The point is that 90% of the news is unimportant. Often you can read a weekly and that is enough
A politician said something and other politicians reacted. Usually unimportant unless it was backed by a law or something. If it was important then the weekly will cover it.
Main Character of the day on Social media. unimportant
A crime happened nearby. Unimportant
A celeb did something. Unimportant
Something happened to random person. Unimportant
Sport result. If you follow that team you already know, if not then not important.
Seriously go to the front page of the New York times or some other outfit and count the stories that you needed to read today.
All of this is very easy to filter out while browsing the internet. Not when you are speaking with actual persons. Believe or not, there are still people who watch television and believe in old media.
Television teaches them that the proper response to someone disagreeing is to get angry and shout when the opposing party tries to explain their point of view. Something that is useless or even technically impossible in anonymous net forums.
If you look at the old media, important decisions are mentioned but completely ignored after someone has said something offensive or an accident happened somewhere.
Social media is people and people are the problem, not technology or anonymity. Everyone who has spent Christmas with relatives knows this.
I think OP's point is that if your life is so blessed that "90% of the news is unimportant to you" then that itself is a great, fortunate privilege.
For example, I can tell you that if you are an immigrant in the USA from one of the (now many) targeted countries, even one with legal residency, news about ICE's actions is very relevant and very important to you.
That's just it though, the "news" is not providing valuable information to the majority of people, it's mostly a series of takes designed to fit into easily digestible narratives so they can attract enough viewers to survive as a business.
slyall|2 months ago
A politician said something and other politicians reacted. Usually unimportant unless it was backed by a law or something. If it was important then the weekly will cover it.
Main Character of the day on Social media. unimportant
A crime happened nearby. Unimportant
A celeb did something. Unimportant
Something happened to random person. Unimportant
Sport result. If you follow that team you already know, if not then not important.
Seriously go to the front page of the New York times or some other outfit and count the stories that you needed to read today.
ffuxlpff|2 months ago
Television teaches them that the proper response to someone disagreeing is to get angry and shout when the opposing party tries to explain their point of view. Something that is useless or even technically impossible in anonymous net forums.
If you look at the old media, important decisions are mentioned but completely ignored after someone has said something offensive or an accident happened somewhere.
Social media is people and people are the problem, not technology or anonymity. Everyone who has spent Christmas with relatives knows this.
ryandrake|2 months ago
For example, I can tell you that if you are an immigrant in the USA from one of the (now many) targeted countries, even one with legal residency, news about ICE's actions is very relevant and very important to you.
dasil003|2 months ago
rockskon|2 months ago
Being relentlessly informed of all the miseries of the world is a choice for most people in developed countries not in the middle of a war.
lapcat|2 months ago
Which poor people exactly do you consider privileged, and why?
> The point is that although anyone can ignore the news, the news won't necessarily ignore them!
What can they do about the news, though? I specifically said, "they may feel powerless to change anything".
XorNot|2 months ago
The alternative is worse, and the result of an uninformed citizenry can be disasterous and a regression towards non-democracy.
resize2996|2 months ago
those with insulation from genocide and displacement despite poverty.
their point is that, say, a german peasant in 17th century couldn't avoid the Thirty Years War.