by headalgorithm on 2/5/25, 2:55 PM with 905 comments
by joshdavham on 2/5/25, 3:50 PM
Reddit, instagram, X, Facebook, TikTok, LinkedIn, Threads, etc are all the equivalent of digital junk food and I’d argue that we’re all a lot more negatively affected by it than we think. There’s a reason ‘brain rot’ was word of the year.
by Glyptodon on 2/5/25, 8:30 PM
What I struggle with isn't fatigue at outrage, it's knowing what to do about it.
I think violence is going to become more common, but I don't particularly think it will be effective.
So less so than outrage, it's the feeling that we're trapped in a real life doom loop with no clear off ramp that I struggle with.
I would like to do something... But what?
by majgr on 2/6/25, 7:03 AM
- Get subscription of high value newspaper or magazine. Professionals work there, so you will get real facts, worthy opinions and less emotions.
- It is better to not use social media. You never know if you are discussing with normal person, a political party troll, or Russian troll.
- It is not worth discussing with „switched-on” people. They are getting high doses of emotional content, they are made to feel like victims, facts does not matter at all. Political beliefs are intermingled with religious beliefs.
- emotional content is being treated with higher priority by brain, so it is better to stay away from it, or it will ruin your evening.
- people are getting addicted to emotions and victimization, so after public broadcaster has been freed from it, around 5% people switched to private tv station to get their daily doses.
- social media feels like a new kind of virus, we all need to get sick and develop some immunity to it.
- in the end, there are more reasonable people, but democracies needs to develop better constitutional/law systems, with very short feedback loop. It is very important to have fast reaction on breaking the law by ruling regime.
by karaterobot on 2/5/25, 3:33 PM
> ... people have found that, actually, outrage can be useful. It actually can help you identify a problem and react to it. But it can also be harmful if you’re experiencing it all the time and become overwhelmed by it.
I'm reading that as meaning something more like identify a problem and act on it. Outrage itself is a reaction, just not a positive one. There's no shortage of people reacting to things.
by yowayb on 2/5/25, 3:22 PM
by _fat_santa on 2/5/25, 3:45 PM
Over time though I picked up on these "outrage triggers" and that's helped me be much more objective about news I'm reading. I'll be reading an article and I can usually pick up the "tricks" writers use to generate outrage. I often find myself reading an article and go "oh look you want me to feel outraged right now".
Nowdays when I try to be informed about a story I will read an NYT report, a CNN report, a Fox News or other right leaning report, and then maybe one from DailyWire of Bannon's War Room. Skimming every article I often see spots where the outlet is trying to outrage their readers. NYT will report something that will outrage the left and as you "go right" on the reports you will start to see outrage directed to the right.
by snapcaster on 2/5/25, 6:24 PM
by yakhinvadim on 2/5/25, 5:20 PM
I think it worked quite well, there's only about 10 headlines a day (out of 15k+) that get a significance rating higher than of 5.5 out of 10.
It also helps avoiding the overfocus on western issues and actually learn what's happening around the world.
by softwaredoug on 2/5/25, 3:13 PM
by sporkydistance on 2/5/25, 5:50 PM
by mckirk on 2/5/25, 3:55 PM
It also puts things into a bit of a global perspective, when you realize how much stuff is going on around the world all the time. Though this of course also means you'll learn things that are on the news everywhere in your country only after they've become relevant enough to register on a global level.
by UberFly on 2/5/25, 6:27 PM
by ohthehugemanate on 2/6/25, 7:29 AM
Hope this helps someone out there.
by ck2 on 2/5/25, 6:39 PM
> Uncertainty is a very important factor, and, instead of decreasing as time goes on, it grows. Outside, in the streets, in the general community, “everyone” is happy. One hears no protest, and certainly sees none. You speak privately to your colleagues, some of whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say? They say, “It’s not so bad” or “You’re seeing things” or “You’re an alarmist.”
> But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds of thousands will join with you, never comes. That’s the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and smallest, thousands, yes, millions, would have been sufficiently shocked—if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in ’43 had come immediately after the “German Firm” stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in ’33. But of course this isn’t the way it happens. In between come all of the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D.
- From "They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45"by vlan0 on 2/5/25, 7:01 PM
by matteoraso on 2/5/25, 6:34 PM
by munchler on 2/5/25, 6:47 PM
by neuroelectron on 2/5/25, 6:15 PM
by hdivider on 2/6/25, 5:48 AM
The events unfolding now are an expected progression of choices made years ago.
The choices made now will likewise determine the future. Not all of the current situation is under your control, however. Take whatever wise action you can, but beyond this, judge the outcome neither good nor bad. As hard as it may be -- because we love this country and the ideals for which it should stand, but this is precisely the mechanism which the forces of chaos are using against the system.
They're trying to fatigue you. Don't let them.
It makes sense to examine several likewise unpopular but nevertheless patently correct facts:
1) Every nation ceases to be. Every nation that ever was has fallen, merged, disappeared. This one cannot be different -- and that is OK, because this is what nations do. This does not at all mean you should do nothing. Quite the contrary. It does however mean refraining from placing superlative negative value judgements upon the events happening now. Work towards indifference in your mind, and act according to your wisdom and conscience.
2) You and all other individuals alive today will perish eventually. We all return to nature when our time comes. You were once purely of nature and not of human society -- you came into the world not knowing language, not knowing what nations are, what democracy is, why any of this matters. You were taught what it means to be a modern human. And we all return to the earth, to this mysterious and unfathomably ancient layer of living matter upon this world. So your efforts while you are alive are by nature limited, by necessity bounded. You can cause great change, and you should, according to what you are uniquely suited and drawn to do. Beyond this however, the rest of humanity -- which as a group, unlike individuals, may survive indefinitely -- will have responsibility over the rest.
Hope this perespetive benefits someone. It is the precise opposite of modern media, which wants you to feel outraged with every headline.
When Socrates was informed that his son had died, his response was:
"I knew that my son was mortal."
His mind was rational enough to accept such seemingly mundane but nevertheless consequential knowledge, at every level of his mind. And the effect? When disaster came, he did still suffer, but far less than most other people.
Because it was not a disaster. Merely an outcome of that which when examined closely, was to be expected based on knowledge of mortality.
by miki123211 on 2/5/25, 6:06 PM
I'm thinking tweet-sized news stories, a few per day at most, no threads, no images, no links, nothing but 140 characters of pure text. You could even deliver them as texts or unclickable push notifications.
That format heavily discourages clickbait (because there are no clicks to be had) and forces journalists to only include the information that actually matters, with no fluff about how they were sipping hot cocoa in a nice indie restaurant in Montana when talking to the subject of the story, a 38-year-old man wearing a polo shirt.
You could run an operation like this on a shoestring budget, with one or two individuals regurgitating news stories from mainstream sources in a much denser format, minus the outrage. Many, including me, would probably be willing to subscribe.
by Fin_Code on 2/5/25, 3:18 PM
by Arete314159 on 2/6/25, 4:49 AM
Unfortunately, in this day and age it's like choosing between two different forms of torture. Social media is so toxic and fries the nervous system so much - it's awful. The news is awful. And being alone with OCD is awful. (And yes I've tried various treatments - so far, nothing's worked great. B12 shots did help a bit and so did prednisone accidentally, but I can't stay on that long term.)
by glial on 2/5/25, 7:13 PM
by nanreh on 2/5/25, 10:24 PM
by 65 on 2/5/25, 4:54 PM
Shift your focus to things you can possibly control, e.g. the news that's happening in your local community where you have a say in how things are done.
by localghost3000 on 2/5/25, 4:10 PM
The net effect of my news/social media fast has been fairly dramatic. I suddenly have an attention span again. When a persons opinion differs from mine, I generally don't immediately assume they are part of the third reich (although if they keep talking a while I might get there lol).
To be clear I absolutely despise whats happening in the US right now. Enough information makes it to me through friends and family (and HN) that I feel a deep sense of despair. I am just not sure what minute by minute updates on the fuckery happening right now gets me.
by comrade1234 on 2/5/25, 3:20 PM
by nomilk on 2/5/25, 4:04 PM
Prior to social media, we all had incredibly conflicting views, just wasn't in our faces all the time to get outraged about! So the trick is to remember, by having these discussions/disagreements, we're actually making progress. We hear the loudest voices, but there's always smart and sincere people quietly reading and learning, which is a brilliant outcome!
If you find yourself getting outraged, be disciplined and switch activities (exercise, go for a walk, or turn off the source).
I definitely wouldn't leave social media though! Instead, harness them! Train those algos to give you science, book clubs, fascinating music niches, travel, culture - go deep, explore, and 'follow' liberally - you can very easily remove yourself from a group/page. I've found insanely interesting chemistry and physics pages, not to mention domains I never even knew existed, like color theory and a handful of others. Once you start clicking on politics, you'll only get more of it. Click on the good stuff!
by paganel on 2/6/25, 10:09 AM
And, yes, I have been in the boat of "trying to stay informed" for almost 20 years now, as in I was actually paying money for The Economist and the Financial Times, but around a couple of years ago (in fact three, since the war in Ukraine started for good) I realized that they were as propaganda-infested as the rest of the media and that was the end of my journey of trying to remain "informed". No information gathering and receiving is neutral, none at all.
by purple-leafy on 2/6/25, 3:04 AM
It was effecting me really badly, to the point that I made the decision to leave the room when the news is playing, switch to a dumb phone, switch to an mp3 player, and get rid of all social media including reddit. So I don’t use a smartphone, and don’t carry it with me day-day.
On my laptop I even went as far as blacklisting all the typical sites.
I’m only 30. It’s very hard when it feels like you’re alone in acting this way. It’s a very isolating life trying to have principals.
I also recently learnt I have adhd, so that may be why I’m so sensitive to it.
But like i say, it’s an isolating feeling.
by KoftaBob on 2/6/25, 12:07 PM
1. Actionable: can this news inform how you go about your life in some way? 2. Primary Source: it must come straight from the source, to avoid manipulation of the original info
The vast majority of news doesn't have either quality, let alone both.
Just like how "staying fed" often amounts to people eating junk food rather than quality stuff that gives them the actual nourishment their body needs, "staying informed" amounts to people scratching their curiosity itch with global gossip, rather than with actionable information.
by daedrdev on 2/5/25, 8:12 PM
by 0xbadcafebee on 2/5/25, 11:58 PM
Politics is now just sports where people in business suits pass moronic comments around. Same pointless drama, same fans commenting about the pointless action, glued to their TVs.
I quit all news the first time Trump was in office. I didn't miss anything. Important information filters through culture, you can't avoid it. But you'll notice soon you have absolutely no idea who it is people are talking about constantly. And it turns out, nothing in your life changes now that you're "uninformed", except you have more free time and you're less stressed out.
by LeroyRaz on 2/7/25, 4:14 AM
Is it true that most people are feeling lots of outrage? Why?
The vibe I get from the left is outrage. The vibe I get from the right is relief and happiness. And the vibe of the likely-majority (i.e., the non-political) is probably just a desire to get on with life.
I can see there being lots of anxiety (e.g., over AI, automation, China-US relations, etc...). But anxiety is different from outrage.
by gadders on 2/5/25, 6:53 PM
Also Scientific American:
Science journal editor resigns after calling Gen X fascists over Trump win
Laura Helmuth leaves Scientific American following controversial social media posts in which she lashed out at ‘bigoted’ voters
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2024/11/15/laura-helmuth...
by majestik on 2/6/25, 5:49 AM
by lowbloodsugar on 2/5/25, 5:17 PM
Feels like the causality might be the other way around.
by josefritzishere on 2/5/25, 11:22 PM
by rqtwteye on 2/5/25, 6:45 PM
by nobodywillobsrv on 2/6/25, 8:01 AM
Outrage about "news" is usually from the kind of people who get upset about desriptions of reality and things like that. They usually read the NYT or the Atlantic and never trade or predict and they don't realize it is useless, wrong or just way to late.
by ein0p on 2/6/25, 9:23 AM
by nsonha on 2/6/25, 1:18 AM
by Venkatesh10 on 2/5/25, 10:21 PM
by MetaWhirledPeas on 2/5/25, 8:08 PM
> Lewis: So I think part of it is the fact that it’s more engaging. It, you know, activates your emotions, and so people are more primed to respond to that.
This is why upvote-style forums, like Hacker News, need to be treated with heavy scrutiny. They are hard-wired to bubble out of control when an opinion is the right combination of popular and passionate.
One way we can improve this situation, as contributors, is to try to stick to more logical, dispassionate responses. This is difficult to do because we all feel like what we are writing is the most important thing in the world and everyone else needs to read it.
by upcoming-sesame on 2/5/25, 9:29 PM
I read it every morning in bed.
It contains all the topics I'm interested in as it knows me probably better than I know myself.
by morpheos137 on 2/5/25, 4:20 PM
by toasterlovin on 2/5/25, 9:16 PM
by marban on 2/5/25, 4:23 PM
by mib32 on 2/6/25, 8:21 AM
by nineplay on 2/5/25, 5:06 PM
I'm out. I'm hiding away and hoping nothing affects me personally, and if it does I'm not going to think there's anything I could have done about it.
We're not in control anymore. Not unless there are any tech billionaires lurking on HN, and they don't give a shit about us.
by sharpshadow on 2/6/25, 12:49 PM
Now daily the old fatigue gets slayed away by the great president of the United States and we have joy.
by unnamed76ri on 2/5/25, 8:25 PM
Choose a different path
by parliament32 on 2/5/25, 3:08 PM
Focus on you. What are you doing today? What do you need to reflect on from yesterday? What do you need to plan for tomorrow? Don't waste cycles on things that are out of your scope.
by anthk on 2/5/25, 9:10 PM
Simple, no ads, and with just the headlines it's enough.
by stackedinserter on 2/5/25, 8:58 PM
by redeux on 2/5/25, 6:19 PM
A couple times a day? Who needs to check the news that often? I’ve not checked the news at all this year and it hasn’t negatively impacted me at all.
by puttycat on 2/5/25, 11:27 PM
by alkonaut on 2/5/25, 11:30 PM
by throwaway_2494 on 2/5/25, 11:39 PM
Like I mean 20 year old's using conservative talking points, mostly in an absolutist aggressive sort of way. Many I guess were coming at it from Rand's 'philosophical' writings. (Basically an overly intellectual cover for being an asshole).
I remember asking them on that site with a post: "Why are you young guys conservative?" I mean they weren't religious, or at least none of them cited this as a motivation, they weren't rich so they had nothing to 'conserve'. I remember being like WTF?
Looking back on it now I think most of them were in it for the trolling. Conservative thought often skews insensitive and absolutist, so I guess these dudes were using it as a basis to troll more sensitive posters.
Now 25years later and we are living the consequences of a 4chan presidency.
by adolph on 2/6/25, 6:12 PM
No specific study was linked from the transcript. Brady's works indexed by Google Scholar there is "Misinformation exploits outrage to spread online" by KL McLoughlin, WJ Brady, A Goolsbee, B Kaiser, K Klonick, MJ Crockett, published in Science 386 (6725), 991-996. [1] Two of moral outrage's properties are interestingly counter to one another. Expressions of outrage are often orthogonal to truth/falsity and expressing outrage imbues trustworthiness.
[O]utrage expressions can serve communicative goals that do not depend on information accuracy, such as signaling loyalty to a political group or broadcasting a moral stance. Consequently, outrage-evoking misinformation may be difficult to mitigate with interventions such as fact-checking or accuracy prompts that assume users want to share accurate information.
[I]ndividuals who express outrage are seen as more trustworthy. This suggests that news sources might gain a credibility advantage by posting outrageous content.
0. https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=ysiWkJMAAAAJ...
by modeless on 2/5/25, 10:50 PM
by FredPret on 2/5/25, 3:46 PM
- you have a team that will brief you on it
- you will get the news that apply to you from the source
You won’t get either of these from a news website.
As a civilian, you can stay completely up to date with a quick weekly / monthly headline scan.
by GGByron on 2/6/25, 1:08 AM
by yostrovs on 2/5/25, 3:41 PM
by metalman on 2/5/25, 6:04 PM
by eleveriven on 2/6/25, 8:01 AM
by logifail on 2/5/25, 7:57 PM
Umm no, I've not felt any outrage.
Not because I'm particularly satisfied with any recent political events, but because I've stopped consuming daily news from outlets where generating outrage has become a financial incentive.
I'm not on FB, my only use of social media is to help co-ordinate my kids' lives. I never watch TV, I've no idea what today's mainstream media clickbait stories are, I'm just not that interested.
by musicale on 2/6/25, 5:38 AM
by BenFranklin100 on 2/5/25, 11:28 PM
by gdubya on 2/5/25, 5:37 PM
by throw7 on 2/5/25, 4:19 PM
She mentions that people are using "outrage" issues (abortion, gay rights, critical race theory) "as kind of wedge issues to convince people to vote in ways that might be against their own self-interest"...
GREAT! We need more tips on how to train yourself to recognize when that's happening and not get outraged. It boils down to emotional control. If politicians can't use outrage as a tool of control then they'll have to move on (to something better hopefully, but probably not ;).
Here's one tip. If Trump enrages you every time you see him, watch him in a way that allows you to appreciate something about him! He is a cool cucumber. He sheds attacks like water off an umbrella. (whatever, you come up something)... Remember, the goal here is to not let him control your emotions. This isn't about the facts or morality or how he "lies".
by throw0101c on 2/5/25, 3:08 PM
> It's meant to exhaust you.
* https://twitter.com/RadioFreeTom/status/1886247034664964548
Ezra Klein:
> That is the tension at the heart of Trump’s whole strategy: Trump is acting like a king because he is too weak to govern like a president. He is trying to substitute perception for reality. He is hoping that perception then becomes reality. That can only happen if we believe him. […]
> What Trump wants you to see in all this activity is command. What is really in all this activity is chaos. They do not have some secret reservoir of focus and attention the rest of us do not. They have convinced themselves that speed and force is a strategy unto itself — that it is, in a sense, a replacement for a real strategy. Don’t believe them.
* https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/02/opinion/ezra-klein-podcas...
by biohcacker84 on 2/7/25, 1:30 AM
No. I am in control of how I feel like. Nothing else.
by gsaines on 2/5/25, 4:02 PM
by cess11 on 2/5/25, 9:15 PM
The genocide in Gaza has been going intensely for more than a year, dead and mutilated children streamed out pretty much every day. Now it has moved to the West Bank.
Similarly a genocidal process has been ongoing in Sudan, perpetrated by a proxy of the UAE, close partner to the US.
Do usians not see these images and only just now with the new administration's inauguration entered a mood of distress?
by jsbg on 2/5/25, 5:50 PM
As far as social media goes, just don't follow accounts that are annoying. If some accounts are friends in real life but insufferable online, just mute them. Other than friends I follow accounts about food and pottery, I don't see any reason to get off social media, I love it.
by jeffbee on 2/5/25, 3:59 PM