AHMagic

How can you tolerate CNN’s sophomoric clickbait plastered across their home page?

http://knn.press looks better, and that’s saying something.

You don't really know what's going on. You only know what you're told, and there's many ways to interpret the source data.

You really can't have a good sense of corporations and governments unless you work specifically for a particular company or government and know the inner workings and side effects of what's happening. And if that's the case, you don't need to read the news to learn about it.

You don't know much about the wars nor the relations between countries. You never get to sit in on leader meetings or see first hand what's happening and not happening.

You think you know something about Michigan because you learned about the Flint water crisis. But do you really know what failures took place or the economic state of all of Michigan? What about all of the other crises in America you didn't hear about, simply because the news chose to make you care about Flint and not another crisis?

Data breaches and environmental disasters are often reported in a way that makes corporations seem negligent when other information is left out. This is why there's so much "debate" and "different opinion" on such matters. There's no right answer, yet the news does a good job of presenting a singular narrative.

The news is definitely endlessly intriguing, just like a drug. The worst part about it is you only ever have a very small fraction of the totality of what's going on. Every time we hear about Trump, we're not hearing about local politicians who arguably have a greater impact on our lives.

You can't really be informed about most topics, and it's less likely to be informed the more we focus on matters outside of our local proximity, depending on journalists to translate events with inevitable inaccuracy.

The world was better when people paid for communications. It's why the internet was better in 1995. Most of the people who had access needed to afford a landline and likely had to own a home or rent an apartment. The only way kids got online is if a guardian had access.

Nowadays, any kid can get online. The range of intelligence and character has expanded dramatically.

I hear what you're saying, but the analogy doesn't hold because we no longer need horses. In order to use Facebook, you have to sign up with an e-mail and typically a phone number (and in many cases, a photo ID, birth certificate, etc.)

If we need e-mails and phone numbers to sign up for social media, then we don't actually need the social media. We can go back to simply using the numbers and e-mails.

Interesting, thanks.

You're right. I think I'm referring more to "federated" than "decentralized".

Your point is valid, but we still live in a world where we can call Verizon phones with AT&T phones; send e-mails to Gmail users with Yahoo; and send mail with UPS instead of USPS. With those means of communication, we still have control over our providers.

There is no control within Facebook's ecosystem. Similar with AOL, if you don't use Facebook, you're necessarily out of the loop, and I don't feel comfortable with that.

Here's why I don't think decentralization is a red herring: in a centralized service, if you disagree, you don't have another option. If you didn't like AOL and quit, there was no way for you to maintain contact with AOL users unless both parties used a different platform.

Decentralized systems like phone, e-mail, and mail allow you to maintain contact with people while having control over your provider. I understand that we've lost some of that control, but the basic idea stands.

If you don't have Facebook, you can't reach out to other Facebook users. If you don't have Verizon phone service, you can still call Verizon users with AT&T or <insert your another phone service>. If you don't have Gmail, you can still send e-mails to Gmail users from Yahoo or <insert e-mail service>. If you don't like USPS, you can send mail through UPS or <insert another service>.

We already have decentralization in three primary forms of communication: phone, mail, and e-mail. They worked great in 1998. Why can't they work great in 2018?

Do you really want to live your days feeling dependent on this sort of "service"? Do you really want to say, "but I need Facebook!".

In today's age, you need a phone number and e-mail. It's ok - they are decentralized. Don't let a centralized platform of Facebook's evil nature become necessary for you to live your life.

Delete and forget it existed. Ignore and move on. Give up the benefits and pay the cost.

Do you really want to live your days feeling dependent on this sort of "service"? Do you really want to say, "but I need Facebook!".

In today's age, you need a phone number and e-mail. It's ok - they are decentralized. Don't let a centralized platform of Facebook's evil nature become necessary for you to live your life.

Delete and forget it existed. Ignore and move on. Give up the benefits and pay the cost.

Delete and forget it existed. Ignore and move on. Give up the benefits and pay the cost. Do you really want to live your days feeling dependent on this sort of "service"? Do you really want to say, "but I need Facebook!".

In today's age, you need a phone number and e-mail. It's ok - they are decentralized. Don't let a centralized platform of Facebook's evil nature become necessary for you to live your life.