I have a friend who told me he’s 6 months “media sober.” No social media, streaming services,
crossword puzzle apps, news, podcasts, porn, even no movie theatres. He says he feels less angry, still is told the more important things by friends, and has more energy to put into causes that matter to him.
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.
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.
> Maybe we need some kind of non-profit media aggregator that gives you just the small drip you need and that’s it.
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.
In iOS you can set up screen time. I recently set it up for a limited amount of time every day, and had someone else set the passcode/recovery.
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.
It's about focus and knowing your limits, which is always going to be difficult to self-determine. I thought getting rid of streaming services would make me want to read more, but I found other ways to be distracted.
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.
> He says he feels less angry, still is told the more important things by friends, and has more energy to put into causes that matter to him.
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 somehow wish there was a good-hearted effort from some government in establishing a low-key social media. But, again, a government could be biased but my point was that only such an organization could bear to go non-profit at such scales.
Reddit killing Apollo and Twitter requiring login basically ended my daily scrolling and I’ve been noticeably feeling better. I do agree that social media is probably a net negative.
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.
I have been very connected over the past 2 years, growing a coding focussed Instagram to 100K followers. The past 6 months I have radically stepped back and boy do I feel better.
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.
Right but you are on the sell side and not on the buy side. Growing your 100K followers requires work and requires you to stay up to date and follow the market.
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!
There are many problems that people like Adam Curtis try to document.
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.
Social media is definitely very toxic. The best evidence is the rise in misogyny and homophobia in the last few years and how social media has made so many people doubt basic biology and science.
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 believe the responsibility falls on you to moderate yourself (not some organization like govt to set rules for everyone). But I know it's hard. Time limits on iPhone were not enough for me. But https://one-sec.app/ really helped... Forcing me to pause for 10 seconds every time was pretty much all it took...
You're in a war with the entire adtech industry. Most people simply can't win this war. Only solution I know of is hard bans with screen time passwords you personally don't know.
Adtech is basically a tsunami against human impulses. You're blaming everyone who gets engulfed by a tsunami that they obviously should have known that when the ocean recedes, a wave is coming, so it's their fault they drown. Unlike an actual tsunami, adtech is not a physical inevitability, so quit it with the simping.
I used to use Facebook a lot. It knew me, always recommended stuff I'd be interested in and I sometimes spent hours on Facebook and not even realizing it, only after I finished and then I'd feel guilty about it. The same shit next day.
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.
Haven't been on any social media platform since I deleted my Facebook account in 2004. My exposure consists entirely of following links to Tweets. Even during this small exposure I'm blown away by how much of a cesspool it is, it's like I can smell it through my screen.
Lex Fridman's interview with Johnathan Haidt provides an excellent conversation about the harms of social media, particularly on pre-teen girls mental health.
Way easier if people outside social media to have some hobbies or have some in depth knowledge, it seems that everybody treats social media the same way, but I got a lot from it, more than the people around me. social media brought literally tears to my eyes (in a good way) and it's still fun, but not as good as back in the day I guess.
> It isn't clear to me how anyone can have that many voices in their head without challenging their mental health a bit – or more than a bit. Looking out onto a world filled with QAnoners and COVID-deniers and worse, it's becoming obvious that "social" media has driven a fair few people well beyond the bounds of reason.
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.
> In 2008, I formed a hypothesis that everyone has something to teach you, so the more connected you are, the more you should be able to learn.
> 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"
[+] [-] azinman2|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] bamfly|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] matisseverduyn|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] nomel|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] Andrex|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] DHPersonal|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] abhayhegde|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] user_named|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] soligern|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JKCalhoun|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seatac76|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] simonbarker87|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] theGnuMe|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] _Algernon_|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bingemaker|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] i8comments|2 years ago|reply
Avoid emotional dumps, empathy traps, traumatizing stuff and info noise, and you'll be fine.
[+] [-] Aerbil313|2 years ago|reply
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!
[+] [-] thenerdhead|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] dustedcodes|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mixmastamyk|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] cajunboi34213|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Aerbil313|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CatWChainsaw|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] l3x4ur1n|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] zingababba|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pc2g4d|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jdkee|2 years ago|reply
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0un-l1L8Zw
[+] [-] HDMI_Cable|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MonaroVXR|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CatWChainsaw|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spread_love|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blueridge|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Mizoguchi|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mistermann|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] SN76477|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nh23423fefe|2 years ago|reply
> 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"
[+] [-] arp242|2 years ago|reply
That's very specific, and I have no idea how you read that in the article.
[+] [-] JimtheCoder|2 years ago|reply