Social media is too much for most of us to handle
theregister.com
theregister.com
I think there’s something to be said for a middle ground, but it’s in no company’s interest to provide it. They all want more engagement. Maybe we need some kind of non-profit media aggregator that gives you just the small drip you need and that’s it.
Once I cut myself off, it's been really sad how often I end up looking at a "time limit" message, without really consciously opening the app. Not having the availability is like freeing a constantly tense part of my mind.
I think you'd like news.ycombinator.com (also called Hacker News or HN). What's nice is that the news titles on the home page give you the exact slow drip you're looking for. If you want to participate in a discussion, then there's a comment section, but if you just want to read more, you can click directly through to the article without seeing any comments at all.
HN is niche in topic. It only provides a small slice of media that I could consume. Imagine something a little more akin to Twitter, but small and not endless. It can be interest focused, social from friends, links to long form content like movies/podcasts, etc.
I think News Minimalist does a great job, and is in this spirit with really good summaries. I learned about it from HN. That and the economist daily headlines both give me paragraph sized insights into global news in a very helpful way.
Following news, especially outside the very-local, has very nearly zero value for most people. It's a hobby with about the same value as watching a daily soap opera, that we fool ourselves into thinking is important.
"But, informed voters!" the voter who spends a few minutes a day reading relevant non-fiction books—history, poli-sci, statistics, marketing/PR, political philosophy, economics, and so on—rather than the news, and just pokes their head up to look at the news & candidates' messages for a few minutes right before each election, is going to be a way better voter than one who puts the same amount of time into mass news media, and skips the books. Wildly better. Incomparably better. Hell, someone who does neither might well be better than the one immersed in mass news media daily or weekly. It. Is. Not. Important. Or. Valuable.
(separately, having a strong news media is important... so, IDK, pay for a paper that does good investigative journalism, but rarely read it? This part's tricky, and arguably one of the great problems of democracy)
FYI everyone also votes backwards from how they should. If you're going to ignore elections, ignore the big ones, and attend the ones for local candidates and issues and school boards and such—the more local, the more your vote matters, and the effect is large. If you want to make a difference in a Presidential election, it's far more effective to participate in the primary or caucus and stay home on election day, than to do the opposite. Yet voter behavior is reversed on all this.
I think it’s still important to be informed, so there’s a middle ground.
It seems to me who is president does affect a lot of my life, from abortion, to Supreme Court rules that have majorly affected my life, to war, trade and the economy.
It does—the problem is the value of a single vote.
Odds are very poor—like, single-powerball-ticket-poor—that if you cast a vote for every single presidential election you can in your lifetime, anything about your life or anyone else's will be even slightly different. It's the least effective vote you can cast—yet seems like the only one people go out of their way to shame people over, if they don't vote.
The smaller the vote (and, in the special case of presidential elections in the US, the less stupid and disenfranchising the rules) the greater the effect. Even narrowing a close vote by one, if you don't quite put it over the top, can make a difference at the very-local level.
Your idea of "value of a single vote" is grotesquely misinformed. You do not vote to "sway the election" with your grandiose opinion. You do so in order to inform society of your position.
It's not about "winning over the other side". That's already a ridiculous misrepresentation of society. There is no "other side" to begin with.
Yes, the current incarnation of "democracy" is wildly lacking. But the point is to improve on it, not to throw away what countless generations strived to achieve just because it's not perfect yet.
Except my position isn't well captured by the available candidates most of the time. Sure, I can write in a candidate, but how do I signal why that candidate is acceptable when the other options aren't?
Most of my positions on the relative efficacy of various voter behaviors in the US system of government are heavily informed by my having been a poli-sci major in the US, and spending a fair amount of time studying those directly and absorbing expert analyses of them.
Admittedly, some of those are unpopular—people love voting for the President (and then ignoring school board, city, and county elections, and not participating in any political parties).
shrug
You need to critically look at how politics in real life works. On the level of presidential elections, the US is no "democracy" in any sensible meaning of the word to begin with. But that doesn't mean, votes there would be unimportant. The last few elections should make that exceedingly obvious.
In small, local elections, your vote has a more transparent relationship to outcomes. But those outcomes tend to be inconsequential. Presidential elections are quite the opposite really.
Never claimed to be an expert. I'm also not "grotesquely misinformed", unless the bar for "merely misinformed, but not grotesquely" is so high that at least 99% of people are "grotesquely misinformed" (which... IDK, maybe, in that case, I guess?). Not an expert, though, and, didn't claim to be.
I have no idea why people are taking any of what I've written as "voting for President is bad and you shouldn't do it". I must not have written clearly, yet cannot find what's drawing that reaction anywhere in my posts (but maybe it's there and I'm just not seeing it!). I think I've just written about the best use of limited time & attention: smaller, and earlier in the process, is most effective; and how voter behavior instead reflects polar opposite priorities. Everyone voting in every election would, of course, be ideal (I mean, for me, just certain folks voting in every election would be ideal, but you get what I mean).
> In small, local elections, your vote has a more transparent relationship to outcomes. But those outcomes tend to be inconsequential.
I'm going to be blunter than I usually am on HN, because you're in dangerously-wrong territory and I'd hate for anyone to run with this outside of HN, for making decisions about voting or political participation: this is super fucking wrong. Local election & initiative outcomes matter a ton.
I would encourage anyone who doesn't find themselves seeing, very clearly, why, after a few moments' though, to spend some time over a few days looking at national headlines—not just the one or two top ones, but a bunch each day—and marking down which levels of government are active in or generating each story (yeah, I know, I advised mostly avoiding the news in favor of books, but this is a decent way to do some informal statistical analysis). And that's just what makes national news! Consider which levels of government you interact with most. Which police patrol cruisers do you see most—the FBI? State bureau? Highway patrol? Probably not any of those, and I bet that was an ascending list least- to most-seen (while omitting the ones probably see more than any of those, by a large margin—city & sheriff, say?). School budgets and hiring administrators. Which levels of government are banning books? Very-local, or sometimes state. Who's setting library funding, running the closest 20 parks to where you live, hiring the government officials and setting their policies? Zoning rules? Who's running your utilities, or responsible for collecting your trash? There's so much and it very much matters.
I care plenty about reproductive rights, FWIW, if that's what you're getting at. It's nonetheless the case that a person who votes (only) in one local or state election every four years is doing their civic duty better than someone who votes (only) in every presidential election—but voter participation patterns treat the presidential vote like it's the very most important one to get to. Most people stay home for some elections, and from a how-best-to-spend-my-limited-time-and-effort perspective, most of them are getting it wrong (unless you factor in other things, like how much social pressure there is to go to vote for president vs. how much there is to get to the polls for other elections).
Which is to say, I think the “pay less attention” advice, while popular and relaxing a decade ago for certain demographics, inexorably led us to a place where vast segments of the populace haven’t been paying attention, and assumed “both sides are the same”, and now we’re in a real pickle, Federal policy-wise.
I'm not saying "avoid voting in some elections", I'm saying the voters who only turn out for the big ones probably have some wrong ideas about where their time and attention is most-effectively spent, and which bubbles they fill out on the ballot or taps they make on the screen are most important. How many can tell you one thing about any state judge, say, (for states that elect judges) on that presidential ballot, but can rattle off all kinds of crap about both major presidential candidates? Priorities are skewed the wrong way. It's just an observation about how voter attention tends to be focused on the wrong things. That top-line vote every four years matters more for getting people out for the down-ballot, than it does per se.
> inexorably led us to a place where vast segments of the populace haven’t been paying attention, and assumed “both sides are the same”, and now we’re in a real pickle, Federal policy-wise.
I don't think paying less attention to the news gets us there. Plenty of folks I know who hold that (deeply silly) "both sides" opinion pay a lot more attention to the news than I ever have, certainly.
Again, I think we'd be better-served, and have a better electorate, if those folks mostly stopped watching the news and started reading more books. However, I admit that this is impractical to apply broadly, as a huge proportion of US adults can't profitably read even slightly-complex non-fiction texts and get much out of them—but for an individual not in that cohort of barely-readers, it might be a good change to make, if one of their reasons for following the news so much is to "be a better voter & citizen". More books, less news (very little, infrequently, possibly except local news).
Every four years, the presidential election is on the same ballot as all the other local elections. You are advocating for voting, and you're not advocating for leaving the presidential vote blank on the ballot. If you're frustrated with having little power to make very important decisions, that is more than understandable.
However, you can only consider the effect of a presidential vote to be zero if you also consider the derivative in calculus to be zero. In terms of the presidential eletion, we aren't voting as individuals, we're voting as a state. Your vote matters.
Yes—but a lot of people skip most or all other votes, including some more-local ones that usually aren't part of that vote. I'm saying placing so much importance on voting for president is misguided.
> However, you can only consider the effect of a presidential vote to be zero if you also consider the derivative in calculus to be zero. In terms of the presidential eletion, we aren't voting as individuals, we're voting as a state. Your vote matters.
I'm... gonna stop addressing this point in public here, for reasons unrelated to what's correct. It's one of those topics probably better avoided outside small circles due to what amount to, I suppose, marketing reasons, if you will. Probably shouldn't have brought it up.
Let it be known that I never claimed it's bad to vote in a presidential election. Everyone should definitely go vote any time they can, especially those in a forum where they're statistically more likely than average to vote the way I would. Every vote is extremely important.
If you're able to e.g. turn the news into money or other real advantages, or desirable (to you, at least) outcomes that wouldn't have been possible otherwise, you're one of ones who aren't covered by "most".
As of 1 Jan 2021 I haven’t visited a news website. I never watched TV news anyway (I don’t have broadcast/cable). Sometimes the news drifts through from the radio, and if someone sends me a thing I’m not religious about not opening it. But, basically, no news.
I haven’t missed it at all, and I do feel better. I have little clue what’s going on in the world and I don’t really care. What was I going to do about it anyway?
I still browse social media. I’ve 90% switched to Mastodon from Twitter, which is just nicer. Simpler. More personal. HN is my main ‘browsing to kill time’ site, and I’m looking forward to an upcoming holiday so I can break this habit a little.
Though I do now realise it’s all or nothing. You’re either in, in which case you are in, or you’re out. That’s why making it a resolution-style quitting — I remember the date — really helps. I’m on a run now, and I’d ruin that by visiting one news site even once. All temptation has now gone, thanks to time.
The news cycle is relentless and mostly pointless. Ditching it has absolutely been a benefit to my mental state.
I am not jogging, no. That would be weird.
Awareness of events with geopolitical consequences might not immediately affect your diet or whatever you "truly" care about. It sure as hell is a world of difference when it comes to making judgements that span more than a couple weeks.
Living in a state of relative decadence, when circumstances allow for life to become seemingy routine and change a scarcity precipitates times when that is very different.
Let’s visit my reputable local paper’s home page. I live in the capital of Australia so this should be fairly geopolitical.
- New economic partnership between my country and my territory. Fine.
- ‘Party bonfire explosion lucky not to kill someone.’
- 200 new homes planned for a suburb up the road.
- Gossip on some agency moving to some other place.
- Commentary on an upcoming vote. I know how I’ll vote, I’ll vote ‘yes’ because I’m not a racist. I don’t need the news for that.
- A pub changes ownership after 38 years. I’ll remind you that I’m on the front page of the Canberra Times.
- Rugby news.
I feel geopolitically informed and much calmer. Thank you.
Please share your method.
Also we’ll be taking trains through Malaysia and Thailand so that will occupy the parts of my brain that usually want a little ‘hit’ from the internet.
The path to long-term success involves replacing the habit with another. Because you’ll always have those interstitial moments when the urge to check HN comes up. If you leave them empty, you’ll want to fill them eventually.
So, have a good book on hand. Or learn to take walks round the block. Or something else.
I personally find that I’m all-or-nothing. I can’t just ‘check HN twice a day’. That doesn’t work for me. And ‘checking HN’ soon devolves to ‘also checking Reddit’ because, screw it, while I’m here… and so they all have to go.
I’ve had success in the past, yet here I am again. If at first you don’t succeed…
Definitely, humans are not equipped for everything technology is throwing at us. We're pushing up against the limits of our simian biology. Dunbar's number is real.
It's up to each of us to be responsible in choosing how much we expose ourselves to, because the tech companies aren't going to do it for us. Big Tech is the Big Tobacco of the 21st century and they know it.
One should definitely weigh the value of a particular news outlet or social media service toward one's daily life, because it's definitely true that much of what these outlets offer is not of great value to anyone, but I dislike this sequestering approach. It views the process of taking in news as a miserable experience, but then goes on to encourage us all to offload that misery to another person to act as a curator. What happens then seems to be a siloing of misery, dooming minority groups to being exploited without any way of getting that message out to a larger audience, because only those who are actually affected by that particular bit of news will hear of it after the multiple layers of curation filter it out from the general audience.
I think it would be good if you assumed the best in people instead of the worst.
But to stay connected I’ve switched to reading long form essays and books. Also I’ve realized that reading a financial website is a happy medium, they tend to cover the most important news without too much sensationalism.
For me the issue was the drip, drip, drip of every social cause there is. I care and an empathetic about all of them but seeing a mention of x, y and z every few minutes gets wearing. You feel like you can't enjoy things.
My over active brain churns on the topics constantly, looking at all sides and view points regardless of if I want to think about the topic.
Far from being a highlights reel of other people's lives social media has become a reel of everyones opinions (positive and negative on every topic and social cause/injustice) and it's exhausting.
But you are right, the buy side of it can be exhausting outside of your niche. Especially if it isn't giving you anything back.
Avoid emotional dumps, empathy traps, traumatizing stuff and info noise, and you'll be fine.
Indeed. Very easy thing to do, in fact everyone can do it! Don't let those luddites tell you majority of the population is regardless addicted. Just ignore all those shiny posts tailored exactly to your reward mechanisms by a trillion dollar sector. If I can avoid, so can you. Just Avoid It, bro! You must try it, so easy!
Can you understand I come to social media for cool posts? I see people doing tricks, information about nutrition, engineering and stuff.
Easy to do, but if outside (I mean my environment) is really that bad, boring and racist, then I have no choice, same goes for this website, people on this website are just better than on the others ones.
What is interesting is that everyone agrees this is the norm, but not many believe there’s a way to reform or change the status quo. The author doesn’t even talk about the easiest solution of not participating. They simply move to a new platform and think their problems are gone.
As someone who did battle online with 12-yo boys in the 90s, there's no "rise". Just kids and other immatures being trolls on purpose. Best not to let it bother you. It isn't real for the most part and most will outgrow it.
Sounds like another good reason to keep minors offline until they mature a little.
I quit all social media 3 years ago. I don't visit them daily anymore. I visit Facebook only with a purpose to check something specific when I need it in one of the groups (in my country reddit or Twitter is not popular, we have Facebook groups for everything) and I almost never check the feed. When I do I realize I changed so much in those three years Facebook no longer knows me and the stuff it recommends is not interesting anymore.
I don't miss any of it. Yeah, sometimes I don't get what colleagues are talking about, but it's not important. I have more time on my hands to do anything else.
Gives me a summary of the leading issues, from multiple angles. Not an endless stream of murder-suicides.
Disclaimer: I'm a very small time investor, after first becoming a huge fan.
An unsurprising artifact of excessive propaganda consumption, and a plausible hint at why things never get better even when so many people on both sides want just that.
> By the middle of 2017, despite a string of successes in my life, I felt continually depressed.
> I had learned what it meant to be hyperconnected: always knowing too much about the thoughts and feelings of too many people. It meant terrible mental health.
> What happened to me has happened to hundreds of millions of others.
Not persuasive. News junkie inhales beheading videos and feels sad. What humans did this person connect to and learn from? "I'm depressed. It's gotta be twitter's fault"
That's very specific, and I have no idea how you read that in the article.