disagree, but that is predictable. They dont want their hate-channel to be closed down.

Re: Negativity drives online news consumption

#284

Post by wolverine876 »

whitemary wrote: post #272
hot_gril wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think they're equally bad, only equally silly. They use the same scare tactics every time, and it helps to look past that. Yes I care about the issues. But how I vote is different: just straight down for whatever is the minority party in my state. Only battleground states get the pandering, and I'll stop doing this if I ever live in a battleground state or they change how voting works. State propositions are…

Same but I just don't vote at all, unless there are any strong trustworthy pro-worker candidates which basically doesn't happen. I will also show up to vote against anti-worker ballot measures, which are more frequent.

You'll end up with a many more anti-worker activity if you don't vote. And you will be ignored.

And who will make decisions for you? Who will take on your responsibilities? What other authority is there? When we are children, we can be irresponsibile and our parents ultimately see to them. As adults, there's nobody else; it's just us.

Re: Negativity drives online news consumption

#285

Post by lynx23 »

Dalewyn wrote: post #271
nomilk wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like we're failing to accurately name 'news'. The vast majority of what is offered as 'news' isn't news at all, it's gossip, schadenfreude, arbitrary drama, and frivolous feel-good stories. 'News' has a ring of plausible importance. I wish we had a more accurate name reflecting its mostly unimportant, worthless, and destructive nature.

>I wish we had a more accurate name Propaganda.

This!

Re: Negativity drives online news consumption

#286

Post by wolverine876 »

nomilk wrote: post #248
dhab wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's a bit extreme. I have developed some heurisitics, which so far are (living in Australia): * news.com.au = clickbait * government funded ones = abc, sbs are free and ok * 9 news, 7 news = negative * google news = aggregator of mostly negative news * AFR, Sydney Morning Herald, .. few others = ok My experience with twitter has been the following: * I look at some content I subscribed for (humor, or tech re…

I would swap a lot of these out for primary sources. 'News' sites are just middle-men for a 9:1 blend of unimportant trash and important information. Occasionally they can alert you of something important you need to know about, but once I learn of such topics, I examine primary source(s) and context; very rarely do I get info from the 'news' article itself; it's usually designed to titillate or outrage.

> 'News' sites are just middle-men for a 9:1 blend of unimportant trash and important information.

You are looking at the wrong sites. There are many - more than I can read - which focus on serious news.

Re: Negativity drives online news consumption

#287

Post by MandieD »

nomilk wrote: post #237
Dalewyn wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the most common bit of wisdom I've heard from older folks is to ignore the news. Don't read the newspaper, don't watch TV news, don't listen to radio news, etc.; they all say nothing in them is worth our time. It's among the most useful piece of advice I've ever had.

I feel like we're failing to accurately name 'news'. The vast majority of what is offered as 'news' isn't news at all, it's gossip, schadenfreude, arbitrary drama, and frivolous feel-good stories. 'News' has a ring of plausible importance. I wish we had a more accurate name reflecting its mostly unimportant, worthless, and destructive nature.

As the tagline for one of HN’s self-consciously frivolous ancestors says, “It’s not news, it’s Fark!”

Re: Negativity drives online news consumption

#288

Post by wolverine876 »

mrexroad wrote: post #274
martin82 wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> against a mostly harmless virus. Wtf. It’s easy to say that now after covid variants have become decreasingly virulent as they became increasingly transmissible, but it was absolutely not mostly harmless. The human species won the lotto with how it evolved, but just spin that to play to our political leanings. I’ll take the downvotes for saying this, but with all respect, please just duck off back to “doing your ow…

We won the Lotto? Over 6.8 million people, including over 1 million Americans died. Many more suffer from long-term damage. The economic cost was astronomical.

Re: Negativity drives online news consumption

#289

Post by lynx23 »

wolverine876 wrote: post #282
Gigachad wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve observed that so much of the news is published before the facts are even out. In a race to be first, they present half a story that hasn’t been verified yet. So you are left to either be outraged preemptively or just ignore the story entirely as it’s currently useless.

Could you give some recent examples, especially from news organizations with leading reptuations (NY Times, Washington Post, etc.)? To a degree, that's what journalists should do: They are not writing a history book. They can't wait until all the facts are out or we'd never know if someone was arrested or accused until the trial was over.

reptuations, that was a freudian slip, right? Reputation is obviously in the eye of the beholder... What is one persons reputable source, is a money making machine without conscience for others.

Re: Negativity drives online news consumption

#290

Post by wolverine876 »

wil421 wrote: post #192
bpm140 wrote: post #186

About a year ago, I stopped consuming news cold turkey (save technology and movie news [the former work-necessary and the latter a personal vice]). I took the extra step of banning Twitter and Memeorandum at the router level, so that I couldn't revert easily. I didn't read a single political news story in the ensuing six months. Some of the happiest months of my life. These days I will read the section headlines on M…

I like to watch my favorite local news station. They have a lot of minor stories that never make the National media. Although there are local issues like murders, thefts, and controversial topics. It’s still a huge downgrade from the rage inducing large outlets.

Just read the serious sources, like the NY Times or Washington Post. They have serious news and are not 'rage inducing'. (Skip the editorial pages.)
Post reply on HN