[shmoopi]

Regarding politics, information overflow, and general increase in lunacy.

To put it simply, it was expected the level of noise and sensation will rise after smartphones emerged. Loud lunacy seems to be a great way to catch public attention currently and this is well understood by both the media, politicians and vegabonds of wealth. Sensational journalism was always a problem, now add to that billions of people able to elevate the wildest stories, let alone create their own. If course we're drowning in digital noise and it isn't going to subside as long as it's effective.

But there's good news.

I cannot stress enough that it's entirely possible to control the level of exposure to said digital noise. You don't have to follow news, politics and social media intensely. You can just opt out. If you find yourself constantly angry on Twitter, fighting endlessly on Facebook, and cussing at the news, it's entirely by design. The only way to win this game is by not playing.

[beachy]

> But there's good news. I cannot stress enough that it's entirely possible to control the level of exposure to said digital noise. You don't have to follow news, politics and social media intensely. You can just opt out.

This is good news in the same sense that it's good news that you can do your bit for the climate crisis by walking everywhere, switching to vegetarianism and wearing only hand-crocheted hemp clothing.

i.e. it's not really good news at all because even if you do it, hardly anyone else will, and the world will carry on just as it is regardless.

We the people have been gaslit by large corporates trying to pin the responsibility on us. It's time to fight back, and put the responsibility onto those that create these problems in the first place for their own profit.

[Karrot_Kream]

While I'm a big supporter of alternative digital networks, I think you're being much too pessimistic. We've known that humans can produce written junk; that's what tabloids were in the past. The problem is that humans haven't developed the culture yet to safely deal with this amount of digital noise. If you tried to breathlessly talk about why the world is ending due to a tabloid article you read, you used to be laughed out of the room, but if you reblog/retweet/share a random social media post you resonated with where someone talks about how the world is ending, then your friends take it as gospel. I'm optimistic that humanity can eventually develop the cultural norms to deal with the era of everyone having a voice. Until then, it'll probably be very chaotic though, much like the Protestant Reformation was in Europe.

[ineedasername]

...tabloid article you read, you used to be laughed out of the room

Only in certain circles. Keep in mind, those tabloids sold in large numbers and not everyone was reading them ironically or as SciFi.

[Karrot_Kream]

Sure but that's better than nothing. Now a random Mastodon share by a friend is enough to convince someone of something.

[klabb3]

> walking everywhere, switching to vegetarianism and wearing only hand-crocheted hemp clothing

I mean, I agree it's ineffective, but it's hell of a lot better than thinking that paper straws, recycling and buying from companies with some green leaf-looking stamp will solve the problem, which is the majority view. In fact, consuming less — both products and instagrammable experiences — is probably the best you can do in terms of personal footprint, along with not having kids of course.

That said, abstaining and "not playing" isn't gonna cause the revolution, or even a slow paradigm shift. We need to evolve, too. And fortunately, changes happen, even if they rarely get the attention they deserve. One example today is the independent podcast boom - where tabloid-style fear media and Twitter flame wars have been losing market share to... Long form conversation. The cynic in me did not see that coming. It shows, in my opinion, that not even carefully engineered amygdala hijacking is enough to keep people from curiosity and reflection. Human behavior is complex and fascinating.

[shmoopi]

>it's not really good news at all because even if you do it, hardly anyone else will, and the world will carry on just as it is regardless.

You're right, but I didn't mean it as a way to make things better, I meant it as a way to make your life better, assuming the world isn't going to change. The good news is it's your choice if you don't feel like being swept up in the torrent of digital noise.

[shukantpal]

> hardly anyone else will

That's a democracy. Not a problem.

[SavantIdiot]

> You don't have to follow news, politics and social media

But what about the hundreds of millions that don't opt out, and spawn the lunacy?