> We're fine, the trick is to remember to GET OFF THE INTERNET and remember that reality isn't the same as the Internet.

That works fine, except in the cases where the bad news reflects reality, or understates how bad the reality is. In that case it's like saying cancer isn't the problem, the problem is that you visited the doctor and listened as he told you bad news.

▲

tsumnia an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> That works fine, except in the cases where the bad news reflects reality

The issue is that the 24/7 Internet chatroom/forums shift the "bad news" target on a daily basis. Sometimes its war, others its natural disaster, others its a horrific crime, etc. If you've been only seeing bad news since Covid, then it makes you (read, made me) think the world's in a terrible place. I stopped spending allll my time in the 24/7 chatroom and when I say this IN the chatroom everyone thinks I'm completely unaware. I'm not. I just engage on other matters, like cheering on my buddies when they release something.

	▲	dragonwriter 43 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The world is (and the US is) a measurably more terrible place than only a few years ago, and a big part of the reason is that, whether or not they remain online, people are helplessly detached from events; being blissfully ignorant is not substantively different in societal impact than being in a state of paralysis from oversaturation of a mix of real, mis- and dis-informaton, even if it is more enjoyable in the near term. Shutting off the feeds (especially those that are becoming more extremely manipulated to produce ineffective rage, which is part of how the world is worse) may be an effective way to manage the near-term stress of the present combination of media and material conditions, but it doesn't do anything to actually address the material conditions. Heck, detachment and demobilization to reduce resistance to arbitrary exercise of power is a big part of what you are being manipulated for. It's not an accident that that works as stress relief; that's part of the design of the manipulation.

▲

chasd00 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You can still read print media like WAPO, NYT, or WSJ. Stay away from opinion and editorial sections and you'll still be informed about what matters but not manipulated so much that it gives you anxiety.

▲

bachmeier 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yeah, here's what Bezos wrote. I seriously doubt it ends with the opinion section:

> I’m writing to let you know about a change coming to our opinion pages...We are going to be writing every day in support of defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets. We’ll cover other topics too of course, but viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others...

I'll leave it to others to make a decision on whether WAPO qualifies as a propaganda outfit.

▲

pixl97 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

While those listed papers may not be outright fabrications, they are very much manipulated by what their billionaire owners want you to know.

Part of the problem here is you can only list a few papers that might tell you the truth at all, when in the past there was far more independent news organizations that would vie against each other. Now they need to check in with their shareholders first.

▲

suzzer99 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Every WaPo reporter and editor doesn't check in with Bezos before a story goes to print. Yeah, the owners steer some stuff and kill some articles, but for the most part there's still very good reporting going on at the major US papers. It's a convenient fallacy to handwave away all established journalism because billionaire owners are chipping away around the edges.

	▲	pixl97 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		>WaPo reporter and editor doesn't check in with Bezos before a story goes to print. Reporters are at the bottom of the list, there is a pile of middle and upper management that does all this work for Bezos without his need to keep an eye on it. All it takes is one phone call from him saying they need to be careful around a topic and that's it. Funds dry up for investigations into that topic. Now, I never said 'throw away' journalism, I said to ensure you understand the bias of the paper in question. Just because WaPo isn't reporting on Bezos doesn't mean there isn't anything to report on said guy.