Ask HN: Where do you escape for non-clickbait thoughtful/informational content? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Where do you escape for non-clickbait thoughtful/informational content?

159 points_xivi121 comments

The amount of dramatic clickbaity hollow content is only getting worse and kinda saddening me.

My only escape is RSS with few hand-picked blogs. But, it seems like the chance of finding new thoughtful and cool blogs are getting closer to zero. I'm worried I might be putting myself in a bubble here.

View on HN

Taking a step back, it's worth understanding why there's so much clickbait. Turns out that if the business model of a publication is selling ads, they're interested in reach. Generating reach is easier by having large quantities of shorter, and easier to produce stuff. This is true for videos, articles.

So if you're looking for more thoughtful things - which take time to produce - your options are:

1. Pay for publications that produce these. Ad-supported publications are unlikely to be able to budget for in-depth content. Just look at how eg BuzzFeed shut down their investigative reporting (which was unusually good). It just made no business sense to produce those articles when a meme piece or two would generate more ad revenue, while being 100x cheaper to produce.

In the tech world, publications that fall into the “paid and in-depth” category can be likes of The Information, IEEE, MIT Technology Review, and many newsletters, tech publications etc. Look for ones where ads is not their main business model.

2. Another source are people who do this for free... because they have a main job, and it's not a business for them to share their thoughts on things. These will typically be blogs, YouTube channels and other places. Based on your interests, you should be able to find plenty. Also, see this Hacker News thread about interesting blogs [1]. The only real downside is you won’t get these on a schedule, as it’s not a job for these folks.

3. Books and podcasts. Books are straightforward enough: they're meant to be deep, and reviews help do some justice on them. Podcasts are usually based on ad-based models, but most ads are less intrusive, and the format lends itself for thoughtful commentary. It's more time-consuming to listen to them over reading, of course.

I collect RSS feeds of both my paid publications, and thoughtful blogs using a reader (I use Feedly) and find this works pretty well.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27302195

A strong +1 to this thoughtful comment. I will also add an non-monetary perverse incentive, which is best described in this changed-my-worldview-forever post: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/webmd-and-the-tragedy-...

Seriously, you will start seeing this everywhere

to paraphrase the post for others: institutional positions like "director of the CDC" or "the website that always shows up first when searching for medical stuff" are subject to systemic (largely cultural) pressures that influence them to publish information that is not just straightforward truth.

Thought provoking and certainly true in it's central conceit as a piece - I do wish more people spent the time to think in terms of systems dynamics. It's such an incredibly bright flashlight in the dark closet that is the complexity of the current information landscape.

I would like to add what I feel is a missing part of the analysis, though - the problem of centralization. One of the primary factors compounding the social effects that article describes.

It's like we've forgotten what the early Internet was and what made it great - it was a patchwork of lovely, golden inefficiency that meant that no matter how wrong you were, only so many people would be exposed to that wrong so it really didn't matter so much. Like we take for granted that there's "the one search engine", "the one social media platform", "the one medical site" et al.

I extend this thinking to our pre-Internet institutions as well - the larger and more centralized and older an institution gets, the more rot it's subject to. Efficiency doesn't just accelerate the good stuff - it accelerates every outcome of the process.

Banks 'too big to fail' broadcast economic crises to every corner. Highly liquid markets and scalable financial products accelerate recursive processes towards that failure.

Monolithic news networks and social platforms bind information signals together so that the loudest (not necessarily the most true) have the furthest reach, which recurses to a fever pitch. This process is accelerated by the efficiency of information gathering that is googling.

It feels like what's needed is a refragmenting of our systems in general - a dissolution of large, tightly bound systems into disparate, inefficient clusters that slow the churn and isolate components from toxic vectors.. but that leaves a bad taste in many people's mouths.

> ... think in terms of systems dynamics

I think the main problem is that we lack better tools to communicate (and simulate) those systems. The existing ones are hard to use or require technical knowledge. And without them, we can only tackle very simple problems, our minds are not limitless.

For example, multiple times I've had a system design in my head, which I was convinced I knew how it worked, until I tried to express it in details in english, or code it.

You ever notice how the article will be titled something like “Analysis: Here’s why Putin won’t use nukes.” A point that could be easily summarized, but won’t ever be in the article—it will always show up at the bottom, preceded by a bunch of already known context information. It’s so they can sell ad spots in between as you scroll down.

Any headline starting with "Here's why..." reeks of clickbait, or at least low-value content.

+1 for paying for good information, which is what the author Yuval Harari recommends. He asks why we are willing to pay for high quality food, clothes etc., but not for high quality information.

But the answer is obvious, isn't it? Information is almost free to reproduce. Food, clothes, etc. are not. I'm not saying that's why information should be free, but that's why most people expect it to be free.

Information might be free to reproduce, but it's not free to produce.

And people in general probably seriously underestimate the cost of production vs. reproduction. I'm pretty sure the average person thinks the costs associated with a physical book are a lot higher than an ebook and they really aren't--at least for a book involving editors, etc.

Do you have a good source on that? I have been looking around for these kinds of costs and found nothing I could trust.

I've seen various figures of the years, e.g. https://www.davidderrico.com/cost-breakdowns-e-books-vs-prin...

But all the figures I've seen suggest that printing/distribution/remainders/etc. are in the low single digits so that even if you ignore any of the costs that are unique to ebooks, there is no reason for ebooks (or for that matter paperbacks) to be significantly cheaper than hardcovers other than price discrimination.

Even before ebooks, it used to be standard for hardcovers to sell at list price for a year or so at which point they came out as paperbacks selling for maybe half the price.

Hmm. What about storage, delivery, returns, etc.? Quote from your source: "Now, I think they’ve underestimated the costs of shipping and warehousing books, and the tremendous cost of accepting returns (for full credit) of unsold books by bookstores — sometimes paying for return shipping, sometimes having the books simply destroyed, and other times selling them in bargain bins for a fraction of the cover price."

Information has a non-zero cost for the first unit, and zero cost for each unit thereafter. In other words, marginal cost is zero. These types of goods are hard to find a market equilibrium for.

I'm not sure that's true. You're describing just about every SaaS out there. (Yes, there's some per customer cost of resources and sales/support but in general relatively little compared to initial and ongoing development.) What is true however is that you need to be able to prevent people from acquiring your product/service for that very low or zero marginal cost.

That's it - ongoing development. You should constantly invest in the development of your SaaS product, unlike the example with the books

Paul Samuelson[0] makes the argument here[1] when discussing how lighthouse economics works that anything with zero marginal costs that has a price other than free is by definition an economic loss. Therefore you should find other ways to fund lighthouses, and by extension, all media and software.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Samuelson

[1]: https://courses.cit.cornell.edu/econ335/out/lighthouse.pdf - page 359, first paragraph

I understand how the situation got here. I just felt my curated "resources" were drying up and wanted to see how everyone is going about it.

Thanks for the interesting blogs link will check it out.

> 1. Pay for publications

That doesn’t mean you’re not still the product. They can resell your information and use the journal as propaganda just as much as before, well, even more, since they have your full ID and address.

No, we need ethics in journalism, but this train has long gone. Can’t remember the last time I saw both sides of a story in the same article, that must have been decades ago.

No one said that paid publications are guaranteed to be high quality. But non-paid corporate publications are (practically) guaranteed to be low-quality.

One thing to be aware of is that the titles and headlines of professionally-produced publications are often written by editors rather than authors, and are not a reliable guide to the quality (or even the content) of the article. Dealing with the dross is just part of the cost of finding the gold.

And it's worth noting that headlines have often been "clickbaity" since before there were clicks. Look at the print edition of The Economist. A lot of the heds (in publishing lingo) are plays on words etc. (although the subhead/dek) does tend to be fairly straightforward. Online, their heds tend to be more literal--probably because of SEO.

Very true. That said The Economist newspaper (print edition) is my answer to the OP. The heds are just an example of the talent at their disposal. The paper is expensive but I’ve subscribed for 25 years without a single regret. Their podcasts are now rising to the same quality.

I subscribe as well. The US weekly news magazines never had the depth of The Economist but at least in pre-Internet days they gave you a reasonable summary of important things. But in the past decade they've totally declined into irrelevance. Not even sure what print editions still exist.

I don't read it cover to cover. There's a fair bit of international detail that I just don't find very interesting or relevant but it covers so many things that there's plenty to read about.

If you're in the UK, combination of The Economist and Private Eye will give you very high quality information every two weeks, in print.

I used to get most of my news every week in the US from Time Magazine when it was still a pretty decent weekly. I'm not sure that knowing what's going on by the minute is clearly an improvement. (I do read The Economist now.)

Financial Times is also very refreshing to read. Usually the comments section adds as much value as the articles themselves.

+1 to paid content. It takes non-trivial effort to create original, insightful, and high-quality content. Lot of research, cross verification, fact checking, hunting for non-obvious insights etc., A good source is papers from the researchers working in the field. But their primary audience tends to be their peers so they compress their papers and pack it with ton of context. It takes quite a bit of effort to make that research accessible to non-specialists.

>because they have a main job, and it's not a business for them to share their thoughts on things

Or their main job is paying them in part, even if often informally, to produce thoughtful externally-facing content but no one is strictly evaluating them on the basis of pageviews. Which is actually fairly common in the tech field.

>It's more time-consuming to listen to them over reading, of course.

For me, consuming podcasts is just a different mode. I listen to them mostly in a car when I can't read. I rarely listen to them otherwise.

1. good point

2. tons of clickbait there too, plus he mentioned there are very few quality blogs left

3. books... oh my god... need to dig through a pile of poop for days just to find one quality book these days

And an important extension to 1. are things which are arranged as a nonprofit, and don't need ads. Wikipedia and Pro Publica are examples that jump to mind.

A friend did a mix of this. They positioned themselves as the best soccer magazine in the country. The only way to get quality sports articles was paying people who were in the zone, so they paid per article instead of hiring full time.

Typical ads pulled in insufficient revenue, so they started selling ad space to sponsors. This was only possible because they built credibility. Credibility based journalism is different to eyeballs and views.

From that credibility, they started selling merchandise and sports equipment.

As a high volume podcast consumer, I find it interesting that US casts are pretty much all following a completely ad based model, while German ones are much more subscription/donation based.

And yes, paying for good journalism is inevitable if you want quality. Just, if the crowd picks up the tab, nobody needs to listen to ads.

"Turns out that if the business model of the publication is selling ads, they're interested in reach."

The "tech" company "business model" is selling ads. 100%. The "tech" company produces zero content. To use a popular "tech" company example, according to Zuckerberg, Facebook is a "platform" not a publisher. Here, "platform" means intermediary.

Looking to "tech" companies as a "source" of high quality content is therefore a failing endeavour. To the extent publishers use a "tech" company as an intermediary for "reach", as anyone can see, the quality of the content is not going to be high.

Eliminating the intermediary and returning to real business models that are not 100% advertising-based ("tech" is out) is one way to return to a world with more high quality content. "Tech" companies have no way to make money besides operating as intermediaries and selling advertising services, so they will continue to facilitate clickbait "content" for their own benefit.

Books are the best in my opinion as they require lots of structuring of thought before writing, and might go through a sometimes brutal editing process. But pick sensibly, business books, self-help books and the current weeks best-sellers should probably be avoided.

Some higher quality publications exist on the internet, such as nautilus, IEEE spectrum, No Tech magazine, The Baffler, Quanta magazine, Aeon, Le Monde Diplomatique, Current Affairs, The Public Domain Review, Spiegel International, writings by The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, Foreign Policy, New Scientist, Science magazine, The Economist, etc.

While not perfect, these might keep you busy for a while and give you a broader perspective.

I was gonna say books too. And newsletters from certain folks, usually to click into their blogs for their other long-form content.

Separately, is there a good web+mobile ebook reader (to transition from laptop to mobile)? Does Kindle app work for that?

If your goal is genuinely to find thoughtful and informational content, daily internet browsing won't be the place to get it. The RSS hand-picked blog approach is mostly going to provide you comfort food that mimics the real thing. Sticking with blogs means you stick exclusively with the sort of ideas that end up in blogs, for better or for worse. That's not even mentioning the English-language cultural filter.

The long form articles or "serious" publications also suffer from a similar problem, in that the fact that you pay for them or that the journalist spent some thoughtful time on these pieces is no guarantee that you will be getting something truly valuable. Or you might be getting the sense that you are doing something important, while actually just gobbling up disconnected tidbits which don't really amount to anything concrete. This is what makes HN such a sophisticated trap.

Ultimately, reading (non-junk) books and reading widely is more or less the only solution. Unfortunately, finding which books you'd want to read is something you'll have to figure out on your own because it is intimately connected to the precise parameters of your own life.

London Review of Books.

The name may mislead you. Ostensibly, the articles are book reviews, but barely. The books reviewed are more starting points into long-form articles on their subject matter.

The articles are uniformly fantastic, though obviously not uniformly interesting to everyone. I find that every issue carries about three to five articles I find really interesting.

Thanks for this. I just went over and read one. Based on the name, I would have never guessed it wasn’t stuffy academia-type writing.

+1 for this, and for the equally good (but slightly different in tone) New York Review of Books

1. Books. My readings are thematic. I read 2-3 books simultaneously per topic

2. To supplement above I read the referenced papers. And long form articles.

3. I have created a nice Twitter bubble which serves me as a catchment area. It also enables me to engage in thoughtful conversations.

4. HN.

I stay away from mainstream news in all forms. I’m typically behind the current affairs by about 6 months.

> I read 2-3 books simultaneously per topic

What is current topic you are reading about and the books . Curious :)

I'm reading up on history of modern money. I could say economics but working of money isn't talked about much in economics circles.

That said these are my current readings.

1. The Currency of Politics [1]

2. A Treatise on Money [2]

3. Towards Anthropological Theory of Value [3]

4. The Rise and Fall of Neoliberal Order [4]

[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/58933308-the-currency-of...

[2] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7637190-a-treatise-on-mo...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toward_an_Anthropological_Theo...

[4] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/58986869-the-rise-and-fa...

I'd highly recommend adding Capital by Karl Marx to that list.

Wikipedia. They have both pages on current events [0] and events from the past year [1]. The year page also has sub-pages for specific topics or counties. So if you're only interested in events from the USA, you can look at only that page. [2]. Wikipedia also has the benefit of being written in the style of an Encyclopedia, so editorializing is kept to a minimum (at least, that's the goal).

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events

[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022#January

[2]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_in_the_United_States

Books, but one problem is that they are often written to the format. ie A book might be 300 pages, but much of it is padding or secondary, supporting argument; it could easily be shrunk to 50 pages without losing much, but publishing doesn't work that way.

Padding is my main problem with books. Two out of the last three books I read could easily have been reduced from 300 to 25-50 pages. They would have been better and more impactful, too, without all the fluff.

Come to mention it, has anyone tried quickread or similar services? If so, what’d you think?

Indeed, I would happily pay the same, even more, for a shorter book, if it was clear that it was shorter for good reason.

The economics of publishing are such that books generally have to be at least 250 pages or so. And, yes, for things like business books, something much shorter would often be more. That said, I've flipped through some of the written book summary services and found they cut things way too close to the bone. You need some examples and background to have the same impact.

There's probably something between an article and a full book that would be good for a lot of topics. But outside of some sponsored pubs like O'Reilly puts out on various topics, Kindle notwithstanding there isn't a real paid publishing niche for this format.

When I wrote a book about open source through a publisher I was actually fairly happy by the second edition with the way the content filled out the pages. But, for the first edition, I did feel like I was stretching to fill out the length.

Not hacker news. It’s mostly click bait / programmer junk food for the last couple of years (I only started reading then but took a while a realise)

True. But I think HN is simply a constant few notches above the baseline of the Internet. As the Internet is "sinking", so is HN.

Plus, you can actually have a good discussion here. Somehow the community knows to completely shut off any kind of "me too", "this is awesome", or other useless comments.

HN is so much higher in quality compared to most places. Yes, there's a lot of 'programmer porn' links, but there are also tons of in-depth discussions.

And lots of shallow dismissals/overconfidence masquerading as in-depth discussions.

Here's some I like.

New Books Network.

https://newbooksnetwork.com/

My History can Beatup Your Politics

https://myhistorycanbeatupyourpolitics.wordpress.com/

The Conversation

https://theconversation.com/us

Pro Publica

https://propublica.org/

The Marshall

https://www.themarshallproject.org/

Delayed Gratification

https://www.slow-journalism.com/

I'd like to suggest Rest of World - though I do work there but not on editorial side. It is an international nonprofit journalism organization that "covers what happens when technology, culture and the human experience collide, in places that are typically overlooked and underestimated".

They publish 10-12 stories a week, that are researched, edited, and fact-checked by a team that is distributed across the world. It's fun to sit in editorial meetings from time to time.

https://restofworld.org/

You could read it through full-content RSS if you like, but some stories have media (like this one explaining Chinese censorship memes) that wouldn't make it through properly:

"How Chinese citizens use puns to get past internet censors"

https://restofworld.org/2022/china-social-media-censorship/

or this one:

"A guide to pronouncing names of global tech companies"

https://restofworld.org/2022/global-tech-company-pronunciati...

For full-content RSS, just add "full" to the RSS url:

- RSS: https://restofworld.org/feed/latest/full (Full content)

- RSS: https://restofworld.org/feed/latest/ (Summary)

- JSON: https://restofworld.org/feed/latest/json (Summary)

More: https://restofworld.org/platforms/

There are no ads, and we're pretty proud of our web page performance score:

https://webperf.xyz/

Nothing fancy: blogs, newsletters, Mastodon.

The trick is to use non-algorithmic platforms or aggregators with chronological feeds that deliver ALL the entries from ALL the sources I follow or subscribe to. As indoorskier noted, clicking links and exploring further sources (especially blogs and books) is another key tool.

any suggestions on who to follow on Mastodon?

It depends on your interests, mine are tech-related. Hashtags are good discovery tools on Mastodon, for example I monitor #retrocomputing for retrocomputing and homebrew computer projects. This and further exploration led me to these accounts I follow:

- @chronrevisited@mastodon.social - @elb@mastodon.sdf.org - @ZephyrZ80@mastodon.technology - @robert588@mastodon.sdf.org - @EdS@mastodon.sdf.org

If you're looking for a steady stream of quality links, Baldur Bjarnason is reliable: https://toot.cafe/@baldur

Most of it also goes on his Micro.blog page: https://notes.baldurbjarnason.com/

You can follow either through Mastodon (or anything that supports the right ActivityPub objects) or RSS.

Check out https://search.marginalia.nu/explore/random

I find that substack has a lot of good authors on the topics that are relevant/interesting to me (e.g. economics). You can search here [1] to discover authors. If you find an author on substack interesting, you can then see a list of their recommendations down on their homepage (e.g. [2]). If you follow this process enough times and subscribe to a few authors, you'll get a list of curated content in your inbox each week.

[1] https://substack.com/discover

[2] https://www.apricitas.io/

Ft.com is worth paying for. Especially the big read, weekend FT articles and some opinion pieces.

I do pay for the FT and agree it's worth it but it pisses me off that they still serve you ads.

The big read is definitely very good https://www.ft.com/the-big-read. You can read the articles by googling any article title in a private window.

Just to give some examples, in the last week they published lengthy articles all with charts on topics as varied as a European private equity company's IPO, Ben & Jerry's activism, and tech companies shredding old memory disks.

Other people’s recommendations.

Specifically at least two other recommendations on books, publications, newsletters, podcasts, documentaries, etc. One recommendation has me interested, but two has me diving in.

For example I used to love the Harvard business review when certain contributors were still alive, now I only read certain articles if they are recommended given the decline in quality content.

Books are easier. If I see the same book referenced in two other books I’ve read, it is almost always great.

I am mostly settled for some sources on gopher because no ads, limited number of users, no tracking all and users are very much there because they despise the way the web turned out. For deeper research i mostly start at wikipedia for a brief intro in what i am searching for, the next step after this is usually my local library.

For some topics i also found out that there are really interesting deeper discussions in the FidoNet

Pocket (getpocket.com) has a pretty wide selection of long form writing. The recommended articles are curated by humans. Their app is especially nice if you get on a plane and need something to read offline.

The Conversation is a news site that was created by a collection of initially Australian university who were sick of having their academics ignore and misquoted in the news.

Insightful articles the go a little behind the news, written by academics on current topics and refined by professional journalists who work for the conversation.

They been running maybe a decade, and cover multiple counties now.

US edition: https://theconversation.com/us

Global editon: https://theconversation.com/global

Books, sometimes HN. The only way to escape a clickbait is to not read the sources where some clickbait might be happen.

I subscribed to an actual physical newspaper and some magazines and deleted my Twitter account. Reading physical media feels like a radical act of self-care in the modern world.

If you're not limited to the written word, then some podcasts are very good.

As a software developer, I've really enjoyed "Corecursive".

As a religious agnostic, I get a lot out of Tim Keller's "Gospel in Life" podcast. It lets me examine a particular Christian theology without the awkwardness of attending church services as a non-Christian.

Edit: I just realized the question is how one finds such things. Unfortunately I don't remember how I came across either of these.

Slow-news / tech-related links: https://thomas.me https://restofworld.org https://themorningnews.org https://waxy.org

Create your own stuff and curate what you read/watch yourself.

You don't need to be a content creator to create good stuff, and unsurprisingly, you find a lot of great things when you have a specific topic you're trying to get information about/research.

Filler/white-noise/empty content is inevitable on any source. HackerNews has tons of advertisements that masquerade as thoughtful posts and the comments aren't always gold. (though the HackerNews moderators deserve huge credit for maintaining a pretty nice balance of freedom to say whatever and maintaining civility/reasonableness)

The best articles I've read have come from non-content creators, just some person somewhere that decided to write or do a video on a subject they happen to be really passionate about. The quality of videos isn't super high (talking about production value), but the content is solid. Not every release from the same person needs to be a million+ views piece, just understand that they have some good thoughts on some subjects and are worth checking in on.

When I'm doing some research for something I want to write about or share or learn, these pieces usually come about somehow after sifting through forums or the 2nd/later pages of search results.

Click-bait articles/videos are not new by any means, it's just easier to publish them now. It was always necessary to sift through it before, and learning to sort such information is a skill that you need to practice. But I can almost guarantee you that trying your own hand at creating something helps reduce that pressure of "it's all clickbait". Don't just copy and summarize, try to make something and just dive in on the process, even if no one ever sees it.

> The best articles I've read have come from non-content creators, just some person somewhere that decided to write or do a video on a subject they happen to be really passionate about

Totally agree, this is my approach right now and I find a lot of hidden gems but this feels like leaving it to luck. I'm trying to see if there's a more systemic way, similar to HN but small and more focused (maybe curated newsletters)

As many have mentioned: books! I do like to add the Economist. It's my way of keeping up to date with current affairs

The economist has been pretty reliable as a sensible source of information

The surprising thing is that it takes so long for a thoughtful link-aggregator to manifest. https://lemmy.ml is an approach but it's more a copy of reddit with all its problems.

It seems like the people who could create it have no need to discover more thoughtful content.

One problem is that it's likely very personal. I save links and used to publish them with a line or two of commentary on my blog. But what catches my eye is probably different from what catches your eye. You can't come close to reading everything and you're certainly not wrong to decide you just don't care about some topic even if others think it's incredibly important to follow carefully.

Something i occasionally enjoy: https://www.theguardian.com/news/series/the-long-read

Print media.

NYT Sunday Paper, Atlantic, Economist, New Yorker

+1 for The Economist. It’s so dry and unsensational that I literally use it as an antidote to media-triggered-anxiety.

"The amount of dramatic clickbaity hollow content is only getting worse and kinda saddening me."

I guess tabloidization of content is consequence of loosing interest and trust of public in virtual space. With AI generated content, strong lobby, pushing ideologies, spreading fear and so on, consumerism of virtual content falls down. Or maybe not... Maybe it just me. I don't know.

To answer question... Decentralised gathering of information from small, independent creators via RSS is possible way how to not feel terrible and stupid after reading.

I actually skip the search engine and directly go to the reference section of the wikipedia page of the said subject (after skimming for the page once or twice).

Wherever the content is not paid by an advertiser.

I have https://longreads.com/ as a pinned tab.

Do you find HN to be clickbait, do you need more content than is on HN (kudos if you've finished the front page before it updated), or is there not enough informational or thoughtful content here? I'm not quite sure what you're looking for, like if HN is good and you just want more of this, or different topics, or...

I believe you can never fully clickbait? There has never been a point in time (to my knowledge) where there was no clickbait.

Back than it was just called 'good writing'

I believe it is simply important that you know the context of the sender of the information and are able enough to validate information that seems sus.

I've built up folios of RSS feeds over more than ten years, and continue to curate them. Every day they throw up a fair percentage of content I'm not interested in, but that's easily ignored, and the good stuff is excellent.

Lawfare blog, and especially its podcasts: https://www.lawfareblog.com/topic/podcasts

Close second, "War on the Rocks" podcast: https://warontherocks.com/podcasts/

Lot of "National Security / Foreign politics" content has been a breath of fresh air, because while this is clearly biased toward an American viewpoint, there is an intellectual respect toward other peoples/states situation, objectives, and possibility of getting to those objective.

In practice, that means that when talking about Putin, they debates around why Putin is doing that, and why Putin would be doing it that way, what are the possible outcomes, and how the US/NATO/other parties can try to act or react in a way that's beneficial for them.

Another example: Lawfare where highly critical of the Trump administration, but they always approached their analysis by asking "What is his thought process" and "What is he gaining by doing that".

Once you get used to hear a bunch of smart people articulating their thought in that way, it's painful to listen back to a discourse centered around "our good values vs. their bad intentions", which is unfortunately the norm.

Totally different subject, but if one is interested in religions, I highly recommend the Youtube channels "Religion for Breakfast" and "Let's talk religion", who goes deep into a variety of subjects, while disclosing what is still contentious in the academic term, and try to be as unopinionated as possible.

For technical news: arstechnica and theregister. For more niche topics, I've found the best way is to follow people in that field on twitter. If they are trustworthy non-grifters then look at the sites they share.

I just read the comments on HN (often without even reading the links).

Some of the comments have ben written by people who have not read the link, either. That does not necessarily mean they are uninformed comments, but sometimes you will see claims that have been thoroughly refuted in the article.

Only thing that has worked for me is long walks and podcasts.

I've walked thousands of miles this year thanks to podcasts. This is only way i've found to escape screens and actually focus.

HN, and posts shared in twitter by a handful of people I trust.

Substack has been great for this. Lots of long-form blogs, some of which readers pay directly. Journalists like Matt Taibbi and Matt Yglesias are there.

Just follow individual people and check what they read?

I use Fritter, an login-less F-Droid app to follow a few people on twitter.

Starting there, I add and remove people according to my preferences.

Thanks. Better than me changing the url slug for Nitter each time I want to check up on a few accounts.

I agree, esp with ML models being where they are. For people writing blogs/articles it’s a similar problem - how do you stand out against the noise?

Honestly I don’t have answers but here’s a few ways I’ve found cool people:

- via “slow-grow” communities like lobste.rs

- if someone writes a good comment or tweet or whatever, check out if they have a blog

- Sometimes I subscribe to a bunch of things that seem promising, and then follow a “three strikes and they’re out” policy to extend the reach

- start reading papers from conferences. It’s a heavier format than blogs, but it’s reviewed and novel, at least if you pick good conferences.

https://www.aldaily.com

I like to hear omegataupodcast.net during kitchen work. They have some episodes in (a sort of :-) english.

TheMotte [0] is pretty good. It's explicitly about long form argumentation about any topic really. It was originally a subreddit and stemmed from the Slatestar Codex community I believe, and then they made their own forum. The discussions are pretty interesting, ephemeral even, but if you hang out, you soon learn who the regulars are.

[0] https://themotte.org

Paper Books

HN, though there's some degree of clickbait. Otherwise books

Academic journals and textbooks almost never disappoint me.

I go to public radio (NPR) and podcasts, mostly.

Reading on dead flat ex-trees and writing

Kindle on airplane mode is my savior.

Newsletters

Any recommendations you have in mind?

Lex Fridman podcast, Sam Harris podcast

These two legitimately changed my life by exposing me to a myriad of topics I never would have considered interesting in my day to day life. I am a more considerate and content person as a result of these experiences

tweetdeck, personalize many feed of yours.

economist.com

They don't escape the Murray-Gell Mann effect unfortunately

Podcasts...

BBC: am--Global News Outlook https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02nq0gn/episodes/downloads

BBC: pm--Newshour https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p002vsnk/episodes/player

BBC: Witness History https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p004t1hd/episodes/downloads

BBC Reel [video] https://www.bbc.com/reel/

CBC News: As It Happens https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-2-as-it-happens

CBC News: World at Six https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-8-cbc-news-the-world-...

CBC: The Current http://www.cbc.ca/radio/podcasts/current-affairs-information...

CBC: Ideas http://www.cbc.ca/radio/podcasts/documentaries/the-best-of-i... ( Catch this while it's still reachable: "Erasing Africa's role in the rise of the West" at https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/erasing-africa-s-role-in-the-... )