Hacker News Reader

Comment by ggm | Hacker News Reader

If you don't mind being unable to engage with your peers on anything except historical matters.

If you don't e.g. mind being unaware of the local situation, which goes to preparedness. -By all means don't read news outside of tornado season, and don't mind being caught up in current affairs with no situational awareness.

If you don't mind abrogating decision making to others, where you have some locus of control. If you have no locus of control in the situation then being un-informed is almost exactly what those who do have some levers, wish.

Certainly, reading "news" as "olds" is somewhat easier on the mind. perhaps we're just disagreeing about how old you should leave it to be.

View on HN

You can read the info just b4 voting instead of submerging in all the madness all year.

It's also funny how you've written 'unable to engage with peers on anything except history'. Like, do you speak with your peers only abt news and history? When we gather with friends we discuss many personal things too, and some news too, but not bc we follow them, but bc news were so big that these got to us through another channels indirectly.

Being aware with local situation is strange too. Except from some big things that directly impact me, why I should be aware about the things in the city? Most of the time it's just irrelevant except some strikes of the public service workers or some festivals?

There are ways to read news by using an rss+ some llm combo to filter out irrelevant things but it's too cumbersome

A Priori, how can you know something (may) impact you, if you are unware of it until it impacts? Did you not wish the opportunity to avoid it? to engage in it?

"I didn't know the Stones were playing that gig" is big in this. If the stones decided to play the gig 24h ago, and you're in the city, the FOMO may be worse than the other choice.

Look I'm not dying on the hill on this. I think some amount of engagement is wise, beneficial. Too much is definitely bad.

That's a slippery slope argument like no other.

("Reduce news consumption, turn into unsocialized disaster victim under the control of others.")

Hate to be that guy, but this literally happened to friends of mine in the apt complex I live in. Completely disengaged from local news, had no idea that the building was losing power and being flooded in 2 days. Lost shedloads in the basement carpark.

"oh, I am sure it will be ok" right until it wasn't.

But your point is good otherwise. It's a continuum. How far down the slider you dial it, is up to you. I dialled to "completely disengaged" but there's "keep an ear open" further up to "read obsessively every day"

99.99% people who read news don’t read it critically, so their “decisions” are completely at the mercy of what the very impressive propaganda machinery that we call news. Any control people feel they have by making opinions based on reading news is an illusion.

I think the answer is reading more varied sources of news, not less. But for sanity's sake, reading less might be good.

Nope. Being able to see through the countless subtle ways the news manipulate and misleads you and to gain any meaningful insight requires so much effort and critical thinking that it is simply not practical for vast majority of people.

I firmly stand by my opinion that "Stop reading news" is the best advice that can be given to most people interested in being better informed about the world.

Well, I don’t watch news, or any social network.

My friends tell me about the « big » happenings like Ukraine or Israel big.

The rest, I don’t get and I don’t care. I don’t miss anything regarding the local situation. Yes, if I’m going to see some stand up, maybe I’ll miss on some references, that’s the price I pay for the peace of mind I get by not subjecting myself to demotivating content on the daily. Funnily, about your locus of control argument, focusing on things you can’t control (like inflation, some disease in a land far away or another murder in the USA) is not going to help you deal with things in a better way. Quite the contrary. You have much, much less control than the info you can take in generally.

I don’t know, I think one should be more mindful of their mental diet whenever they engage with a piece of content they can access for free. Especially in our ad driven economy, always being aware of what’s being said and why is it said that way helped me understand a lot, more sometimes than the message in itself.

I don't actively follow the news, as I found it had a negative impact on my mental well-being. However, this doesn't mean I'm uninformed. I still stay updated through conversations with family, friends, and colleagues. This approach might've even improved my listening skills and relationships. Without being bombarded by every viewpoint on issues that often have little relevance to our daily lives, I avoid falling into the trap of lecturing or debating based on half-informed opinions.

We are figuratively being bombarded with information nowadays. It's not good. And almost all of the news we consume doesn't significantly affect our personal lives. And it's all like propaganda, even if it wasn't the intention.

> If you don't mind being unable to engage with your peers on anything except historical matters.

The rest of your post is in a similar finger-pointing parent-telling-their-child-how-the-world-works mode, but the first line is already wrong. The world is a lot bigger then just historical facts and what CNN is currently telling you. I can easily interact with my "peers" without talking about history or COVID, thank you. I am pretty saddened that you believe otherwise.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com