[chrisaycock]

Every time you feel like you've made the world better by upvoting a story about injustice, you're just making yourself feel smug. Forget the upvotes... go work on making the world a better place.

He was writing about how stories of social injustice get a ton of upvotes, but nobody actually goes out and does anything to fix the situation. I'm sure there's a lesson here for HN.

[pstack]

I don't have the time, energy, or resources to address every single social injustice or well intended cause. I might donate cash and possibly even time toward a cause after I have taken care of my job and mortgage and family and other immediate self-survival needs, but there are just too many causes that are worthy.

I can, however, give the slightest nod of support to promote countless causes that I may appreciate, but not be able to do anything about. Or I could smugly tell people how smug they are (believe me, I do that, too!).

Edit: Not that I don't agree there are far too many cause-whores out there who have stickers and shirts and web-buttons for a bunch of trendy causes that don't contribute toward anything in the world and that there aren't a ton of people who feel they directly had a part in the recent middle east uprisings, just because they followed activists in the thick of it, via Twitter.

[hunterjrj]

Pertinent quote:

"I defend the value of "not caring about 90% of stuff" Care deeply about everything == accomplish nothing." - John Carmack

[makmanalp]

Aptly named "slacktivism" (I didn't coin that one).

[pclark]

Can anyone argue that the time spent upvoting a reddit story of injustice provides negative net value to the world?

[michaelkeenan]

Yvain wrote about this on Less Wrong. He described a study that showed that people who had just done one good act were less likely to do another: http://lesswrong.com/lw/1d9/doing_your_good_deed_for_the_day...

"All those biases that lead people to give time and money and thought to causes that don't really merit them waste not only time and money, but an exhaustible supply of moral fiber"

[tomjen3]

I can, I think:

When you upvote a story on reddit about some issue you deeply care about, that tricks your brain into thinking that you have done something about it.

It is the same problem that announcing your goals makes you less likely to achieve them, because you already see yourself as a person who has accomplished that.

[DavidChouinard]

Related: http://www.ted.com/talks/derek_sivers_keep_your_goals_to_you... (one of Derek Sivers' TED talks)

[chrisaycock]

If people felt they had "done something" with the upvote, why would they feel the need to intervene for real?

One of the negative consequences of social media in general is that it can lead to very casual and even cynical views of how we relate to one another. Thus, what was meant to bring people together can actually make them more emotionally distant. If I see a hundred stories of trouble in the world, why would I take action on even one of those troubles?

[warrenwilkinson]

I notice this in politics. Some people vote for charitable political parties, while they themselves never give to charity.

[pavlov]

This actually makes sense in politics, because a successful party can exercise charity on your behalf using tax money.

It's the "Swedish model" -- there private charity is rare, but public welfare and development aid is generally accepted and supported by voters.

[Retric]

It works as a stable multi player multi round prisoner's dilemma.

Basic strategy "always defect until everyone agrees not to while voting that everyone not defect."