Hacker News Reader

Comment by sandworm101 | Hacker News Reader

Ignorance is certainly bliss.

Living a naïve life of detached privilege is great fun, so long as you are surrounded by people to take care of the nasty details. Don't follow the news. Don't learn about environmental problems. Don't get angry at local businesses when they do bad things. Don't feel bad when a racist cop does something horrible. Don't vote. Don't enlist. Just passively consume and spend. Let other people keep the world from falling apart around you. Other people will guard the door as you watch cat videos.

The real joke is that 90% of the people I meet who "don't read the news" actually do. They have just turned off realworld news, mostly politics. They still know all about Hollywood and the latest fashion trends.

View on HN

The news is meaningless distraction designed to trigger an emotional response in an effort to maximise engagement.

Big events travel by word of mouth. I don’t need to actively be reading the news to find out about them.

I’ll take blissful ignorance over living in a state of permanent anxiety.

Fill your mind with ever changing news of little to no consequence and you’ll have no time left to do anything that might genuinely impact the world in a positive way.

I don’t vote either.

Sure fine, whatever, but this is only possible because you rely on others to prop you up. Obviously this attitude and behavior wouldn't work at scale.

It is working at scale. Would you seriously characterize the US voting populace as "well-informed" or "well-educated"? They don't need to be because they have no real power.

And the mass-marketed "news" most of them watch is only reinforcing their ignorance.

I wouldn't call this working, civil rights aren't doing as well as they were 10 years ago (just as one example).

American society has taken multiple large steps backwards precisely because people have been convinced to vote against their own self interest.

This is purely your political opinion not some kind of fact like Ukraine war or a recent Nuclear fusion breakthrough etc.

...yes? Does me having an opinion about the state of my society as a result of following what happens in it bother you?

Gay marriage became legal in all states in 2015.

You’re presenting emotion as fact which is precisely what a lot of the news does too.

Ah and that’s the actual problem; I didn’t do what you claim, but you can’t tell the difference between my judgement and a fact, can you? Or to be more accurate, you can tell but you think that’s because you saw through a ruse.

The system is not working in our (the citizenry's) interests, no. But it's working spectacularly for the multinational corporations that just happen to finance and produce the news, though. Think that's a coincidence?

It's not working for the multinational corporations either. They're getting fined in the trillions, they're losing workers faster than they can replace them, their profits are shrinking again, and the world in which they conduct business is destabilizing.

There isn't some comfortable ruling secret society pulling any strings, it's just a lot of unpredictable people doing unpredictable things.

> It's not working for the multinational corporations either

Checks the S&P500 Lol.

> They're getting fined in the trillions

Lmao even!

> There isn't some comfortable ruling secret society pulling any strings, it's just a lot of unpredictable people doing unpredictable things.

You don't think the comfortable billionaire class are pulling strings. I'll take a hit of whatever you're smoking, please.

I genuinely feel bad for folks who think “billionaires” or any other group of people are either capable or willing to successfully coordinate in a general sense to steer global events.

I genuinely feel bad for "folks" who can't read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Carlyle_Group

Reading news doesn’t have to make one anxious.

There’s also countless times when lack of knowledge makes on life far harder than it needs to be.

I doubt a mind will be changed by reading that warning. But one can try.

And collective action by informed voters would quickly solve most major issues - but most Americans becoming well informed voters is an unrealistic expectation.

> Reading news doesn’t have to make one anxious.

I disagree, unless its news ignoring world, politics, suffering and other aspects of mankind's daily grind. Especially if you are smart enough to realize what kind of shit show the human society in 2023 still is with no change in sight. Or what kind of people do get to real power in politics. Or how great the world would actually be if top 50 folks holding power would be sane balanced moral human beings, and what kind of shitbags they are instead.

If it doesn't make you sad or pissed off at least a bit, you are already self-curating the news intensively to experience some alternate version of reality, or have some emotional intelligence issues.

> And collective action by informed voters would quickly solve most major issues - but most Americans becoming well informed voters is an unrealistic expectation.

If all Americans had my education, they would think exactly like me.

One can certainly consume news without entering a state of permanent anxiety. If one does, I think that suggests an independent condition rather than a problem with the news. A healthy stoicism does not demand ignorance.

I think you either overestimate yourself or don't consume very much news.

It is quite bizarre to be told by multiple commenters now that I really have entered a permanent state of anxiety and that I've just overestimated myself. Are you that confident that reading news inspires such a state in everyone?

Personally I can't remember the last time I experienced anxiety reading the news - and I read an hour or two's worth daily. So I have trouble relating to those who do, but I don't insist that they must be "underestimating" themselves.

You spend up to 60 hours per month reading the news? Almost 4 days worth of waking hours dedicated to it?

Is being “well informed” on current affairs worth that much?

I enjoy reading.

People have to spend their time somehow - reading news seems likely more valuable than watching sports, arguing on the internet, gambling, watching cat videos, or playing cell phone games. All those are common time sinks for people.

Seems odd to question the value of reading news, considering.

Almost everyone overestimates their ability to be aware of and manage their emotions. While it's important to work on how we react to things, it's also important to be clear-eyed about our in-built fallibilities and how difficult they are to overcome, as well as just how hostile the environments we encounter are.

With a great deal of goal-directed effort, an individual could get there, but realistically getting our existing population to effectively adopt any meaningful level of reduced emotional reactiveness to these triggers would require a massive culture shift and billions of billions of hours of therapy and related activities. In other words, it's not a realistic short- or medium-term position at the population level, so it's at best only a small part of any solution.

I read the news every day without stressing out about it, and I did not have to go to therapy or whatever to be able to do so. I can't help but think that finding the news stressful is irrational. In the grand scheme of human suffering mainstream news is table stakes. Read about what life is like in North Korea, Afghanistan, Venezuela, or South Africa. When reading an article about US healthcare, think about what healthcare options are available to mothers in sub-Saharan Africa. When reading about the ending of Affirmative Action, remember that 70% of urban Chinese students are admitted to college, compared to only 5% of rural ones.

This isn't to say that finding the news stressful is some sort of moral failing. It's irrational, but humans are irrational. If reading the news stresses you out, then sure, don't read the news.

Obviously there is a balance and this article/author specifically mentioned long-form articles and books as a better way to absorb, digest, retain, and comprehend information.

I think its probably more accurate to say "click-economy news" is bad for you. It's just so much of our news these days is done with newsflashes, tweets, click-bait headlines, etc that he lumps it all in to "news".

So its not so much that your bury your head in the sand, its that you get your news from quality sources, books, and in more meaningful ways.

I think we are in an interesting period in history where we are transitioning away from powerful information/text in the form of books and print media to a digital based paradigm. "Human consciousness in the digital age, which de-emphasizes the kinds of categorization that marked the age of print, makes us think in a way that is reminiscent of a “medieval peasant.”" https://commforum.mit.edu/the-gutenberg-parenthesis-oral-tra...

Which is equally interesting and terrifying. (And combine that will subscriptions for all digital goods/services--and not owning anything yourself, a new digital form of serfdom.)

> Don't follow the news. Don't learn about environmental problems. Don't get angry at local businesses when they do bad things. Don't feel bad when a racist cop does something horrible. Don't vote. Don't enlist. Just passively consume and spend. Let other people keep the world from falling apart around you. Other people will guard the door as you watch cat videos.

Or you could follow the news. And then get angry at the wrong businessmen. And get mad about people building a mosque in another state. And vote for the candidate who gets the most airtime/ads instead of the one who actually cares about you. And enlist so you can kill innocent people.

Pro tip: Highlighting others' ignorance is not wise. I don't know you, but chances are high I can list serious problems/issues in the world that you know little to nothing about. Certainly more important than the malfeasance of some random business. Yes, there are ignorant people out there. The difference between them and a person who follows the news is that the latter is merely a little less ignorant.

See more at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36602974

> Just passively consume and spend. Let other people keep the world from falling apart around you.

One would presumably need to be creating something of value to be able to afford the consumption. So, they are likely the very people who are keeping the world from falling apart. The professional activists on the other hand...

>> need to be creating something of value to be able to afford the consumption.

Why? A very large percentage of income is "passive". Even Marge Simpson has a trust fund setup by her relatives. And mutual funds, family income, real estate appreciation, pensions ... I'd say that there are large numbers of relatively wealthy people don't actually have jobs that require work. Their role in society is to consume, and occasionally vote.

> Why? A very large percentage of income is "passive".

Define very large. And isn't the fraction of people who live off passive income the more relevant measure?

> Even Marge Simpson

I'm sorry, your example is a cartoon character?

> large numbers of relatively wealthy people don't actually have jobs that require work.

Again, define large.

I guess, they will come up with large enough to fill a town hall perhaps.

The Simpsons were designed as the typical american family in every way. When the writers invented them having a family trust they were making a statement that such trusts are commonplace and normal in American society, at least normal enough that the audience would understand the concept. Thirty years ago very few average people would have even known the word. Things have changes since the series started.

Talk is cheap. Show me the maths. How many Americans live off trust funds?

Surveys show that vast number of people are working what they believe to be pointless jobs - and yes it makes them unhappy.

So no, people do not need to be creating value to be paid.

And of those who think their jobs aren’t pointless, still most of tasks can be pointless. My job isn’t pointless as a whole, but still about 60% is spent on stuff that should not be needed and helps no one, especially not the business. Ok technically it helps one incompetent person in the cto’s office who rose beyond their competency level feel important.

> Surveys show that vast number of people are working what they believe to be pointless jobs

Are survey conductors included in those stats?

> So no, people do not need to be creating value to be paid.

The fact that someone thinks their job is pointless done;t mean it isn't providing value to someone else.

> on stuff that should not be needed and helps no one,

Welcome to the real world where things are sub-optimal and people expend significant effort to keep things from falling apart.

> Ok technically it helps one incompetent person in the cto’s office who rose beyond their competency level feel important.

> Sounds like it is providing value to someone then?

“ >> Ok technically it helps one incompetent person in the cto’s office who rose beyond their competency level feel important.

> Sounds like it is providing value to someone then?”

That conclusion nicely shows the quality of these rebuttals. According to it, A person in the cto office making utterly pointless work is “adding value” because they feel important while the business is harmed.

And yes they make utterly pointless work as in the end it turned out they had spent weeks trying to justify what was actually a restriction imposed by an error they’d made - the wrong role assignment by their team.

The world is messy and disorganised. People are fallible and at times stupid. The people who keep things working despite this might feel that their jobs are pointless. That doesn't mean that the people paying them to do the job see it the same way.

Sure, as an omniscient, infallible being you might be frustrated at all the waste. You might rightly be angry at imbeciles like me who can't see through it. But at the end of they day this nonsense keeps things from completely falling apart.

>” That doesn't mean that the people paying them to do the job see it the same way.”

Blood letting as a medieval standard practice to cure diseases was a valuable job per these definitions.

If value is redefined as anything that anyone anywhere thinks should be done regardless of the actual effect, then sure my points are wrong when evaluated with that criteria.

Again, unfortunately the rest of aren't omniscient and infallible. And thus we must muddle through.

Okay you disagree, I get it. But refrain from unctuous condescension. I have never claimed to be infallible or omniscient so please stop painting it as if I have.

I think there has to be a middle ground. Once I read a foxnews article about a toddler getting shot in some sort of road rage just when I was about to sleep and his last words haunted me all night and I couldn't sleep (I have kids of similar age). I am not even a regular fox reader fwiw, but clearly there are news outlets that are putting news out there to cause certain anxiety in their audience. I have since made a rule that, avoid news articles before going to bed (and I mean from all sources).

I still read news and I can handle a lot more with a cup of coffee and clear head in the morning. But my mind is just not ready to deal with stuff at night (reminds me of song - "Why do the monsters come out at night?" )

I never really thought of it that way. I guess people who scroll Reddit and Twitter all day are actually holding society together rather than wasting their lives. Thank you for your service.

Well human lived just fine before endless weekly, daily, hourly and up to minute news came in. If bad things are happening or will happen it will reach to people in physical form that is much more actionable.

A lot of other people you mention they are not some kind self-less humanitarians. They are mostly agenda driven partisans looking to rile people and treat everything as game to win. One clear way to win is to not play their game.

Another real joke is 90% of people who write or read news are not solving any real problem. They read news and then go on spew their rants on social media and hector people in doing things where they have no business.

In general the news gives me a very superficial and sometimes factually inaccurate view of events. This is startlingly true in just about every situation where I've had first hand knowledge of the event in question.

One alternative I've heard is for people to simply research candidates and issues before they vote and ignore it at all other times. That seems reasonable at least for state and federal races where there's little ability to effect change outside of voting cycles.

Most of what makes you angry in the news is misleading at best. You are being manipulated and misinformed, not informed.

There are very few incidents I want (or need) to follow to the minute - usually local events that affect my life like maybe a hazardous chemical spill or a fire.

I don't need 24 hour news. I can get the summary every morning or evening about what happened and that's just fine.

Especially with the Russia/Ukraine war there is so much crap floating around as "news" that's 50% correct at best that you get the wrong impression if you follow too closely to the twitter/telegram rumours.

This is an interesting take. Reminds me of an ostrich burying its head in the sand and not seeing the hunter approaching. Ignorance is bliss until the world affects you.

Name the most important thing in the news from two weeks ago.

You can't. Neither can I. The difference between you and I is, I didn't waste my time or energy keeping up with utterly inane "news" that I have zero agency to react to in any meaningful way.

Here's the really ironic part: Fox news viewers are less informed than those that watch no news[0]. So not only are news viewers more depressed and angry about things they have zero influence over (see also other comments regarding "circle of influence" and "circle of concern"), they are more ignorant to boot!

[0] - https://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-make...

and this makes it even more ironic:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/may/19/survey-fox-...

It's funny because 99% of people who say that are white privileged upper middle class Americans, who are liberals so they think they can speak for actual disadvantaged minorities.

In reality, the demographic that cares least about news and the constant culture wars around it are usually racial minorities or immigrants. That has been corroborated multiple times by surveys and polls and studies.And growing up as a non white immigrant to a white country, it certainly fits my observation. We usually care more about day to day life and more important, immediate stuff. Even worse, they often have no say and no power in what happens in the grand scheme of things so why even care a lot?

Yet, the argument persists in the mind of "white saviors", since they think that not only people need to care about whatever they do, but that they are good and better for being terminally addicted to never ending news cycles.

Nothing can be further from the truth though, and as always actual minorities are being used for an argument that they have no part in.

Obviously having immediate needs to deal with leaves less time for news and similar. Immediate needs generally come before abstract long term plans.

Yes that's exactly my point! Some people think that being oppressed or being disprivileged means that you become a lot more affected by day to day news and hyper aware of all the new stuff around you, politically or otherwise.

But that's a deeply privileged take, from people who have a weird and idyllic view of what it means to be a minority or suffering from discrimination,etc. The opposite happens usually, which is sad but that's still reality. Being hyper politicized or hyper partisan is exactly the sign of privilege and it's funny that to see the pervasive narrative that the opposite is somehow true, and that being able to ignore news is a sign of privilege.

> They still know all about Hollywood and the latest fashion trends.

Or tech, for everybody here claiming they don't read news.

ok, Captain Planet

Reply on news.ycombinator.com