[HN Gopher] Addiction to Outrage (2020)
___________________________________________________________________
Addiction to Outrage (2020)
Author : prostoalex
Score : 377 points
Date : 2021-03-28 19:33 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (medium.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (medium.com)
| gitowiec wrote:
| The anger I feel now is much weaker than it was before. When I
| was addicted to weed and before I found my girlfriend which I
| currently have a child. The anger was my friend, thanks to it I
| never felt lonely, I never was alone (but I was, I was just
| alienated teen-ager that couldn't cope with life and my
| feelings). The anger I felt gave my strength. Strength to resolve
| problems and issues with relations and interactions. I felt so
| powerful I knew I could stand up to that person (father) that
| never told me good thing, never prised me, never agreed... The
| anger I felt to my parents I protected onto other people. The
| strong anger I felt sometimes was causing next day so blue that
| my mind was just wandering if suicide is the solution.
| [deleted]
| iainctduncan wrote:
| If you're like me, and you feel like you need to see some stuff
| for business reasons, but you hate all the shit the "engagers"
| put in our face (looking at you Twitter....), I can't recommend
| enough learning to add custom CSS. Actually, if you use the
| Stylebot chrome extension, it's so easy you don't even need to. I
| just hide everything i don't want to see. no recommendations, no
| trending bullshit, just the very select people who post only
| content I actually want to find out about.
| bmitc wrote:
| No, the things causing outrage are ruining our lives. There are
| multiple systems of society, at least in the U.S. that are flat
| out failing.
| dimgl wrote:
| You don't seriously believe this? Have you been outside in the
| last few months?
| bmitc wrote:
| I'm seeing my fiancee for the first time in well over a year
| today, the separation caused by systems failures, so yes, I
| do seriously believe this.
| hprotagonist wrote:
| _Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper.
| Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story
| might not be quite true, or not quite so bad as it was made out.
|
| Is one's first feeling, 'Thank God, even they aren't quite so bad
| as that,' or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a
| determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure
| of thinking your enemies are as bad as possible?
|
| If it is the second then it is, I am afraid, the first step in a
| process which, if followed to the end, will make us into devils.
| You see, one is beginning to wish that black was a little
| blacker. If we give that wish its head, later on we shall wish to
| see grey as black, and then to see white itself as black. Finally
| we shall insist on seeing everything -- God and our friends and
| ourselves included -- as bad, and not be able to stop doing it:
| we shall be fixed for ever in a universe of pure hatred.
|
| -- C.S. Lewis_
| JMTQp8lwXL wrote:
| Most people never see the second article amending the first.
|
| "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is
| putting on its shoes." -- Mark Twain
| Thorentis wrote:
| And even worse than this, is that I see people go on to accuse
| the writer of the second story as being an apologist for the
| events in the first, and making them out to be _even worse_
| than the perpetrators of the first story. Essentially, whoever
| is the first to bring "bad things" to light, must be
| immediately trusted and considered completely truthful and no
| criticism is possible. Whoever "cancels" somebody first
| automatically wins. There is no chance for defence, counter-
| argument, or questioning the "evidence"/here-say. If you get in
| first with breaking a story, event, past mis-deed, then you
| win.
| [deleted]
| undefined1 wrote:
| "Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not
| become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The
| abyss gazes also into you."
|
| Friedrich W. Nietzsche
| zappo2938 wrote:
| Also,
|
| 'Be careful when you cast out your demons that you don't
| throw away the best of yourself.' -- Friedrich Nietzsche
| winter_blue wrote:
| Which book or writing of C.S. Lewis is this from?
|
| (Amazing quote by the way! Thank you for sharing.)
| tines wrote:
| Mere Christianity I believe.
| maxrev17 wrote:
| Sadly this pushes the people with the most insight and capability
| off the platforms where the outrage takes place. I've seen many
| capable people de-zucking and refusing to consume
| newspaper/radio/TV news. Notably a lot of HN readers too. These
| platforms although (insert outrage) heavily criticised, for me
| have fuelled the tech explosion which has brought so much
| collaboration and benefit - now all the techies are leaving
| because they're sick of it, is that good or bad?
| Edd314159 wrote:
| "Anger is an acid that can do more harm to the vessel in which it
| is stored than to anything on which it is poured." - Mark Twain
| 11thEarlOfMar wrote:
| People got killed as a consequence of outrage from false
| information.
|
| One antidote is open-mindedness. Yes, open to new information,
| new ideas, new concepts and new experiences.
|
| But the key point is, open _even though that new information may
| contradict what you already believe is true_.
|
| People need to be able to look at a statement and realize there
| are potential inflammatory elements, and then measure the extent
| of their investigation by the level of flames that could ensue.
| The more severe the implications, the more due diligence we need
| to do before accepting that information as true, and reacting to
| it.
|
| It's an important discipline and it seemed to be very lacking
| over the last couple of years. One graphic example was when the
| US pulled out of Syria and the Kurds there were put in jeopardy.
| ABC News reported that after the troops left, Kurds were being
| slaughtered by the Turks and Syrians. The report was accompanied
| by disturbing video of high-powered, high caliber automatic
| weapons destroying apartment buildings.
|
| Come to find out a few days later, there was no slaughter and
| that video was from a military weapon trade show that took place
| in Kentucky.
|
| ABC News is considered by many boomers to be a credible and
| professional news company. Many Boomers haven't recognized that
| over the last 15 years, all the major incumbents have degenerated
| to _National Enquirer_ methods, perhaps ultimately for survival,
| but nonetheless, this type of reporting is beyond irresponsible.
| It feeds the outrage that ultimately led to a nation that
| collectively seemed to just look the other way as our cities were
| looted and burned. Meanwhile, the spotlight of shame shone on law
| enforcement, not for failing to contain it, but for causing it in
| the first place. If you were convinced of law enforcements '
| culpability either way, what did you do to confirm your belief
| was based on facts? It turns out that trusting the same primary
| news sources that have been the mainstay of information in the US
| for decades is no longer of any value.
|
| We need to do what we can to ensure we have done our own due
| diligence and confirmed to the base factual evidence that what we
| believe is actually true.
| pharmakom wrote:
| But outrage is also a powerful motivator for changing society for
| the better.
|
| Right now in the UK people are protesting an authoritarian anti-
| protest bill. How many are out there because they were outraged
| by it? What if they were at home, happily following their
| respective hobbies instead? If no one ever speaks up, what
| prevents society from sliding towards fascism / 1984 / etc?
| pitspotter wrote:
| No I really think society can only improve, albeit slowly, by
| _problem-solving_. Firstly one has to identify a problem and
| take ownership of it. But outrage is about blaming other people
| and refusing to take ownership.
| tayo42 wrote:
| Not everyone has the tools or ability, but public "outrage"
| or signaling somehow to some one that does like politicians
| does make change. Like this article reffered to women's
| rights not being worth his time? You should be empathetic to
| a marganilzed group, but really what can an individual do
| besides signal to politicians that this needs to change
| jpttsn wrote:
| Do you believe the protest is working well, achieving
| meaningful change? Have protestors so far been able to stem the
| slide toward 1984?
| pharmakom wrote:
| I think they are losing, but I'm glad they are trying. I
| don't think I would be so brave if I were in Hong Kong, for
| example.
| Semiapies wrote:
| It's because, ultimately, the post is about nothing more than
| the author being tired of hearing and seeing other people's
| outrage. The author notes that the world is improving but
| treats that as magically disconnected from anyone having
| problems with the status quo. Everyone is just some rando
| online with no effect on the world. (Why then try to write an
| article to change people's minds? is an open question...)
|
| And the great rhetorical weapon of today is framing what you
| don't like as a pathology of those you disprove of. They aren't
| doing what you want? They're dysfunctional or sick. They do
| something you dislike or value something you don't? They're
| infected or addicted. Etc.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| Things that work in some context may turn fairly dangerous
| outside of it.
|
| An example. Being hungry and finding high-calorie food is, in
| our natural state, a very important mechanism for survival. Our
| tribal ancestors wouldn't have survived all the famines and
| periods of bad luck or bad weather if we weren't programmed to
| seek high-calorie food.
|
| Unfortunately, in the developed world of 2021, we have so much
| cheap high-calorie food in our lives that blind obedience to
| the ancient "gorge yourself!" impulse is killing us.
|
| The same applies to outrage. Twitter is an outrage mall, with
| outrage screaming at you from every shop window there. It is
| not in anyone's interest to buy it all.
| [deleted]
| sonthonax wrote:
| The irony is that the Bristol protesters are doing a great job
| at swinging public opinion towards the bill.
|
| The police have been really accommodating of protests. It's an
| incredibly fine line they have to walk, between the fairly soft
| rules of engagement, the right to protest, and the COVID
| restrictions.
| nindalf wrote:
| The premise is so compelling - you can improve your mental
| health, free up your time and improve your relationships by
| insulating yourself from any source of outrage. You, you, you,
| you. Sometimes we need to think about others too. Of course we
| shouldn't be outraged by everything or spend all our time doom
| scrolling. That much we can all agree on. But the solution
| proposed here - unplugging completely, has consequences too.
|
| Last summer there were tragic deaths in America that triggered
| massive protests. One of the many heartening things about those
| protests is that many of those protesting weren't personally
| affected [1] by the issue at hand - policing of black
| communities. But they cared about their fellow citizens and they
| showed up. You want to call that outrage and demean it? Sure. But
| those people did something good.
|
| If we turn inward and only care about ourselves, we might find
| that no one cares when we need help.
|
| [1] - One Big Difference About George Floyd Protests: Many White
| Faces. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/us/george-floyd-white-
| pro...
| randomsearch wrote:
| I think the mention of specific company policies really weakens
| the argument here. What Nike does is just irrelevant in scale
| compared to what Twitter or Facebook do. They are the platforms
| that threaten to destabilise the free world.
| LB232323 wrote:
| It is if you stay tuned into these outlets. Pop culture is not
| healthy, it is exploitative. Its greatest strength is emotional
| manipulation.
|
| I can't relate with the collective "we" in this article. I feel a
| lot more stable and closer to reality after disengaging from big
| social media corporations.
| Traster wrote:
| This article deeply, deeply fails to resonate with me. I'm not
| outraged. I'm not outraged by some guy making some poltiically
| incorrect statement, I'm not particularly outrage by the people
| who sleuth through their twitter comments to find a reason to be
| outraged. It's just not important. What's more- it seems it's
| only important to people who already think it's important. It was
| both a reason for RMS to leave the FSF and not a reason for him
| to leave the FSF. It was entirely determined by how much he felt
| accountable to outrage.
|
| The thing is though, I don't personally believe that it should be
| all or nothing. I don't want to go on your crusade, but I do want
| to discuss things and I think we can say things are bad without
| the tandem groups who are "cancelling" people and decrying
| "cancelling" people. Both those groups take extreme stances to
| stifle reasonable discussion. The constant railing against
| "cancellation" is just as stupid and unthinking as the people who
| want to form a mob and "cancel" people.
| Thorentis wrote:
| What is stupid about the constant railing against cancellation,
| when groups exist that do want to form mobs and ruin somebody's
| career over a comment made 10 years ago?
| matthewmacleod wrote:
| Because it's a dumbass catchphrase made up to make you
| outraged and you're buying in to it.
| Traster wrote:
| What I'm saying is that the correct response to those mobs is
| to ignore them or discuss their points on their merits. What
| often happens (particularly on HN) is a counter-mob forms
| that rails against the general idea of cancellation, despite
| the fact that often there are actually underlying reasons for
| being aggreived. If someone said something stupid 10 years
| ago the correct answer isn't for them to be fired, it's for
| them to apologise. But instead we see one group proclaim "Off
| with his head" and another group simply counter-mobilize. You
| see it even in the most extreme scenarios, today on HN we've
| literally got an article about Harvard closing down something
| because of it's links to Epstein, and people talking about
| "cancel culture". There actually are degrees of badness that
| we need to talk about beyond tagging everything as "cancel
| culture".
| alexashka wrote:
| Meh, as if people who argue on twitter all day don't know it's
| stupid. They know. We all know.
|
| 1/3 of Americans are obese, you think they don't know? They know.
| We all know.
|
| These are _systemic_ problems. If you try to solve them at an
| individual level of Jordan Peterson aka clean your room or Tony
| Robbins jump around yelling 'yes' to loud music, that'll last
| you a week, a month, a year and a life for 0.00001%.
|
| When the system is built to have shit food everywhere and healthy
| food in select places, when the infrastructure is built to make
| communities impossible, when you get taught useless shit for 12
| years in school and more stupid shit through entertainment your
| whole life - don't blame the people who go haywire, the system
| makes you go crazy because it doesn't make any sense.
|
| Look at the developed world - these people are going extinct -
| they're having fewer than 2 children on average, eating
| themselves to death while talking about 'social media'.
|
| It's not social media, it's your culture and worldview. Of course
| who wants to have _that_ conversation - just go read Steven
| Pinker about how we 're doing better than ever.
| whymauri wrote:
| I just got off a two month, almost completely disconnected van
| dwelling trip. With such little Internet, I literally forgot who
| the president was. The complete detoxification from the outrage
| machine... it was like pure heroin.
|
| The snap back to reality almost broke me. Humans are not meant to
| doomscroll. They are not meant to be this angry, this often. Just
| like disconnecting felt like a high, coming back was the come
| down.
|
| Those months/weeks completely changed my view on media and
| doomscrolling. I can't stomache it anymore, and avoiding that
| behavior has helped me be more positive over the last week.
| kjjjjjjjjjjjjjj wrote:
| I agree with this a lot. I feel way less stressed out completely
| leaving reddit, all news, and so on.
| kaliszad wrote:
| You can probably be addicted to the adrenalin produced during
| stressful situations even if you don't like being in those at
| all. Your body is addicted to the adrenalin it produces as it
| expects a (usually verbal) fight. If you cannot understand this,
| just think of the pulse you have looking down somewhere very high
| without any kind of railing. Some people might like that feeling
| more than they fear the quite certain death by the unlikely but
| very much possible fall.
|
| This stress is comparable to outrage in that it can be mostly
| synthetic and self-imposed. E.g. you don't have to search for a
| fight with friends, colleagues or family and some people
| constantly do. You also don't have to be outraged on the internet
| and some people constantly search out content that helps them get
| outraged.
| [deleted]
| nexus2045 wrote:
| Over the past few years I've definitely been addicted to outrage
| porn and anything related to SJWs and cancel culture. Now I
| impulsively read YouTube comments to feel like I'm right. None of
| this has added any value to my life, if anything made me more
| antagonistic and feeling like the world is screwed. Meanwhile
| there are probably plenty of people out there who aren't caught
| up in the culture wars and are just working away at their craft,
| getting jobs they want and paid more.
| kingsuper20 wrote:
| They (SJWs) do seem to have the bit in their teeth as of late,
| and the stories do make for good rage-bait.
|
| Of course, there's not a thing you can do about it besides
| improve your own lot in life and build productive local
| relationships. I've gone down the same path, but now it seems
| to me like there are two possibilities..(1)the insane people
| lose inertia and it all dies off or (2)the Red Guard really
| takes off and those newfound local relationships will save your
| bacon.
|
| tl;dr. I hear ya old son.
| tayo42 wrote:
| I agree selling outrage is a problem, (I like the phrase outrage
| porn) but you do need some balance. You shouldn't just only focus
| on your self. Your pretty privileged to do that (take a deep
| breathe before you freak out about me refering to privilege, or
| maybe read the article again heh)
|
| The things he mentioned are important, I don't think ignoring
| societies faults is the right thing to do. Maybe some education.
| Collective outrage does make change happen too, and things do
| need to change. I guess outrage is needed, but it needs to actual
| important topics. Not manufactured packaged and sold to certain
| audiences like the Dr Seuss stuff
| benlumen wrote:
| Is anyone using website blockers? I broke a Google News habit by
| modifying my Windows hosts file once, but there are more
| sophisticated solutions now. Quick search reveals tools like
| "Freedom" and "Cold Turkey".
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| > Addiction to Outrage Is Ruining Your Life
|
| How I came to this same conclusion.
|
| I voted for GwBush 2x. I found myself annoyed by compulsive Bush
| hatred; it often seemed divorced from the reasons given. However,
| I did come to realize that the parallels between Bush hatred and
| my earlier Clinton hatred were too strong to deny.
|
| FF and Obama wins 2008. I wasn't at all happy but so be it.
| Fifteen minutes later - as in 15 actual minutes - red rooms
| exploded with threads calling for his impeachment. Why? IDK. The
| reasons were incoherent. More than anything, it seemed like an
| arms-race escalation of rage-driven thinking.
|
| It was enough for me tho. I wanted to be done being an outrage
| junkie.
| undefined1 wrote:
| history will not look kindly on Twitter, Facebook and the news
| media. they're even worse than the tobacco industry.
| JackFr wrote:
| I cannot watch John Oliver's show on HBO anymore. I understand
| that it addresses some public policy question worth looking at.
| But the reality is that rather than thoughtful content, it's a
| finely tuned formula intended to produce maximum outrage. It
| doesn't even matter what the topic is, the formula remains the
| same. The viewer gets the high of fake moral superiority while
| remaining fairly ill-informed. But hey, it's cool, they're comedy
| not a news program.
| tayo42 wrote:
| His shows is investigative journalism with a comedic twist.
| What should a should journalism do then? His last show about
| plastic recycling was informative.
| Applejinx wrote:
| I stopped watching him as well, even though near as I can tell
| his politics and attitudes closely match my own.
|
| Better that I should just vote, and act, in line with my
| beliefs without spending extra time getting worked up into a
| state of rage in the service of them. John Oliver, Keith
| Olbermann, folks like that, are the Alex Jones of left-wing
| perspectives. You can share the views and still object to the
| mechanism for engagement they employ.
|
| I feel like we're learning hard lessons on what these
| mechanisms for being human, signify. It's a pity we're learning
| the lessons in such a damaging way.
| Sporktacular wrote:
| I'm not so sure if Oliver is just pushing a left wing
| position. Certainly not to an Alex Jones level of
| deceptiveness, and to a much higher degree of public service.
|
| When he explains how some shithead county sheriff starved an
| inmate to death or shows how one public defender is forced to
| take on 400 clients a year (I'm not being accurate here,
| though he is) then that's not a left wing position. Left vs
| right accusations just become excuses for inaction.
| Sporktacular wrote:
| On the other hand, how many historians say that passive support
| and wilful blindness by ordinary Germans facilitated Nazi
| atrocities?
|
| Follow the article to its logical conclusion: outrage is
| subverted and moral relativism is the consequence. If we fear a
| resurgence of nazism, for example, then some outrage over recent
| events is warranted. Acting upon that is even a moral imperative.
|
| So the author is right that we can't mindlessly let it consume
| us, but misses the point with the question has "outrage made your
| life any better?" Has fighting for a country or a cause made any
| soldier's life better? Has it for the healthy able advocating for
| the sick or disabled? If a better life for ourselves is all we
| seek then the glue of society evaporates.
|
| But he follows the lazy path of attributing it to mainstream
| media. Pick up an old school western newspaper and it's mostly
| unsexy, even boring stories about reserve rate predictions,
| library openings, a corruption investigation into some
| councilman, some news from abroad about a peace accord or a
| conflict. Retractions, editorials, classifieds. It served us well
| enough for a couple of centuries, but now suddenly mainstream
| news outlets are the enemy. Because Trump said so, because the
| lazy parroted him, because the quacks promoted conspiracies for
| their freshly disillusioned new readers.
|
| I call bullshit. What changed is that social media could amplify
| the few polarising stories coming from hundreds of mainstream
| sources, with enough inaccuracies on all sides to sew general
| distrust.
|
| Real, professional journalism is a critical resource, and for now
| it's still mainstream outlets that that employ the most real
| journalists. Count the number of retractions for inaccurate
| reporting in mainstream vs social media. Social media despises
| the boring truth. Mainstream media grudgingly tolerates it.
|
| That false equivalence, that lazy misattribution tars all media,
| undermining valid outrage. Outrage that has exposed treatment of
| Uighurs, exposed Setif, Operation Condor, vivisection, Katyn, has
| helped women get the vote, helped emancipate slaves, and helps
| with progress generally.
| kergonath wrote:
| > On the other hand, how many historians say that passive
| support and wilful blindness by ordinary Germans facilitated
| Nazi atrocities?
|
| The thing is, if we are swimming in manufactured outrage,
| actually outrageous acts are just hidden in the noise.
| Everything turns into a 2-days hate fest with no meaning.
| Sporktacular wrote:
| Which is why I criticise his falsely blaming mainstream media
| for that outrage. But I'll still take my chances swimming in
| manufactured outrage over manufactured facts. It is going to
| take experts - serious journalists, not youtube pundits - to
| sort out the difference.
| slacka wrote:
| Worse yet, it's destroying the fabric of our society. I've know
| my neighbor since I was a kid, always having a friendly
| relationship. Just yesterday we were talking about my uncle and
| somehow he jumped how angry he was at "Coke for training their
| employees to 'be less white'". So I pull out my phone, and first
| hit is a fact-check showing it's a right-wing, culture war
| fabrication. I see the same on the other side with younger
| generation. We've lost a shared set of facts.
|
| Social media and the filter bubble it creates is destroying our
| country by radicalizing people with addictive disinformation.
| [deleted]
| kingsuper20 wrote:
| Probably the most forgiving take on the subject.
|
| https://www.newsweek.com/coca-cola-facing-backlash-says-less...
|
| mea culpa. Here I am, feeding the beast.
| labatyd wrote:
| You should at least entertain the idea that you might be the
| one who is wrong in that interaction. I googled your exact
| quote and it looks like it's 100% true not some right wing
| conspiracy. Even if you are going to try and bend over backward
| and claim that's not what coco cola intended, the literal fact
| is they require their employees to take a training and in that
| training they are told to be less white. That makes your quote
| above literally a true thing that happened. I can see why he
| would be angry at you for trying to pretend the literal facts
| in front of his face are not true.
| eudajmonia wrote:
| Generally, people can be classified into three groups: First,
| those who believe everything they consume; Second, those who no
| longer believe anything; Third, those who critically examine what
| they consume and form their judgments accordingly. Numerically,
| the first group is by far the strongest, being composed of the
| broad masses of the people. Intellectually, it forms the simplest
| portion of the nation. It cannot be classified according to
| occupation but only into grades of intelligence. Under this
| category come all those who have not been born to think for
| themselves or who have not learnt to do so and who, partly
| through incompetence and partly through ignorance, believe
| everything that is set before them in print. To these we must add
| that type of lazy individual who, although capable of thinking
| for himself out of sheer laziness gratefully absorbs everything
| that others had thought over, modestly believing this to have
| been thoroughly done. The second group is numerically smaller,
| being partly composed of those who were formerly in the first
| group and after a series of bitter disappointments are now
| prepared to believe nothing of what they see in print. They hate
| all newspapers. Either they do not read them at all or they
| become exceptionally annoyed at their contents, which they hold
| to be nothing but a congeries of lies and misstatements. The
| third group is easily the smallest, being composed of real
| intellectuals whom natural aptitude and education have taught to
| think for themselves and who in all things try to form their own
| judgments, while at the same time carefully sifting what they
| read. They will not read any newspaper without using their own
| intelligence to collaborate with that of the writer and naturally
| this does not set writers an easy task. Journalists appreciate
| this type of reader only with a certain amount of reservation.
| Hence the trash that newspapers are capable of serving up is of
| little danger much less of importance to the members of the third
| group of readers. In the majority of cases these readers have
| learnt to regard every journalist as fundamentally a rogue who
| sometimes speaks the truth. Most unfortunately, the value of
| these readers lies in their intelligence and not in their
| numerical strength, an unhappy state of affairs in a period where
| wisdom counts for nothing and majorities for everything. Nowadays
| when the voting papers of the masses are the deciding factor; the
| decision lies in the hands of the numerically strongest group;
| that is to say the first group, the crowd of simpletons and the
| credulous. It is an all-important interest of the State and a
| national duty to prevent these people from falling into the hands
| of false, ignorant or even evil-minded teachers. Therefore it is
| the duty of the State to supervise their education and prevent
| every form of offence in this respect. Particular attention
| should be paid to the Press; for its influence on these people is
| by far the strongest and most penetrating of all; since its
| effect is not transitory but continual. Its immense significance
| lies in the uniform and persistent repetition of its teaching.
| TeeMassive wrote:
| People are surprised hearing that I never had a Twitter account,
| me being the tech nerd who likes arguing with strangers. First of
| all the characters length limit is clearly meant to favor witty
| jabs over well structured arguments. And then there's the fact
| that the only times I hear about Twitter are when people are
| getting outraged or their life destroyed. Why would I even be
| part of that? If I am to be part of a dangerous mob I'd rather go
| to a mushpit and have fun with me fellow headbangers.
|
| Then there was Reddit. Reddit used to be cool and all about
| diversity of ideas even with its left wing bias. But they never
| really appreciated the problem of coordinated account farming and
| their policy of who gets to be moderator which is by nature wide
| open to manipulation by giant PR firms and other online mobs. Now
| it's mostly uninteresting outrage like farming "racist" comments
| by creeping out old ladies, obvious product placements (I doubt
| most of Reddit user base became fans of the NBA, F1 and the NHL
| overnight) and political "blogs" maintained by PACs. Looking at
| the archived front page over the years I can really see sanity
| disappear slowly and pure folly take over like this grandparent
| we used to know who used to be nice when we were young but now
| shouts when you leave the door opened.
|
| I'd delete Facebook too, but family. At least delete the app from
| my phone. Good thing they made Messenger its own app. I used to
| follow various state media of various countries, and then I began
| mocking the CCP's propaganda, and low and behold it's always on
| my front page. Seeing it happened in real time is just very
| creepy, even if I engage in other pages much often.
| kingkawn wrote:
| It is not the outrage, but the outrageous, that is responsible.
| gmac wrote:
| Outrage is a problem, but I don't think it's just (social) media
| that are responsible. The article says that things are better
| than they were 100 years ago, but politically speaking I'm pretty
| sure they're not better than they were 20 or 40 years ago, and
| they may well be worse. In the US and UK, at least, democracy
| seems pretty creaky.
|
| So yes, your outrage _is_ being gamed, but it is also _real_. The
| challenge is to channel it into something useful, and (social)
| media is little help with that.
|
| Edit: on brief reflection, maybe (social) media is the problem
| after all, since perhaps politicians themselves are now
| optimising (social) media exposure via maximum outrage, and
| chance the consequences.
| dimgl wrote:
| You seriously think that life now, with all of the advancements
| in technology and healthcare, is not better than it was 40
| years ago? Not better than the 1980s?
| kingsuper20 wrote:
| Oddly, the unemployment rate is better than it was in the
| early 1980s.
| ipsocannibal wrote:
| Archive link: https://archive.is/nMiHk
| kactus wrote:
| Thank you, Medium is ruining my life.
| tonystubblebine wrote:
| There's got to be a better HN policy-level solution than
| this. This author put their article behind a paywall because
| they get paid for that. And here we are, a pretty well-to-do
| community, stealing it. I don't see how it's our choice to do
| that. If this author wanted to share it with us, they have a
| non-paywall article link they could share (or they would have
| published it outside the paywall).
|
| We could just not allow any paywalled content in the feeds.
| That would include the NYT. Or we could mark it so that
| people knew not to click through if they didn't have a
| membership. Or... I bet several of the big publications,
| Better Programming which I run and Towards Data Science would
| be fine reflexively posting the non-paywalled version here.
| They key though is that the authors really deserve to be part
| of that discussion.
| ipsocannibal wrote:
| For reference see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html
| for the question regarding paywalled content.
| jsz0 wrote:
| Outrage is one part of the problem but it's the lack of shame and
| guilt that allows it to flourish. People are too insulated from
| feeling shameful about their own behavior these days. Everyone's
| got a quick excuse to justify their animalistic behaviors now
| ricardobayes wrote:
| Turning away can't be the real solution, of course can't blame
| anyone who chooses so. I find the article interesting but
| oversimplifying. OP suggests that we don't discuss & try to solve
| large-scale problems and instead focus on actionable smaller
| bites. But, if we no longer can discuss problems how do we
| progress further as a society? How do I know what others with
| different views think of the matter? Harari argues everyone must
| gather as much information as possible so they make informed
| decisions as in our globalized world every decision counts.
| hi5eyes wrote:
| unfortunately a lot of people have a hard time realizing 99% of
| the content they're exposed to is pointless and solely meant to
| waste your time/put you into a heightened emotional state. lot of
| mental illness on social media/twitter brought on by getting
| baited into interacting with all the noise
|
| for the people using these platforms to build, I understand using
| them. for the rest of the users it's probably a net negative to
| themselves and the ones around them.
| oxymoron wrote:
| I like the argument that Taleb makes in _Fooled by randomness_,
| which is essentially that most news has negative informative
| value because most of it is just noise. Only with time does the
| signal appear.
| jackcosgrove wrote:
| I stopped participating in social media outside of old-school
| forums, and my stress level went way down. I took a look around,
| saw that fewer people were living in poverty than ever, I have a
| quality of life my parents never had, and all the predictions of
| doom over the past decade or so never came about. Life is pretty
| much the same or slightly better for me since then. Maybe I am
| lucky, but a lot of the broad stats back up that this is a great
| time to be alive.
| xyzelement wrote:
| You are the winner. There are multiple lenses to look at
| everything. Chose the lenses that works for you - optimism is
| just as realistic as pessimism and nihilism.
| jeetelongname wrote:
| While I am glad you have found inner peace or some thing
| ignoring the world won't make it any less shitty for those who
| have to deal with the consequences. While social media is
| fueling outrage people have reasons to be angry with the world
| and to ignore it is to be ignorant of the problems that real
| people have to deal with.
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| To add some nuance: Me being angry over systemic harm to
| vulnerable individuals - harm perpetuated by powerful
| interests - this anger is reasonable, often productive.
|
| Me being part of a 1M strong mob dog-piling the single racist
| nitwit - I am the powerful interest in this scenario.
| lolinder wrote:
| Acknowledging that we have a lot of work to do improving
| things further doesn't require us to simultaneously accept
| the idea that the world is a worse place today than it was a
| generation ago.
|
| Indeed, noting that real progress has been made made, as the
| parent does, seems like the first step toward hopefully
| pursuing further progress--it's proof it can work!
| largbae wrote:
| The point of this article is to, instead of feeling and
| spreading outrage for the shitty things you cannot change, go
| work to change and enjoy the things you can.
| b0rsuk wrote:
| You're a very lucky man that the bulk of your stress is caused
| by social media.
| rcpt wrote:
| > all the predictions of doom over the past decade or so never
| came about
|
| Only if you're ignoring climate change
| djohnston wrote:
| I remember when I started working I got hooked on this subreddit
| tumblrinaction. At first it was just funny "Oh PC culture you're
| so ridiculous,", but over a few months it got really dark and I
| started impulsively heading there to feed this weird anger. On
| reflection I realized it was the same thing that happened to a
| family member with Fox News, but here it happened much more
| quickly.
| Applejinx wrote:
| There's a Chrome widget that flags posters to a set of
| subreddits (i.e. Trump supporters et al, general rightwingers
| and dark enlightenment folks) with extra red signs on the posts
| specifying which 'bad' subreddits the poster posts to. (I'd
| like to see a wider range of flagging, perhaps different
| colors)
|
| tumblrinaction is most definitely one of the subreddits marked
| for 'warning signs'. I think I could propose a set of
| complementary subreddits for a contrasting color, which uses
| politically opposite extreme views... to accomplish literally
| the same effect. Hence my desire for the additional tool,
| because I've used the 'flagging' tool as a way to not be drawn
| into argument and outrage. Sort of 'wearing your sponsors on
| your sleeve' but for reddit posts. Wouldn't mind seeing that
| extended more broadly.
| cma wrote:
| Sounds a bit like Orwell's Two Minutes Hate.
| asjldkfin wrote:
| Addiction to outrage isn't ruining anybody's life. It's an
| inability to control one's emotions that's ruining people's
| lives.
|
| When somebody says something offensive to a well-adjusted person,
| do you know what they do? They shrug it off, because words are
| just that.
|
| For some less-adjusted people, it seems an offensive statement is
| an existential threat of sorts.
|
| Unfortunately, social media concentrates the less-adjusted people
| as well as the well-adjusted. It's just the less-adjusted have
| plenty of time to spend on social media.
|
| It also doesn't help that most people don't really spend any time
| developing their mental resiliency as a child because educational
| environments are overly protective.
| sydd wrote:
| People are not some static thing (e.g. "well-adjusted"), but
| change constantly. And todays external influences push everyone
| to this outrage culture, even if they come from environment
| where this culture did not exist.
| asjldkfin wrote:
| I would argue that people whose emotions are easily affected
| by an external influence is the definition of not-well-
| adjusted.
| mmaunder wrote:
| Bullshit. Heroin is addictive no matter your biology or
| background. So are certain psychological triggers and
| mechanisms. Even the well adjusted get angry when they see
| various forms of abuse, for example. So if news is framed as
| abuse, victimization, etc it will trigger your oh so well
| adjusted self.
|
| To illustrate my point I've deliberately inserted "bullshit" as
| my preface and "oh so well adjusted" as sarcasm. Be honest with
| yourself about how this anger inducing copy compels you to
| reply. You may not. But the feeling exists because you have
| similar triggers to the rest of us, and it is these that are
| being exploited.
|
| Ps: Sorry about the sarcasm. Hopefully it makes the point.
| asjldkfin wrote:
| Sure, people will have instinctual reactions; but if I dangle
| a naked girl in front of a man, most will get an erection and
| desire for sex. But even in this fantastical scenario, it
| doesn't make rape any more tolerable- because we expect human
| beings to be able to control their basic instincts. Isn't
| that what separates us from animals after-all?
| HomeDeLaPot wrote:
| Even animals have some ability to control their basic
| instincts; dogs can be trained to hold a treat right on
| their nose until a command is given.
| xmzx wrote:
| People shrugged off all the anti-Asian rhetoric pushed in
| American politics for the past five years especially the last
| year. Now we have major increase in anti-Asian hate crimes and
| attacks including one mass shooting. I guess the Asian-American
| community should continue to shrug it off, as you say.
| throwoutttt wrote:
| 3 to 28 is not a major increase.
|
| That many people are shot in some American cities every
| night.
| asjldkfin wrote:
| I'm sorry, but how does this have anything to do with
| "addiction to outrage"? Unless you're implying the Asian-
| Americans upset are unjustifiably "addicted to outrage" or
| "less-adjusted", which I'm going to assume isn't your
| intention.
| dimgl wrote:
| This is admittedly a low quality comment, but I really feel
| like saying: herewego.jpg
|
| I haven't heard anything about "anti-Asian" sentiment till
| last week. Maybe it, you know, doesn't exist at the level you
| think it does?
| tryptophan wrote:
| I've noticed this too.
|
| It is like suddenly this whole anti-asian hate thing popped
| out of nowhere. From 0 to it being everywhere; friends re-
| posting things on insta, etc...
|
| BLM also seems to have disappeared suddenly (Now I can
| support asian developers instead of black developers on the
| apple store!!!). Guess the propaganda machine got a new
| narrative to push.
|
| Am I crazy or just being gaslit super hard?
| Applejinx wrote:
| Isn't being gaslit sort of the theme of the age? I know
| some specific sources, but I hardly think it comes down
| to just one Big Enemy gaslighting us super hard.
|
| More likely that's become the immediate go-to approach
| for a host of state and organizational actors, just as
| soon as they worked out they could direct populations
| through social pressure. It ain't in just one direction,
| so we're looking at some serious chaos out there. Only
| common denominator is engagement.
| cortesoft wrote:
| The other alternative is that it was happening, but
| happening outside the places (virtual and physical) that
| you inhabit. A lot of things happen in this world that we
| aren't aware of.
|
| Sometimes, our bubbles pop and we are shown something that
| has been happening, it wasn't in our view. That doesn't
| mean it wasn't a bid deal or that it isn't real, just that
| we don't see most of the world at any given time.
| watwut wrote:
| > When somebody says something offensive to a well-adjusted
| person, do you know what they do? They shrug it off, because
| words are just that.
|
| Doormats gets bullied. I have seen this dynamic multiple times
| already and was on receiving end of it multiple times.
|
| Shrugging makes them do it again and again, then others join,
| and originaln person escalates. And you not just be insulted,
| but they wont take your ideas seriously, cause they will have
| you fixed as someone without respect.
|
| You have to stand up for yourself.
| asjldkfin wrote:
| Shrugging off insults doesn't equate to being a doormat.
|
| If you insult your boss, do you expect him to flip out and
| lash back at you to prove his status within the company? Or
| does he just laugh it off and then ask his assistant to make
| a memo to fire you later in the day?
| watwut wrote:
| Do you realize that the first boss actually sounds way
| better then the second one? The first boss in your example
| is safer to deal with, cause if you overstep you have
| chance to learn. And he is still not doormat.
|
| The second boss is someone who is to be avoided and also
| someone who will create shitty culture.
|
| I expect the ideal boss to react to the situation, shut the
| thing down. I don't expect him to fire everyone involved.
| asjldkfin wrote:
| That's not the point. The point is that you can stand up
| for yourself without throwing a fit, because genuine
| power doesn't come from how angry you can get.
| Applejinx wrote:
| I would say that weaponization of outrage for the purposes of
| accomplishing goals is what's ruining lives. I've seen it
| happen. Seems like it's the new innovation.
|
| We didn't used to have mechanisms for so efficiently
| manipulating populations in distributed ways, before. Social
| media's got a lot to answer for. I had to quit it, myself. I'm
| sure it's still a huge pile of bad-faith and manipulativeness,
| but I can't justify trying to keep track of how bad it's
| become.
| asjldkfin wrote:
| I don't think its fair to completely blame Social Media and
| relieve people of all responsibilities. After all, human
| beings aren't lemmings, if they are being manipulated, then
| they should bear responsibility for being manipulated.
| Applejinx wrote:
| My theme is basically: no, statistically, they are
| lemmings, and they can't. An individual human can resist
| propagandization, can resist bad faith, can take
| responsibility for their perspectives.
|
| Get access to a large enough population and humanity,
| viewed as an aggregate, can't. The capacity for individual
| choice is real and it's not enough.
|
| It's great to be one of the exceptions: I totally endorse
| it, as an individual. It won't matter, which is why we
| gotta find collective solutions for collective problems
| that absolutely will not be fixed by personal
| responsibility.
| eudajmonia wrote:
| Recognizing Propaganda Propaganda appears in a variety of forms
| and uses common techniques to successfully influence people,
| including:
|
| Activating strong emotions Responding to audience needs & values
| Simplifying information & ideas Attacking opponents Technique:
| Activate Strong Emotions Technique: Activate Strong Emotions
| Propaganda plays on human emotions--fear, hope, anger,
| frustration, sympathy--to direct audiences toward the desired
| goal. In the deepest sense, propaganda is a mind game--the
| skilful propagandist exploits people's fears and prejudices.
| Successful propagandists understand how to psychologically tailor
| messages to people's emotions in order to create a sense of
| excitement and arousal that suppresses critical thinking.
|
| By activating emotions, the recipient is emotionally moved by the
| message of the propagandist. Labelling is another weapon of
| choice for the propagandist. What emotions are important for
| those who create propaganda? Fear, pity, anger, arousal,
| compassion, hatred, resentment - all these emotions can be
| intensified by using the right labels.
|
| Technique: Simplify Information & Ideas Technique: Simplify
| Information & Ideas Propaganda may use accurate and truthful
| information, or half-truths, opinions, lies and falsehoods.
| Successful propaganda tells simple stories that are familiar and
| trusted, often using metaphors, imagery and repetition to make
| them seem natural or "true."
|
| Oversimplification is effective when catchy and memorable short
| phrases become a substitute for critical thinking.
| Oversimplifying information does not contribute to knowledge or
| understanding, but because people naturally seek to reduce
| complexity, this form of propaganda can be effective.
|
| Technique: Respond to Audience Needs & Values Technique: Respond
| to Audience Needs & Values Effective propaganda conveys messages,
| themes, and language that appeal directly, and many times
| exclusively, to specific and distinct groups within a population.
| Propagandists may appeal to you as a member of a family, or your
| racial or ethnic identity, or even your hobbies, your favourite
| celebrities, your beliefs and values, or even your personal
| aspirations and hopes for the future.
|
| Sometimes, universal values are activated, as when our deepest
| human values--the need to love and be loved, to feel a sense of
| belonging and a sense of place--are activated by propaganda. By
| creating messages that appeal directly to the needs, hopes, and
| fears of specific groups, propaganda becomes personal and
| relevant. When messages are personally relevant, people pay
| attention and absorb key information and ideas.
|
| Technique: Attack Opponents Technique: Attack Opponents
| Propaganda can serve as a form of political and social warfare to
| identify and vilify opponents. It can call into question the
| legitimacy, credibility, accuracy, and even the character of
| one's opponents and their ideas.
|
| Because people are naturally attracted to conflict, a
| propagandist can make strategic use of controversy to get
| attention. Attacking opponents also encourages "either-or" or
| "us-them" thinking which suppresses the consideration of more
| complex information and ideas.
|
| Propaganda can also be used to discredit individuals, destroy
| their reputation, exclude specific groups of people, incite
| hatred or cultivate indifference.
| elteto wrote:
| You can clearly see this in action: open reddit in an incognito
| tab and half of the posts on the front page are from outrage
| "porn" subreddits: PublicFreakouts, JusticeServed,
| instant_regret, IdiotsInCars. Go ahead and try it.
|
| Outrage is highly engaging.
| anm89 wrote:
| It's crazy how 75%+ of the content on reddit has the single
| unifying theme of "this should outrage you"
| lazyweb wrote:
| For real. Cut down on my reddit usage last year - mostly
| lurking anway.
|
| Might also have something to do with discovering hn around the
| same time :)
| paxys wrote:
| 100% agree with the premise. Outrage culture is ruining all
| reasonable discourse in this country (and world), and is now
| massively fueled by politicians, corporations, media for their
| own gains.
|
| I do not, however, agree with their solution. Turning off the
| news/Facebook/Twitter and ignoring everything happening around
| you is not going to make things better.
|
| The world has made a lot of progress over the last few centuries
| (as the article calls out), but all of it has been driven by
| common people like you and me getting outraged over things that
| might not directly concern us. Anger is sometimes justified.
|
| Instead, when you read something that angers you, take a few
| minutes and do that extra step of research. Could it be
| completely fake? Does the headline reflect the contents of the
| article correctly (it is normally not written by the author)? Is
| the data researched and sourced? Is what you are reading heavily
| opinionated? Are you subscribed to a healthy mix of sources?
|
| If enough people actually did this (instead of reading the title
| and going straight to Twitter/Reddit/HN), meaningless outrage
| will disappear without the trade-off of not being informed about
| the world. You will organically discover that everything is a lot
| more reasonable and moderate than people want you to believe. And
| if something actually isn't, you will be able to see it.
| cout wrote:
| I was taught early on to "question everything", so it comes
| naturally. But it's really really tiring to do, when everything
| is at least a little bit wrong (and the things that are not
| obviously wrong are often the most insidious).
|
| The most reasonable people in the world often end up in a fact-
| checking loop, where they will never have any real influence on
| the world. For me that's what sparks my outrage, when I realize
| everything I'm reading is full of truthful lies. Maybe you're
| right that this could fuel change; I am less optimistic.
| mistermann wrote:
| What do you think about this idea: a social media platform
| that is based on the principle of epistemically sound
| discussions, where the culture of the site is truth seeking
| and comprehensive accuracy?
|
| Of course, this is not going to have big subscriber numbers,
| a plausible business model, and many other _traditional human
| concerns_ - but consciously leaving these aside, do you think
| such an approach could yield some value to humanity?
| clairity wrote:
| one of my peeves is the ongoing attention that outrage itself
| has garnered (think terms like cancel culture, sjw, karen,
| etc.). it's sickening because it's a diversion from the real
| issues that matter, like economic fairness and equality of
| opportunity. there is so much we could do to improve the
| meaningful aspects of our lives, and yet we focus on the
| bullshit that doesn't matter.
|
| for instance, who cares if someone calls you a (perhaps
| racist) name, even if they do it incessantly and
| meanspiritedly? it's meaningless and you can choose to not to
| let it affect you (yes it's hard, but doable). but instead,
| stuff like this is where the dominant/popular narrative is
| spinning its wheels to keep our attention away from
| substantive matters that can actually alter the dynamics that
| favor the already wealthy and powerful and spread
| opportunities further and wider.
| vlunkr wrote:
| Well I don't think it has to be taken so literally. 1% of the
| news is actual new info that you should know, the other 99% is
| repetition, opinion, speculation, propaganda, etc. You can
| check the news once a day from a reasonably neautal source and
| know all the relevant information.
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| > the other 99% is repetition, opinion, speculation,
| propaganda, etc.
|
| I'd respectfully amend this to: the other 99% is repetition,
| repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition,
| repetition, repetition, sportball, sportball, sportball,
| sportball, celebs, celebs, opinion, speculation, propaganda,
| etc.
| the-dude wrote:
| There exists a quote ( probably from Mark Twain or Aristotle
| ) that one should put away the daily paper and read it 14
| days later.
|
| If somebody can help out and dig up a link : please do.
| gpanders wrote:
| You can check the news far less than once a day. If you apply
| a low-pass filter to current events by, say, checking once a
| week or even less, the broad movements and important things
| will remain while the shallow and ephemeral will naturally be
| filtered out.
| betwixthewires wrote:
| While I 100% agree with you, I think 2 things are somewhat
| implied in the article: that a ton of the outrage bait is in
| bad faith, overblown or in some instances completely
| fabricated, and that _everyone_ will not do what you say
| everyone should do, so the outrage machine will continue. If
| these are both true, then yes, the solution 99% of the time is
| to tune out. And where it isn 't, when something is really that
| bad and so important to you, just getting outraged about it
| makes you feel like you care even though you aren't doing
| anything. Discuss it clearly, without getting emotional, and if
| it is really important, try to do something about it if you
| can.
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| But in the modern environment, a lot of people _can 't_ take a
| few minutes, because they're exposed to too many things that
| anger them. A Twitter poweruser can easily see 100 maddening
| tweets in a day, and most are unlikely to have the 5 free hours
| it would take to investigate each.
| the-dude wrote:
| Over the last weeks I have watched hours and hours of
| historical TV from The Netherlands ( NL ). In the 70s and 80s
| people were protesting left and right, against nuclear
| reactors, nuclear weapons, against polution, against (child)
| traffic deaths, to preserve nature, womens rights, for better
| wages etc.
|
| There was no public internet at the time. I remember parts of
| these times.
|
| Nowadays _engagement_ is pretty effortless. One only needs to
| feel enraged.
| linspace wrote:
| I have time and time again debunked fake news sent to me by
| friends whom usually I would call intelligent, and kindly asked
| to next time do a minimum of fact checking. It's useless.
|
| It's depressing but people don't care about truth. Not
| acknowledging this will give you a lot of frustration.
| sweezyjeezy wrote:
| From OP's post
|
| > If enough people actually did this
|
| A classic HN comment misstep. Most people aren't like the
| typical reader here (for better, for worse). It's not wise to
| act like they are.
| paxys wrote:
| Then what's the point of even posting the article? Most
| people aren't going to take any advice, but you yourself
| still can.
| mistermann wrote:
| To be fair, even HN is not so perfect - we are brilliant
| when _abstractly_ discussing outrage, fake news, etc - but
| visit any thread where the article is _an object level
| example of_ a story that contains these characteristics,
| and compare the quality of discourse you find there to that
| which you find in threads like this.
| TeeMassive wrote:
| I just stick to local news outlet now of the localities that
| matter the most to me. They really are the last bastion of
| real journalism.
| fullshark wrote:
| Local news is just as subject to the same nonsense just at
| a smaller scale, how many local news stories are "this
| local business did something outrageous" or "local gov't
| regulations are hurting this business" for example?
| TeeMassive wrote:
| I disagree. It's far harder in towns where the degree of
| separation is 3. Everyone knows someone close to the
| matter. Never heard of a local news outlet making up
| quotes or began an article with "according to a source
| near the official in question". And it might not be true
| for big cities, but hearing that regulation is hurting a
| well known company of your town will usually trigger
| swift changes from officials. This happens a lot where I
| come from.
| fullshark wrote:
| For me, I find a shockingly large number of local news
| stories can be reduced down to the formula "this person
| in the community is mad about something and they talked
| to the newspaper about it to try and get attention on the
| issue."
| [deleted]
| hypersoar wrote:
| What a maddeningly lukewarm and privileged take. Your anger is
| being nurtured and harvested financial gain? Politicians are
| stoking outrage and fear to distract you from graft and
| corruption? You should disengage from it all and just, like,
| chill out, man? How bold.
|
| There are made-up outrages, blown out of proportion outrages, and
| real, genuine outrages. There are productive things you can do
| about them and there are worthless things you can do about them.
| These are all mired together, and there will never be clear,
| objective boundaries between them all. It's hard, but you have to
| deal with it if your goal is to try improve things. There are
| real, systemic issues, issues perpetuated, often knowingly, by
| people with power. Those aren't going to get fixed by being nicer
| to your social circle and ignoring everything else. To take an
| old example, the Civil Rights movement only succeeded because
| people became rightfully outraged by segregation and racial
| oppression. If your answer to that is "Sure, but that was then.
| We don't have any big, systemic problems like that anymore,"
| you'll probably find agreement with most white Americans in 1953.
|
| This guy's choice of examples is telling. Calling people "a Nazi,
| a sexist, or a bigot" is what we should worry about. Not the
| society-wide protection of serial sexual abusers, not the rise of
| white nationalism, not the wildfire of state bills trying to
| legitimize transphobia. Those things don't matter to _me_ , so
| what's the point?
|
| Obviously, spending all your time getting mad on Twitter is
| neither productive nor good for you. It's okay to not be a 100%
| all-the-time zealous advocate for good causes. And even if you
| are, you still need to take care of yourself. But the solution is
| not to just blow off everything that doesn't affect you.
| Sporktacular wrote:
| Spot on!
| bjt2n3904 wrote:
| This article is the dark underbelly of "I Like that the Big Boat
| is Stuck".
| xmzx wrote:
| This is a very privileged, ignorant take.
|
| He seems to be lumping in all outrage as the same. People being
| outraged at Nike doing something is the equivalent to voter
| rights being taken away because certain people of a certain race
| vote a certain way. These things aren't remote the same.
|
| And his idea that political parties should "work together" often
| means you're negotiating the rights of people, who neither party
| member usually is part of, either to have more or less rights,
| and you're negotiating them like they're bargaining chips.
|
| This author and so many people who aren't part of marginalized
| groups really can't grasp this.
| betwixthewires wrote:
| Sounds to me like you're deliberately missing the point to as
| to protect your own outrage. "Of course what _they_ are
| outraged about is bullshit, but what _I 'm_ outraged about is
| 100% valid and reasonable." The article isn't saying there
| aren't things to be legitimately outraged about. The article is
| saying 1) being outraged doesn't fix anything, and 2) of course
| _you_ feel strongly about what you 're outraged about, but
| objectively there's a high chance you're overreacting to your
| own detriment and the detriment of those around you.
|
| More to your view though, the history of politics is
| negotiating the rights of people, look at how the UN
| Declaration on Human Rights was negotiated.
|
| Finally, this gatekeeping idea that basically says that anyone
| that disagrees with you cannot possibly understand, that is
| complete horseshit. Words like "privileged" and "marginalized
| groups" give away this completely wrong mentality. We all
| _really can_ grasp it. We just disagree. We might have very
| good reasons to disagree, you just refuse to try to understand
| them. If you did maybe you 'd find a way to show us how they're
| wrong.
| davmar wrote:
| yeah, this was my reading of the article as well.
| TeeMassive wrote:
| Sorry but being outraged never solved anything. "I'm angry look
| at me" never attracted any kind of widespread support. MLK
| understood this and his speeches reflected that with messages
| of hope, not anger, meanwhile the other radical part of the
| civil rights movement tend to swept under the rug and for good
| reasons. There are more ways, better ways, to impose political
| pressure and they tend to work best in practice with
| incremental practical improvements as opposed to bloody wars
| and destructive revolutions.
|
| And it seems that you have a very binary view of the world. Us
| vs them. It's our way or tyranny. "They" can't understand, but
| only "we" can. All doctrines that view the world along a single
| dimension is prone to disastrous results. As for rights, they
| can be and will always be negotiated. They are not born out of
| thin air and the question of balancing them with responsibility
| will never truly be entirely settled.
|
| Finally your whole arguments relies on the Genetic Fallacy. I
| don't need to have had a third degree burn over 90% of my body
| to know it must hurt like hell. I don't ask my cardiologist if
| he ever had a cardiac arrest before I see him to know if he's
| competent. Most people will know what injustice feels like even
| if they didn't experience the ones based on race. This is such
| a juvenile argument.
| hypersoar wrote:
| Outrage _absolutely_ played a key role in the Civil Rights
| movement. There 's a reason Emmett Till stands out in
| American history; the outrage it stoked among white Americans
| helped bring treatment of black people to the fore.
|
| Your take on MLK comes from the safe, sanitized version
| extrapolated from two sentences in a speech he gave that one
| time. The reality is that he was angry, radical, and
| extremely controversial. Universal adoration came only after
| his death, when he could no longer say anything that might
| make people upset.
| dagmx wrote:
| Thank you for pointing out Emmett Till. I think the closest
| modern day (and I know he wasn't even that long ago)
| equivalent to him is George Floyd. Not so much in the
| horror they both experienced, but in both cases (obviously
| Emmett was significantly more brutal though both were
| heartbreaking) , actually having the horror laid bare for
| people caused them to finally stop suppressing the outrage.
| dagmx wrote:
| Please don't invoke MLK as a bastion of peace and hope. it's
| so contrite: "look at this well behaved person there. Be more
| like him"
|
| Except MLK also called out the passiveness of people, he
| called out the folks who were moderates. He worked with many
| who were deemed troublemakers and are hero's today. He spoke
| with anger and rage many a time.
|
| So when people point at MLK and Gandhi as "peaceful models to
| follow", it's just a dog whistle to sit down and behave, and
| not step out of line. MLK didn't make the movement for civil
| liberties by being polite and taking everything in his
| stride. Neither did Gandhi. This is just plain white washing
| of history to appeal to "order" that befits people who don't
| need to care.
|
| And no, you can't simply just understand what other people
| are going through just by proxy. No, most people don't know
| what Injustice feels like until they experience it, many
| don't even know when they do. It's about a conscious shifting
| of minds, and understanding that other people go through life
| differently than you, so maybe instead of saying "I
| understand", it's okay to say you don't and that you're there
| for them. Because you cannot understand. You cannot
| understand unless you live it. You can only sympathize, but
| first you need to even acknowledge the depth of the problems.
| TeeMassive wrote:
| I'll involve who I want the way I want even if it rustles a
| few "holier than thou" feathers. And MLK is cited as a
| model to follow, what are you talking about? Standing up to
| an angry mobs who wanted to kill him? Dude, we'd need some
| of that right now.
|
| > He worked with many who were deemed troublemakers and are
| hero's today.
|
| "Worked with", maybe (that's hardly arguable, and not
| because of their violence but despite of it), but he always
| stood for non-violence that's just a fact.
|
| > So when people point at MLK and Gandhi as "peaceful
| models to follow", it's just a dog whistle to sit down and
| behave, and not step out of line. MLK didn't make the
| movement for civil liberties by being polite and taking
| everything in his stride. Neither did Gandhi. This is just
| plain white washing of history to appeal to "order" that
| befits people who don't need to care.
|
| And no, they didn't just "sit down and behave", that's just
| not factually true if you read anything about the civil
| rights movement. You're simply conflating "peaceful" with
| "passive" which I never meant or said. And the idea of "dog
| whistles" is just BS. I mean, secret codes that people pass
| around as if they were part of a nation wide grand
| conspiracy is just frivolous. It's clear that it is used
| only because it's an accusation that's impossible to
| disprove, which easily shows how honest people using that
| term really are. And I'm not appealing nothing to befit
| nobody, that's just a trial of intentions at this point.
|
| > And no, you can't simply just understand what other
| people are going through just by proxy. No, most people
| don't know what Injustice feels like until they experience
| it, many don't even know when they do. It's about a
| conscious shifting of minds, and understanding that other
| people go through life differently than you, so maybe
| instead of saying "I understand", it's okay to say you
| don't and that you're there for them. Because you cannot
| understand. You cannot understand unless you live it. You
| can only sympathize, but first you need to even acknowledge
| the depth of the problems.
|
| Ooof, I wouldn't want you to be my dentist...
|
| This is demonstrably not true. Empathy definitely exists in
| most of people, otherwise we would not be able to live in
| society and it would literally be the law of the jungle.
| The fact that most activist didn't even experience what
| they're fighting against just completely destroys that
| notion. I think this section of your post is more a
| reflection of your psyche than anything else but I digress.
| dagmx wrote:
| Firstly, I think you need to reread what I said, because
| some of your responses are non sensical in context of
| what I'm saying. I'm not saying that MLK shouldn't be a
| role model. He's a great role model I'm just calling out
| your use of him as a purely hopeful idol. Many of MLKs
| most famous speeches and letters are full of outrage.
| It's only the white washed history of him that paints him
| as this one dimensional person to point to when people
| get "uppity".
|
| Thinking that dog whistles don't exist speaks to your
| privilege. That in and of itself shows why you can't
| understand what other people go through. Because you
| don't believe that the things they go through exist.
| dagmx wrote:
| I agree with you 100%. This is the take of people who have
| little on the line, and don't face issues everyday, falsely
| lumping all matters of outrage together. They're now upset,
| outraged even, that their status quo is challenged, and write
| about how we need to chill out and slowly work towards change.
| Well, yes slow change works if they've got little to lose from
| it.
|
| I'm honestly flummoxed by all the people in the comments here
| talking out against this supposed "outrage culture" without
| breaking down the nuance of what people are outraged about.
|
| Are we talking about outrage over sexual and racial harassment?
| Is that not worth being outraged about?
|
| Or are we talking about Hasbro making gender neutral Potato
| heads, and the end of sales of some racist Dr Seuss books?
|
| Articles like this help people lump everything in together, and
| feel better about themselves for being above it all. It's a
| supremely privileged position.
| haberman wrote:
| > This is the take of people who have little on the line, and
| don't face issues everyday
|
| This kind of narrative is an easy way to dismiss the opinions
| of people who disagree with you, but it bears little
| resemblance to the real world, where people of all kinds face
| issues that you may or may not know about, and people of all
| demographics actually do care about things like beloved Dr
| Seuss books going out of print:
| https://johnmcwhorter.substack.com/p/and-then-they-came-
| for-...
| dagmx wrote:
| I think you missed my point completely if that's the part
| you're latching on to out of context.
|
| My whole point is that you can't dismiss outrage as a
| whole, and lump all issues together.
| kemonocode wrote:
| Not all causes are made equal, and they're not necessarily
| important to the same degree for everybody. That's not being
| "privileged" or "ignorant", that's the patent truth.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| naravara wrote:
| Irrespective of how justifiable the anger is, the root issue
| that compulsive anger is both poisonous to mental health and
| that it gets in the way of critical thinking in ways that make
| it easy to be manipulated are both true.
|
| Things don't need to be morally equivalent to have the same
| mental, emotional, and physiological effects. It is also
| possible to be mad about stuff and take productive action on
| them without regularly having to stoke the outrage fires. In
| fact that's critical to being able to think strategically about
| it.
| kingsuper20 wrote:
| The sweet sweet thing about the comments section is watching all
| the down voting.
|
| Everyone needs their daily dose of irony.
|
| Maybe, if nothing else, it lends strength to the Ted Kaczynski
| notion that people need to have lives filled with difficult but
| not impossible tasks that are necessary (ie. not hobbies). Dunno
| if mailing letter bombs gets you to that place, but he is worth
| reading.
| bubblicious wrote:
| While I agree with the overall feeling of the article, I couldn't
| help but smile at the irony of its clickbait title (which seemed
| unintended). Sensationalism definitely attracts the eye.
| ykevinator wrote:
| George floyd is real but I get his point
| TechBro8615 wrote:
| I remain optimistic that society will outgrow its desire to feed
| the hate machine. The younger generations will realize how stupid
| it is and outrage bait will be relegated to the corner of the
| internet for angry millennials, just like mainstream news and the
| boomers before us.
| colechristensen wrote:
| A lot of modern technology is something like the evolution of an
| angler fish.
|
| Design a technology, optimize that technology for some metric,
| figure out a way to profit from it.
|
| An angler fish lights up, attracts prey which hasn't learned to
| know any better, and eats it.
|
| A tech company lights up with a feed, optimizes it (often
| blindly) to whatever attracts the most prey... er ... audience,
| and then takes from them what it can.
|
| We didn't evolve in an environment with this kind of
| psychologically manipulative trickery, and the tech companies
| often barely know that what they are doing is manipulation at
| all, they're just measuring success and iterating to enhance that
| metric.
| [deleted]
| devnull255 wrote:
| While completely unplugging from social or mainstream media for a
| while is one strategy to keep outrage levels at bay, you can also
| choose a strategy of quality over quantity for consuming
| information about the world.
|
| This is also a strategy that involves depth over breadth of
| information sources. Choose longer and more thoughtful articles
| in respected journals instead of headline news bursts. Read books
| that provide deeper analysis and context of topics given
| insufficient context in headline news.
|
| Watch shows like Last Week Tonight with John Oliver or The Daily
| Show that make you laugh while often giving you more thoughtful
| reporting and analyses of current events than traditional news
| sources. I might have included Real Time with Bill Maher, but
| lately I've found that show dials up my outrage against the host.
| In any event, you should tailor this strategy to your own outrage
| triggers.
|
| Finally, while excess outrage can be harmful to your mental
| health, it also provides input about what is important to you. Or
| at least, what you think is important to you. For this reason,
| it's probably also useful to take the opportunity to be mindful
| of what it is that is triggering the outrage and determine if
| there is a deeper issue provoking the outrage. Doing this might
| actually help you regulate your own emotions while processing
| difficult information.
| [deleted]
| KoenDG wrote:
| The world a hundred years ago was better than it was a hundred
| years before that. In other words, the world might not be
| improving fast enough for you, but it's improving every day.
|
| What a gross overgeneralization. What are we talking about
| exactly? Technological advancements? Yes, that's a lot better
| now. What technology is being used for? No, that's worse than 100
| years ago. Climate? Worse than 100 years ago. And we could go
| on...
|
| This piece is a prime example of being very selective in what
| you're willing to consider, in order to build a narrative around
| something the person thinks is bad, and then everything perceived
| to be part of that lands in the negative.
|
| This then allows the writer to put themselves up as a voice of
| reason. Which is exactly what the author complains about, in a
| general sense. The idea of others that they are smarter than you,
| which the author tries to defeat by... throwing himself up as
| smarter than the people he's complaining about...
|
| He doesn't literally say it. Instead, he shits on everything
| these people do and goes "here's what you can do instead". Let's
| not split hairs: that's something you do when you believe you're
| smarter than someone. Anyone can take their time to write
| something in a fashion that seems calm and eloquent and when
| people call you out go "I didn't say that". We can still notice
| you worked your way around it.
|
| And no, not all opinions are equal. If someone's opinion is that
| the color of your skin, or the country you live in, or your
| sexual orientation, or your gender, etc... means it's okay for
| you to be attacked, that's not an opinion I have respect for.
|
| It firmly stands out that the "all opinions are equal" crowd seem
| to have always forgotten about opinions that involve
| discrimination.
|
| The problem here is the classic idea of "the democratic process
| is perfect and cannot be subverted in any way" while it clearly
| can.
|
| It's partly a hero fantasy, where your view of the world makes
| you oh-so-much smarter than people who don't hold it (ironically,
| what the author is complaining about).
|
| And partly a "perfect world" fantasy, in which people cannot
| bring themselves to consider that the world holds great
| injustices. Instead, only small inconveniences exist, and people
| who complain are exaggerating.
|
| Both come from a lack of experience and an unwillingness to
| believe others.
|
| Dr. King already said it in his letter from a Birmingham jail:
| "wait" almost always means "never".
|
| The only person to decide if things are changing fast enough, is
| the person who is being disadvantaged, when they are not feeling
| defeatist.
| gugagore wrote:
| This article would resonate with me almost entirely if not for
| this part:
|
| > Here's the thing -- the world right now, despite all its
| problems, nastiness and tragedy, is far better than it was a
| hundred years ago. The world a hundred years ago was better than
| it was a hundred years before that. In other words, the world
| might not be improving fast enough for you, but it's improving
| every day.
|
| Optimism is wonderful and necessary, and also I think it's
| important to recognize ways in which the world might not be
| improving every day. I think optimism is great when it's forward
| looking and about hope. When applied backwards, I don't
| personally like it that much. I'm reminded of this short (12
| minute) video clip "In Defense of Optimism w/ John Nichols"
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qj7pN6Assu0
| kingsuper20 wrote:
| Hang on.
|
| So I'm not supposed to throw my drink glass at the wall because I
| just read "University of Oxford considers scrapping sheet music
| for being 'too colonial' after staff raise concerns about music
| curriculums' 'complicity in white supremacy' after Black Lives
| Matter movement" in the Daily Mail?
|
| Oh hell, now you tell me.
|
| Besides all the crazy people running around, who are best not
| read or watched, my general take is that any sufficiently large
| step in technology results in a shaking out. Agriculture,
| gunpowder, mass production, now communications networks.
|
| The time is nigh for not just ignoring negative value media but
| for hunkering down generally.
| dalbasal wrote:
| Drugs are getting weird, but I suppose that was predictable. In
| fact, here's a prediction from 11 years ago.
|
| _The world is more addictive than it was 40 years ago. And
| unless the forms of technological progress that produced these
| things are subject to different laws than technological progress
| in general, the world will get more addictive in the next 40
| years than it did in the last 40._
|
| http://www.paulgraham.com/addiction.html
| fullshark wrote:
| It's certainly ruining all ad-based social media platforms
| Mediterraneo10 wrote:
| And all kinds of formerly respectable media. Over the last
| decade newspapers that were either dry and centrist or devoted
| to particular causes outside of the current culture wars,
| suddenly began to run daily articles that were strident from
| either one side of the culture wars or the other. The reason
| for that is almost solely desire for maximum clicks to ensure
| ad-based revenue.
|
| People should keep that in mind when they feel outrage at an
| article and are tempted to say "of course, X publication said
| that, they are supporters of Y!" In fact, the newspaper's
| management may not actually support the political or social
| cause appearing in its editorials, they simply run that content
| because advertising revenue is higher with it. This mercenery
| disingenuousness is one of the greatest crises of our time, I
| feel.
| [deleted]
| primitivesuave wrote:
| It also doesn't seem to be accomplishing much - after tearing
| down the statues and protesting for months, both sides seem even
| less willing to consider the other side's point of view.
| watwut wrote:
| There are hundreds new laws and actual policy changes. And I
| covered both sides by previous sentence. Neither side goal was
| for other side to love them. Getting policies and laws is the
| ultimate goal.
| yt-sdb wrote:
| The author's question reminds me of a pivotal scene in "American
| History X". Sweeney, a black high school principal, visits Derek,
| his former student and a white supremacist who is in jail for
| murder. Derek has just been hospitalized by other white people in
| a prison gang, and Sweeney asks Derek, "Has anything you've done
| made your life better?" In my own words, what is the point of
| anger if it does not result in better outcomes?
| [deleted]
| dt3ft wrote:
| This was wonderful to read. I believe that I am guilty of the
| thing the author calls the martyr complex. The world right now is
| indeed the best that it ever was and here I was constantly
| outraged about things I have no power to change. Life is too
| short. For me personally, it is time for a change.
| smt88 wrote:
| The problem is that you can't go anywhere that's safe from
| outrage-bait.
|
| You can't watch local news, network news, or cable news. You
| can't use Twitter, Facebook, or reddit.
|
| All of those things mix objective info with outrage, and you
| can't seem to get the former without the latter.
|
| I myself have given up all social media and use RSS readers now,
| but the "recommended" or "trending" stories on news sites still
| have some of those stories in them.
| FourthProtocol wrote:
| I think how you use a thing might make for some middle ground.
| Facebook has consumed many forums I use for my hobby, and so I
| now go to Facebook for that. I don't read my feed or whatever
| it's called, I only go for some very specific groups which
| focus on a single interest. No doom scrolling, no anger, just
| the occasional sense of awe at the creativity people in those
| groups are capable of.
|
| The old way my family and friends used to use social media
| (keeping in touch and up to date on family stuff) has migrated
| to first Whatsapp and now Telegram.
|
| I do however doomscroll on Pintrest, although for positive
| reasons -- primarily inspiration, and some learning.
| [deleted]
| amanzi wrote:
| I agree 100% with the article, but I will just point out that the
| outrage ruins _everyone 's_ lives, not just the ones conducting
| the outrage. This is why it's difficult to ignore, even if (like
| me) you eliminate/reduce social media participation.
| drawkbox wrote:
| Doomscrolling caused by "engagement" metrics.
|
| When engagement is all that matters, the most engagement comes
| when people are divisive, mad/angry or even pushed to extremes.
|
| When you feel yourself getting bothered, angry and you have to
| prove someone wrong on the internet, step away. You are taking
| valuable time from your own projects and quality of life.
|
| People can have different opinions and that is ok, your ideas and
| opinions are what make you, see that as your unique tool to
| success. On top of that many "organic opinions" are actually
| astroturfing and PR designed to promote or get you to "engage".
| WalterBright wrote:
| > Doomscrolling caused by "engagement" metrics.
|
| And then they ban the comment section because people engage.
| closeparen wrote:
| I can't square this conventional wisdom with the observation
| that ML-curated Facebook can hold my attention for a few
| minutes at most, while I have lost a good chunk of my youth to
| community-curated HN and Reddit. Engagement optimizations pale
| in comparison to simple popularity contests.
| pmg102 wrote:
| But getting bothered, angry and proving someone wrong on the
| internet ARE my own projects. What would I do without them? :/
| edoceo wrote:
| Go outside?
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| I think FL's 13 month summers drove all our boomers on to
| the internet.
| colmvp wrote:
| Hear hear.
|
| For me at least it's been a vice for decades. First it was
| discussion/gaming forums, then it was Fark, then Digg, and then
| Reddit.
|
| It's just as detrimental as being addicted to
| alcohol/drugs/games to distract you from life. In controlled
| doses it's okay but when it starts to take over an entire day
| or periods of a day/week from doing other things that could be
| giving your mind/body some life, that's when you really have to
| check in and ask yourself is this worth it?
| yuppie_scum wrote:
| Don't forget slashdot
| jsz0 wrote:
| I find it helpful to go back and read my old content on
| social media and simply ask myself if this is the type of
| person I want to be.
| cout wrote:
| This is a great thing to do. I've found some old chat logs
| from 20 years ago, and I don't want to be the person who
| said some of those things. Why didn't I realize at the time
| that what I said was wrong to say? Life in an echo chamber
| warps us, and it's good to step away sometimes and see it
| from the outside.
| kergonath wrote:
| This is commendable. The rest of society also needs to be
| compassionate and understanding and not ostracise someone
| just for a couple of edgy tweets from a decade ago. But
| now such messages are a time bomb, and can be used
| against you at any point if you cross someone.
| phone8675309 wrote:
| One of the forums that I post on has a thread specifically
| designed for requesting a suspension of your account to
| either take a break or cool down. It's recorded as a
| requested suspension, and moderators do not use it when
| factoring any future suspensions for breaking rules.
|
| I generally take a three month break twice a year, several
| months apart, when I find myself too sucked into what is
| going on there. Sure, I miss some of the "drama", but those
| sabbaticals are what makes sure that my side projects are
| productive.
|
| One of these days, I'm going to ask that they upgrade the
| suspension into a full on ban, but we're not quite there yet.
| There's too much nostalgia in that place for me to be ready
| to completely let go.
| drawkbox wrote:
| Social media "vacations" are a good idea, "engagecations"
| or "disengagecations".
|
| Another comment mentioned in this thread is "enragement is
| engagement" and really that is true with most algorithms.
| The algorithms and addiction patterns are created not
| necessarily for nefarious reasons but from a macro level
| look nefarious, human nature just reacts to
| salacious/divisive content more probably for survival
| reasons. Too much fear/division/misinformation out there.
|
| Repeat after me: "social media is not reality".
|
| The problem is it is leading people to be real world
| divisive and dividing themselves. For instance, Facebook
| has broken up many friends and family over some post or
| opinion, everyone knows people that this has happened to.
| We're almost _too connected_ and tuned in.
|
| Nintendo had a feature that if you played video games too
| long it asked if you wanted to take a break, "You've been
| playing for a while. Why don't you take a break?". That is
| a feature that will be more seen in the future from
| platforms that do care about their users and the dopamine
| addiction cycles, less is more sometimes.
|
| Much like privacy, cool down periods or engagement
| "vacations" will be a popular feature in the future.
| ppf wrote:
| Same here. As a tech-interested kid growing up in the 90's, a
| very significant amount of my formative years and social
| development has happened online. I'm now starting to realise
| what a mistake that may have been (not that I could have
| avoided the temptation, even if I knew it for what it is).
|
| I have recently completed a digital purge, and now have no
| social media accounts at all (except HN), and no smartphone.
| Fortunately I live in a country where that is still viable,
| but I am excited to re-build my life in "real life".
| quotemstr wrote:
| Sure. But what do you do about it when people make a free
| choice to use engagement-optimized platforms? The problem of
| doomscrolling and outrage addiction is just a special case of
| the problem of superstimuli hijacking our savanna-derived
| ancestral social instincts and directing them in a profitable
| and maladaptive direction.
|
| What do you do about it? Ban this algorithm here or that UI
| pattern there? Impossible. You can't blunt the desires (even
| the harmful desires) of billions of people through some kind of
| centralized rulemaking. Look at the total shitshow that emerged
| after NYC tried to impose a tiny tax on sugary soft drinks,
| which are _obviously_ bad for you. Why would an attempt to
| control engagement optimized platforms work when the soda tax
| didn 't even the harms of engagement metrics are much less
| clear and the product more universally desirable?
|
| The only thing that's going to help us deal with the problem of
| internet outrage wireheading is giving society time to develop
| cultural antibodies naturally. Eventually, one way or another,
| spending your days arguing with strangers will become low
| status and shameful --- just like drinking a big gulp with
| 32768 calories per cup is low status now. (Not that status
| fully solves the problem.)
|
| In the meantime, well, we just have to hold on. The problem
| isn't engagement metrics. The problem is human nature. We are
| literally the dumbest possible primate that could form a
| civilization: keep that in mind.
| Mediterraneo10 wrote:
| > spending your days arguing with strangers
|
| But that isn't what is happening now. Instead of interacting
| so much with strangers, modern social media platforms have
| increasingly put people in bubbles where they interact mainly
| with those who share the same views. Yes, people express
| outrage at those they perceive as outsiders, but they are not
| actually talking so much to those outsiders, who are off in
| their own communities. Instead, they are building community
| with like-minded people through shared rituals.
|
| Some amount of people will take the outrage and attempt to
| directly impact the lives of the target of that outrage, but
| those are (even when they look like mobs) still just a
| minority of people.
| toofy wrote:
| I'd argue we have more interaction with different people
| and ideas now than we have in the entire history of the
| world.
|
| And i'd argue people were far more siloed with people
| before than they are now.
|
| Joining up with people or clubs or groups who share your
| interests or passions is hardly new phenomena.
| JMTQp8lwXL wrote:
| The solution is to make people actively aware of the
| downsides of social media. It took a few decades, but
| cigarette usage peaked and now has been on a long downward
| trend. Use the anti-smoking playbook.
| derefr wrote:
| 1. Ensure there are non-engagement-optimized alternative
| platforms on offer -- or even platforms that specifically
| avoid recommending inflammatory content. (If we don't even
| have _this_ much done, there's very little we can recommend
| for effective change. What are you going to tell people who
| live their lives indoors--as we're all mostly doing right
| now? Don't be social at all?)
|
| 2. Once we _have_ non-engagement-optimized platforms, promote
| them as healthful, the way new diet fads get promoted. Get
| therapists /psychiatrists in on it. Run Public Service
| Advertisements that don't mention a specific platform by name
| but just encourage the use of "healthy platforms." Lobby for
| laws preventing depiction of use of engagement-optimized
| platforms in children's media (i.e. treat depictions of
| Facebook the same as depictions of smoking.)
| quotemstr wrote:
| Yeah. I can see a niche for a platform that uses engagement
| targeting for good. "Use our platform, not Facetube. We
| have an engagement optimization target of 30 minutes per
| day. Our competitors want to _be_ your life. We want you to
| _have_ a life. "
|
| Bootstrapping will be very hard however.
| kortilla wrote:
| > just like drinking a big gulp with 32768 calories per cup
| is low status now
|
| The reason it backfired is ignorant statements like this. A
| 12 ounce mocha Frappuccino contains nearly double the
| calories of a 12 ounce Coke. The Starbucks drink is exempt
| from the tax because it has a bunch of milk.
|
| The soda tax is a tax on the poor only moderately related to
| health.
| [deleted]
| burlesona wrote:
| Honestly I think that in the long view of history,
| "engagement optimization" etc. will end up being seen in
| approximately the same light as nicotine and/or gambling.
| Based on how the narrative is shifting right now I could see
| it being something like big tobacco, but since the harm is
| less material I think long-term it may be more like gambling,
| in that these practices are allowed but have to be labeled
| with counseling and addiction support hotlines etc. and
| aren't allowed for minors under 18.
| [deleted]
| jfengel wrote:
| The internet has magnified it but outrage had been driving
| American culture for decades before social media. At least
| since 24 hour news, and that too was just expanding an old
| playbook for new tech (cable television).
|
| Unplugging is a good tool for all of us but the real problem is
| that outrage is ruining all our lives, not just those who
| indulge it.
| jandrese wrote:
| What we call "engagement metrics" on the internet is called
| "ratings" in the TV world. One network in particular
| discovered the way to maximize their ratings decades ago and
| has been at the top of the ratings ever since.
|
| The problems we have with social media are the same we've had
| with Fox News and AM talk radio for decades, but now people
| want to fight it because the social media companies started
| banning their worst offenders.
| arwhatever wrote:
| Recently watched a Simpsons episode from the mid-90s with the
| quote "Anger is what makes America great," so other people
| had the same notion quite a while back.
| eterm wrote:
| Going back further Network (1976) is all about this.
| drawkbox wrote:
| _Nightcrawler_ is also about this. Both excellent movies
| and observations of what drives content that gets
| attention.
|
| Both were about TV, with the internet, this is even more
| of a competition since it is worldwide so they push to
| the extremes because the extremes sell.
|
| Everyone is now competing with the world.
| cout wrote:
| That puts a completely different spin on MAGA than I've
| heard anyone talk about...
| randomsearch wrote:
| Or. As I prefer to put it, and will probably die on the hill of
| popularising this phrase:
|
| "Enragement is engagement."
| harles wrote:
| This (both the article and the comment) makes me think of David
| Allen's concept of "appropriate engagement". Outrage is how to
| end up with a growing todo list each week.
| spoonjim wrote:
| When you're feeling the angriest, Zuckerberg is cackling the
| loudest.
| madrox wrote:
| > When you feel yourself getting bothered, angry and you have
| to prove someone wrong on the internet, step away. You are
| taking valuable time from your own projects and quality of
| life.
|
| The insidious problem is that, by the time you have that
| feeling, it is too late. It takes more time to let it go than
| it took to have that experience. Sometimes, responding feels
| like the only way to get closure. Better to never put yourself
| in a situation where having that experience is
| possible...unless you choose to have it.
| cgriswald wrote:
| I think this is more of a conditioned response. If you
| continually engage, walking away will be difficult. If you
| regularly avoid or walk away, it's easy.
| madrox wrote:
| As someone who does not engage, that has not been my
| experience.
| hooande wrote:
| Everything is driven by engagement metrics. When was the last
| time you set out to read something or have an experience that
| wasn't engaging in some way?
|
| I can assure you that every good author of both fiction and
| non-fiction is constantly thinking "how can I make this story
| more engaging?" Clicks provide an empirical method to measure
| that, for better or worse.
|
| Trying to improve metrics is the path of least resistance in
| most situations. Should all writing be more informative,
| thought provoking and rewarding? Yes, but that's hard af. By
| comparison it's pretty easy to see what got clicks and try to
| do that again.
| 0xcde4c3db wrote:
| I'm not even a tiny bit convinced that "engagement metrics"
| are actually a useful measure of the experiences that people
| typically care about when they use the word "engaging" in a
| positive light.
|
| In fact, I'm not sure how much I believe that such metrics
| even represent an attempt at such a measure.
| Aloha wrote:
| When you read news, the first thing you should be asking is, does
| this actually matter?
|
| I think if more folks did this, they'd be lots happier.
| mmaunder wrote:
| Addiction to outrage is also extremely profitable. Perhaps we'll
| see those manufacturing addictive outrage face similar
| consequences as those manufacturing addictive painkillers.
| anonu wrote:
| Obama called out the "super woke" generation a few years back:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaHLd8de6nM
|
| "If all you're doing is casting stones, you're probably not going
| to get very far"...
| emrah wrote:
| Outrage is helpful only if one is willing and able to do
| something about the problems, either in one's personal life or
| globally. If not, it doesn't go beyond being harmful to one's own
| health.
| at_a_remove wrote:
| I wonder how many people can read that and remember the
| "literally shaking" crowd thrashing about to the revelation that
| someone had two scoops of ice cream. TWO.
|
| The thing is, the people that this article is about are going to
| give themselves a pass. They love being outraged, they love the
| feeling of being outraged, and it eclipses any kind of self-
| reflection.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-03-28 23:01 UTC)