(this is a response to the comment, not the article)
It's not really the ads that bother me. It's the "recommended videos". Is there a way to customize my view of youtube to avoid the shit I don't need to see?
The thing about youtube is that it's very easy for propaganda/click-bait to creep in during moments of weakness.
Maybe it's time to go cold-turkey? Failing that, maybe it's worth it to try and take some control over the experience?
I'm very aggressive with the "not interested" and "don't recommend this channel" buttons, and over time it does mostly get rid of the most obnoxious recs. Right now it's also not recommending much good stuff, either, so YMMV.
As a general solution for us techies, you can have user defined style sheets that selectively override the site's CSS, either using a plugin like Stylus, or Firefox's built-in userContent.css. Inspect the website, find the id name (or class if it is unique enough) for the content you want to go away and put the following in your user CSS.
#<id> {
display: hidden;
}
Simplest way is to read media from independent country. India is good, perhaps Arabic countries.
Next level are independent channels on Telegram and Youtube. 10 min daily summary on war situation goes very long way.
I've found that over time this chokes the recommendation system - makes it boring and it now finally refuses to show me any video recommendations on my youtube homepage - just a message asking me to turn history on. of course, you lose your watch history, but I just bookmark the videos I like anyway.
Videos related to the one you're watching may appear, but imo these tend to be based on your subscriptions / more focused / less rabbit-holey (and you can disable those with extensions and such as well).
It's interesting that you listed India first. The English-language news source that pops up most often via Google News is the Hindustan Times, which is hot garbage. Are there any Indian sources that are much, much better than that which you recommend?
Hindustan times seems like a rag, like British Sun.
I guess I would recommend to take some event that happened 2 years ago, find how some papers wrote about it back then, and if you like it, follow them.
My point is there is no reason to stay in toxic relationship. There is no reason to read news if you do not get any rewards. Even monthly AI summaries will be better, and you will stay "informed".
For example all the Trump shit today, he wants legal precedents from constitutional court, 90% of this shit is irrelevant.
I'm trying hard to do #1, mainly because #2 is confirmation bias (and reinforces it).
What other options are there?
Then you might find that some sources are filled with lies and others contain a lot more facts.
Then you'd naturally weight facts from the more trustworthy source higher.
The next step is a "web of trust" where a new source will be more trustworthy if it's linked to by other trustworthy sources.
So in the end you'd rank information from Russia Today (one of Russia's main propaganda channels) as very low, a comment from a random redditor low, and a comment on physics by a renowned physicist as very high trustworthiness.
But these days half of it is outrage bait, ranging from "WOKE LIBTARD GETS DESTROYED" to "TRUMP LOSES HIS MIND", or malicious clickbait like "you won't believe what the cast if $tv_show looks like now" with some AI generated thing of one cast member being horribly maimed. Even on stuff that has nothing to do with any of that, like some music video.
And whether "Trump loses his mind" is something you agree or disagree with doesn't even matter – I'm just here to listen to some music, maybe watch a funny video or two. To take a break from all of that. It's become so pervasive that it's just exhausting.
So normal people like you or me just withdraw. And the only people who don't are the hyper-politicised who never grow tired of talking of $favourite_issue, which tend to be rather less reasonable or open to nuance. And this feedback loop just makes things worse and worse.
This, in a nutshell, is why you need moderation. People talk about "enshittification" of platforms, but IMO the bigger problem is more the "cuntification" of platforms, where a small number of extremely unpleasant and vitriolic people chase off many people who don't want to deal with that. X.com is a well-known example, but also online games where you're matched with random people (where you very quickly learn a great deal about your mother's sex life).
I agree (I've done this), but it's much easier said than done. Requires a lot of mental work/training.
More importantly, it requires a sort of mental "enlightenment" to the true state of things.. That everything you read for free on the internet is being paid for by someone, with their own motivation and intents, and that these forces don't have your best interest in mind. The saying "If you're watching it, then it was intended for you" comes to mind. Once this breakthrough occurs and you begin to see the world this way, everything else usually follows.
As you begin to realize that most of your facts and opinions are those planted there by other powerful ($$$) forces, you start to recognize that what you think is largely what they want you to think. But the scariest part of the awakening is that you begin to realize how little you truly know about the world outside your direct experience. You feel much less certain about the world and your place in it.
Most of the people I know recognize this, and I can have sane conversation with them. You can tell those that are caught up in the propaganda because they largely sound like parrots, and it's impossible to talk to them reasonably. A few friends of mine are in this category, and the one common denominator between them is that they are deeply unhappy, riddled with anxiety, and glued to their devices. The true human casualties of the new technological information age we've birthed. It appears that this is by design, as those that control the flow for information know exactly the power they have and what they intend to do with it.
For those that are stuck, I wish I knew how to open their eyes up and look around them. It's not too bad when you look at the world outside of the internet. I've tried to listen empathetically to people that are stuck, but it mostly doesn't help. Their minds are hamsters spinning on wheels, unable to stop or hear any thing else from the outside. One or two have woken up only after the anxiety it produces begins to interfere with their real lives and relationships, It's a form of addiction, and unfortunately many people are stubborn and will double down on their addiction time after time until they hit rock bottom.
We're in the middle of a massive mental health crisis. I hate knowing that a not-insignificant portion of our fellow citizens are rapidly heading towards some sort of mental/emotional rock bottom caused by technology... I feel powerless to do anything about it as I've watched it slowly unfold over the last decade or so -- it's nearly impossible to reach the friends and family members that you're actually close to. I don't know what can be done other than sit back and wait for them to crash, and help them pick up the pieces when that time comes.
Anyone got any good advice?
I don't know what I'm doing differently than you, but I don't see ANY of that. The worst, most clickbaity Youtube content I see is poorly done rip-offs of Primitive Technology.
"The point of modern propaganda isn't only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth." -Garry Kasparov.
And
"This constant lying is not aimed at making the people believe a lie, but at ensuring that no one believes anything anymore." This latter quote is, rather ironically, a false quote! (falsely attributed to Hannah Arendt). But I still think it contains truth.
This isn't even close to true. Facts are facts, and stories are propaganda. What we call "news" is largely just "stories" (opinion/editorials) about facts -- the story is the propaganda - the story weaves the facts together in a narrative, the narrative tells us how to feel and think. Stories cost $$$, and those promoting them are absolutely promoting some stories over others. They have a message to send -- that message is propaganda.
You mention a comment from a "random redditor" is low value -- I'm suggesting that nearly every "major" narrative spun on Reddit has been largely placed there by forces with deep pockets and axes to grind, and the true believers and other useful idiots that follow blindly. It's all astroturfing, and Reddit is an absolute garbage dump of discussion. Anyone that goes there thinking they're getting an accurate picture of the world around them is seriously deluded. I'm convinced those that run Reddit do this by design. We know who runs Twitter, and Facebook. No one talks about who is running Reddit.
A "comment on physics by a renowned physicist" is still just a comment -- there are facts in physics, and theories. Even renowned physicists can be wrong when it comes to the theories they back. And honestly [coming back to the point of the article] that's not what's causing people to feel outrage -- they're not doom scrolling physics forums outraged about dark matter or a theory of everything -- they're doom scrolling an endless stream of political/cultural propaganda designed to outrage them and keep them addicted.
The world isn't nearly as black and white as the internet would have you believe it is.
Point me to a source of political/cultural news that you believe is full of fact and not just another site full of opinions pieces and editorializing around the facts.
I clear it about once every 2 weeks or month depending on how many of the same topics I see.
It works really well in that if you ignore the content you saw before it forces the algorithm to find unique content because it thinks you don't like the stuff you've seen.
That and cleaning your subscription list. Easily the best platform I have as of now because of that.
7th recommended is " "YOU WILL BE INDICTED AND JAILED! " Jim Jordan SILENCE Overconfident Hillary Clinton" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbqHVba3Ohs)
I'm not logged in. I don't save cookies.
Unfortunately my regular internet has an outage and I need to rely on a mobile hotspot which YouTube seems to throttle with 20 second delays on everything, so looking for more examples is a bit painful at the moment. But having 1 to 3 of this kind of thing is common.
1. This is literally a worse outcome than the alternative you prefer. You should care enough to try to fight it politically, especially if you are well positioned to do so.
2. This case (and 99% of cases of political outrage I see on the news) is trivial in the context of what is “normal” for human political history, even the political history that many people alive today were around for.
Will this even register as a trivia question in 100 years? Is a framing I ask myself when I’m mad about something in the world.
I think a lot of people walked from a world where they had no idea what the normal tumult of human political society is like, even normal American political messiness, and into the world of 24/7 current political news without any context what came before. It’s like, the sausage has always been made this way, you’re just now finding out.
I say these things and it always pisses people off. But I don’t recommend not caring, the world moves forward one micrometer at a time by caring, it’s just not worth the existential angst I see so often.
Instead of engaging in the data, opponents usually yell the equivalent of what you put “You’re just out of touch!” Or throw in an anecdote like “well my cousin is having a terrible time!”.
What’s going on the US is weirder than a “normal” economic problem. That’s what makes it so frustrating and politically polarizing.
You don't have to get outraged about something when you think about how that particular article might be trying to fan those flames and how what is reported might just be highlighting the points that push our buttons (but the real set of facts might not be as bad when looked into). Even the things that really are that bad don't have to lead to outrage. I take a wait-and-see attitude about a lot of this stuff we see in the media. There are trolls everywhere, we'll see if anything comes of it. I'm also capable of not liking something strongly without feeling rage with regards to it, while still wanting to combat it if I have a say in it at all.
Of course, "just don't let it get to you" is easy to say but hard to implement. I think it's the only real path that allows the inclusion of social media in our lives, though.
>Will this even register as a trivia question in 100 years? Is a framing I ask myself when I’m mad about something in the world.
To me, this is an utterly nihilistic framing that renders one's entire life meaningless because the logic doesn't just apply to bad things. Like why did you even leave this comment? Maybe you or I remember for a little while. Maybe a handful of other people who read it will too. But no one is going to remember it, let alone genuinely care about what either of us said 100 years from now.
It's crazy that the best experience (for me, anyway) is achieved by giving it the least amount of information possible.
If you are trans, you were just de-personed by executive order and your passport was invalidated. If you also happened to be an incarcerated female, you are being transferred to male facilities. These are actions which will have life-altering consequences.
That's only one thing among many others (ICE immigrant raids which also sweep up legal immigrants and citizens who don't "look American") just in the first few days. What "large pain" are you talking about?
My family could be murdered in front of me and it wouldn't qualify as a trivia question for you or most other people in one year. This feels like a version of stoicism that missed the point of stoicism.
edit: and vis a vis the USAID thing the former president of Kenya summed it up "Why you are crying? you don't pay american taxes! we need to take care of ourselves!" https://www.msn.com/en-xl/africa/other/us-aid-suspension-wak...
99% of what you see on the news you would never know happened if it wasn’t presented to you.
And I’m not saying not to care. I’m saying put big things into perspective. You don’t need to become catatonically depressed because the US changed its foreign aid in a way that you would never know about unless presented to you.
As I write this I’m thinking about one of my best friends, who literally has been so depressed because of world news he reads on Reddit this year that he can’t get out of bed, stopped going to work and got fired. There are appropriate and healthy levels to care about things.
I don’t connect distant political to my own personal experience of meaning in the world, so i can’t follow this line of reasoning.
Here's an old quote from the author, the esteemable Paul Krugman
“The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in ‘Metcalfe’s law’—which states that the number of potential connections in a network is proportional to the square of the number of participants—becomes apparent: most people have nothing to say to each other! By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet’s impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine’s.”
What Economists (Including Me) Got Wrong About Globalization https://archive.md/DrJKm
If you stick up a liquor and kill a couple of people you go to jail for life. If you advocate for polices that destroy the local economies of middle America with all the ills that ensue...social breakdown, drug addiction/overdoses, crime etc. Well you get to write a mea culpa and then head off to a nice dinner at your favorite NY restaurant I guess.
I find it telling that instead of arguing with data, points presented, or any source of counter argument, you act like the only argument in this article is “it’s right because I say so.”
Much easier to dismiss a position as “can’t be right because you were wrong on something before” than actually think I guess.
Our intuitions, outrage, and knee-jerk reactions are being weaponized to gain clicks, votes, donations, and "action".
Many a dictatorship has fallen in the wake of social media revolutions. I wonder how long democracy can last?
In a would-be-funny-if-it-weren't-tragic ironic twist both of the two main US parties see themselves as the last guardians of democracy and frame their opponents as Evil, against which "any means necessary" is the only reasonable course of action.
(Yes, the party you disagree with is way worse and it's all their fault, this whataboutism indeed has to end, absolutely)
And here we all are.
Maybe try asking people why they think it’s bad?
Here’s people arguing it’s doing all kinds of destructive behavior, - like setting up a fake vaccine clinic for the CIA.
https://youtu.be/wtgT_u2rWs0?si=bFX476_JgC81vJuM
I haven’t seen anyone arguing against these claims. They just say “oh but it’s helping poor people” without answering whether or not it’s been doing covert work for the CIA under the pretense that it’s aid.
Let yourself be sad about it. It is sad. Our potential as a species is being squandered for the sake of unmitigated greed. On a personal level, it's deeply depressing how things could have been so different for our loved ones.
If you have at least one close friend who can still listen and think for themselves, then you're doing okay. It's when you can't talk about this stuff that it gets most toxic. - if that ever happens, there's still books, movies... They Live is a good one.. Anything to remind you that you're not alone.
Even seeing people express these ideas is a relief, so thanks for that.
Also, there are good reasons to be hopeful, or at least stoic. Karma is inevitable. It may be that all this was necessary in some way... Like how the asteroid which killed the dinosaurs made room for mammals. Those loopholes in human nature which are being abused; they won't work for ever. And surprises can be surprising - unpredictable phase shifts can turn things around in unforeseeable ways.
In any case, we're responsible for the effort; not the outcome. Be good
Here’s the same jist from the economist: https://www.economist.com/leaders/2024/10/17/americas-econom...
If you want the thoughtful, smart, very right wing source on it, then check out the Cato institute: https://www.cato.org/commentary/americans-grim-views-decent-.... Which tries to explain it as basically “people get really mad about inflation even if technically as a whole they are better off”. But the Cato economists still concede that overall the economy is/was doing extremely well and things are improving for people that by standard economic measures looks really good.
Also, and I know people knee-jerk at the comparison, but historically speaking Jews comprised less than 1% of the population of Weimar Germany.[2] The smallness of the percentage shouldn't be cause to dismiss the harm of their discrimination as "no big deal." It's been shown where that leads.
[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2025/01/28/state-... [2] https://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/pdf/eng/JEW_RELIGIONZUG...
Selective truth is far more effective, and more common, propaganda. Not in omitting important context from a story, but by omitting or burying (or simply never seeking out) entirely stories you don't want heard, and emphasizing stories you do want heard. In essence, holding up a funhouse mirror to society.
This is the propaganda you get when all your reporters think they are being honest and uncensored, but they all deeply care about the same set of issues, and are deeply ambivalent about another set.
The primary difference I see between these two is how you define "your immediate experience". At what distance does something become "distant political changes" that can be ignored? Because almost all of us lead "par for humanity" lives that "don’t matter in the long run" so why care about any of it if that is the extent of what matters?
(If I use my normal session, it's still all music, but skewed more towards my personal tastes.)
And if you're not just counting US citizens, there's a war in Ukraine that's killed over a million people and another war in Gaza, the latter of which was precipitated by the bloodiest mass killing of Jews since the Holocaust.
4) If you don't see it in the real world, you probably don't need an opinion on it.
5) And the same applies to other people as well. Prioritize the opinions of the people the issue actually concerns over abstract word salad.
Al though the current US admin is just bringing in USAID within the admin controls, USAID is massive net negative (as it is with any other american influence/aid) for the world.
> 99% of what you see on the news you would never know happened if it wasn’t presented to you.
What I'm hearing is that if the government kills someone, only their immediate family members are allowed to protest. We shouldn't protest when the government is killing people who aren't related to us, even if our relatives could be next.
Caring should not be binary. If in your life, caring about things is all or nothing, and a political event that is extremely common and minor in the context of political history feels as acute as the death of a loved one, then I’m really sorry for you. The world will always be a miserable place for you.
That sounds like a nightmare existence to me. But if you really want it, maybe because it makes you feel righteous in your pain and holy in your angst, then go for it I guess.
In my book any furthering of any position is propaganda. It’s not just when you do it in a dishonest or underhanded way. That’s the old-school definition.
Now what started this was the bald assertion that all most messaging is propaganda. Okay. People went with it, including the person I replied to. And that’s not objectionable according to my own definition. But if it is only “nefarious” messaging which is propaganda then you set yourself up for throwing stones in a glasshouse. Because a lot of comments (including the one I replied to) contain at least assumptions that further a world view. I don’t have to make an outright statement. I just have to hint at an assumption. And yeah, that’s what they did too.
Do you not realize that you are judging what "decisions affect him" exclusively from your own perspective? You clearly have some established distance in your mind in which you think someone's suffering is immaterial to you. You seem to imply that this reaction might be appropriate for a partner dying, but what about for other people? Would it be appropriate to be depressed because of a friend's suffering? What about a distant cousin? A neighbor? A coworker? An acquaintance? What about the parent of one of your kid's friends who you haven't even met before?
You don't seem to actually be objecting to the reaction your friend is having, you seem to be reacting that your friend just has a larger circle of people he empathizes with than you and therefore more people have the potential to "affect him".
Here in the UK in 2016 we had a referendum to leave the EU, which is a pooled sovereignty union to create a more integrated Europe.
I raised the same questions to those who wanted to leave the EU, who complained about "diktats from Brussels" as if pooling sovereignty meant we now had dictators instead of elected officials.
My questions were about how their daily lives were impacted by these "diktats". 99% of people avoided the question. For them, it wasn't about any practical reality. They just wanted to vote to leave the EU. The reasons for it seemed to be post-hoc justifications of an emotionally made decision.
I guess it is like that for most people.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/02/11/democrats-...