←back to thread

324 points dvh | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
jahsome ◴[] No.43298548[source]
I absolutely love how fired up the average YouTube commenter was about Honey... for about 72 hours. People completely unaffected in any way were demanding class action lawsuits, etc with seemingly no clue why they were even upset. Then the subject completely left their minds.

This observation is of course entirely anecdotal, but manufactured outrage is so fascinating, even if it currently eroding the very foundations of society.

replies(18): >>43298579 #>>43298600 #>>43298610 #>>43298640 #>>43298733 #>>43298933 #>>43298942 #>>43298977 #>>43299229 #>>43299390 #>>43299411 #>>43299451 #>>43299754 #>>43299776 #>>43300000 #>>43300017 #>>43300261 #>>43300604 #
thinkingemote ◴[] No.43298579[source]
Where a lot of online content to be consumed is about dopamine, a lot of other stuff is about spiking cortisol.

There's people on every forum (and regularly here) that suggest, sometimes explicitly, that we must have elevated anxiety and stress levels in response to specific presented content as a moral imperative.

I think cortisol makes the "content" feel more "important" or relevant at the present moment in time. 72 hours later assuming no other exploits our body systems adjust and the content isn't important. It's weird when we notice it, but most of the time our cortisol is being directed to another topic so we don't notice.

There's a ton written about our dopamine addiction and how it's exploited but not much about cortisol and our negative emotions are being exploited.

replies(4): >>43298632 #>>43298650 #>>43298949 #>>43299004 #
caseyy ◴[] No.43298650[source]
Many people say that overthinking, anxiety, and stress are moral imperatives as a response to something they don't like: content, political ideas, celebrities, technology companies, and many other things.

It is a completely ineffective method of making a change. I wish they'd stop spreading their anxieties online. I know it makes them feel like they're doing something, but one phone call to a relevant decision-maker is 100x more effective and 100x less destructive to those around them.

replies(7): >>43298772 #>>43298837 #>>43298921 #>>43299268 #>>43299696 #>>43300091 #>>43300277 #
lukan ◴[] No.43298772[source]
"but one phone call to a relevant decision-maker is 100x more effective and 100x less destructive to those around them."

I don't think, the relevant decision makers are open for incoming calls from the internet, but I agree that panic and anxiety solves nothing, but creates just more problems.

replies(1): >>43299909 #
caseyy ◴[] No.43299909[source]
You'd be surprised. Almost all government organizations have receptions you can call, and many private companies (who are not using client support to insulate themselves from feedback) will have executives you can speak to if you ask. There are also many activists you can talk to.

The change might not come from them doing something for you, too. They may teach you something you don't know, which can reduce your friction in some situations, too.

For example, people commonly complain about poor consumer protection around the world. But usually, there are already laws against mistreating consumers, and if they were to report the incident to the right organization/inspector, they would get the remedy they want.

The solution is often the two right people getting on a call or talking in a room. In the EU, there are even some summer camps for teens aged 14-18 to learn how to approach government decision-makers. It is doable.

I think you may have some learned helplessness everyone here talks about. But if you give it an earnest try and approach a problem you see from various angles, you'll make some progress on it. Usually, this will be done by talking to a decision-maker.

replies(1): >>43300143 #
conartist6 ◴[] No.43300143[source]
Ah, yeah. I live in the US so it's a bit of a different situation here. Political polarization in a two-party system means that the decision makers are rarely actually listening. We rely on the EU to regulate our technology, so generally the same situation makes us feel disempowered because, well, we are. The people who make the rules don't represent us.
replies(2): >>43300295 #>>43300635 #
1. ericd ◴[] No.43300635[source]
I’m part of a volunteer group that lobbies congresspeople about climate change, and there’re at least a few examples of it making a very obvious difference (for example, one republican member of congress started the conservative climate caucus after going on a nature walk with some members of this group, it now counts over half of all republican members of congress as members). So I’d caution from adopting this idea that it’s all useless, it’s not. A lot of times, they’re just not hearing that their constituents really care about these things. They’re only human.