I logged out of Hacker News for a month recently, and also part of the time out of Twitter and Facebook. I was still allowed to read HN, just not to comment, as the latter tends to waste the most time.
What I have come to feel is that my use of the internet is mostly driven by rage - and it seems to be similar for a lot of people. On HN I waste time trying to correct people who will never in a million years be swayed by a random internet comment.
On Twitter the problem for me is not the noise - it is being able to rant at any given time. Whenever something upsets me, I can immediately tweet about it, which will amplify the emotions. The better alternative is to simply not get upset about things so much.
Being logged out really helped a lot, because sometimes the urge to correct was really strong. Obviously it is the strongest when reading the wrongest opinions, which are also held by people the least likely to change their opinion. Double waste of time.
Edit: I don't just rant on my Twitter account, but ranting is the most wasteful use of my time, hence the emphasis.
> I was still allowed to read HN, just not to comment, as the latter tends to waste the most time.
I'm going through the opposite: I read HN for years, but never commented, mostly because I found if you wait long enough someone will eventually say what you were going to say anyway. But then I realised the reason I came to HN was for the quality of the comment threads, and thought why not contribute?
I'm still undecided as to whether this was the right decision.
Wow. You nailed it. I was wondering just yesterday why I'm commenting so much on this site and others. I thought it was a need for social interaction due to my current isolation, but if that were the case, I'd comment a lot more on Facebook than these anonymous sites, which I don't.
It is rage. That's why I was hooked on an anonymous message board for the last 7 months (for the 3rd time). I quit last month, thankfully, but I did end up just posting more on other sites. I couldn't get away with being as direct on these sites, but it's still an outlet for negativity.
Incidentally, I find the best way to quit a site I'm hooked on is with a vacation (one in which I don't use the internet much, if at all. Try a remote island). I always come back with a new mindset; everything I was heavily into before the trip is suddenly perceived as "old." I just quit cold turkey and don't return at all, and it works. That's how I've quit every site I was hooked on in the past.
For me, it's practice. Every month or two, I'll write a comment of high enough quality that I'll turn around and re-post it elsewhere because it captures whatever point I was trying to make much better than I've ever seen it said or previously written. HN delivers the right amount of quality and pseudonymity to give me both the motivation and feedback on how I communicate ideas.
That's similar to what I tried to do, or rather what I thought I was doing for awhile. I'd consider HN a place for "early drafts" of blog posts, idea being that I'd stumble upon something thought-provoking here, be inspired to make a novel observation, and then use that as the seed for a full blog post.
In practice, I just kept writing more and more of these "early drafts" and didn't write any blog articles for nearly a year.
In practice, I just kept writing more and more of these "early drafts" and didn't write any blog articles...
-- Is this a net positive? Or Negativer?
Seems like it could go either way. HN inspiring you to write down an idea/develop it you otherwise would not have. And perhaps providing feedback/criticism (on a point-by-point-basis). Both of those are good things. OTOH, if the idea ends up only partly-developed, never fully, and you move forever on ("itch=scratched"), then perhaps it is worse, because in effect it keeps you from developing /any/ ideas fully. Did you write other blog posts (from other motivation)?
I'd suggest writing down all of your ideas in a separate file, along with the "early draft" HN comment, and then making it a point to dequeue them into full-blown blog posts on a regular basis.
Commenting is for engagement, rather than broadcasting, no matter how much lurkerbaiting you tell yourself you're doing.
It's funny, I gave up Reddit for a year for the same reasons. Then I went back, and within three months it was just as bad as before. I closed my account. Now I still let myself read it but I don't comment on anything and mostly it's alright; the rage of seeing someone say something I strongly disagree with is fleeting.
I started commenting here about a year ago, and I've found it a lot better. People respect long-form comments and they are more generous with upvotes than downvotes. On Reddit, it seemed like there was always a lot of trolling, and stupid jokes are voted up a lot over meaningful content. Another plus around here is that after a couple days, people give up on their fight. There's no "mailbox" reminding you that you're having a flamewar somewhere.
I still do sometimes spend way too much time on a comment or a thread though. But it isn't yet anywhere near the kind of problem it was on Reddit. Which is particularly strange because I see most of the people here that were on Reddit and we talk about the same things. I think the community is the reason. On Reddit I was never tempted to bite my tongue. Here I do, and I think it makes me respect people here more than I ever did on Reddit--even though I know many of them are the same people.
Reddit makes rage-reading* extremely convenient and efficient with its downvote button. I realised recently that I dislike half of the posts I see on reddit, but I don't mind because I feel like I'm doing something worthwhile by downvoting them.
Painful experience after being regularly online since 1992 (!) has taught me that there is always someone wrong on the Internet. Sometimes there is even someone (but I am not referring to this thread, not at all) who has a top comment on a widely viewed thread on HN who is nonetheless wrong. I try not to worry about that too much. Surely in the "old days" before there was instantaneous international written communication available to the masses things were even worse. I have learned from quite a few of your posts (including this one to which I reply) and I have learned from a lot of people here on HN. I try not to invest too much worry or self-esteem into trying single-handedly to correct all the mistaken ideas in the world.
The thing of it is, it's just so freakin' awesome to leach knowledge from all the smart people on HN. Some comments are full of useful links; some have just one really awesome link. Other comments describe a trick, technique, or experience that is enlightening.
Slashdot used to be this way for me; I'm not sure what changed, but it saddens me now that it's mostly a flamefest between the Linux old-timers and all the Apple fanboys and Windows shills. That's one of the reasons I came to HN. Funny thing is, I was just about to post an angry response in another story thread, but was on the fence about it; I used to do that a lot on slashdot. I think I'll just go and close that tab now; it doesn't really add much.
Yes, I printed that one out and stuck it to my monitor, actually :-)
I still value HN very much, and I read the comments because there is often useful information. It is just the way I interact with it that is the problem - certainly not HN that is to blame.
HN is actually almost the only web site I visit, apart from a local newspaper which I would like to quit (they are actively manipulative, as newspapers go).
In his excellent book, Phantoms in the Brain, V.S. Ramachandran describes a case of Capgras Syndrome where a son could no longer recognize his parents in person, only on the phone.
His explanation (summarizing crudely here) was that the patient had suffered a head injury in a car accident and that the accident must have disrupted some kind of neural channel responsible for that warm fuzzy feeling you get when you recognize someone close to you like your parents. When the patient saw his parents, he expected that feeling but did not get it. As a result, he could only logically conclude that his parents were imposters.
What that story made me realize was the extent to which our beliefs, even our logic, is driven by subtle feelings we may not even be aware of. I have become much more attuned to those warm fuzzy feelings (I think that was actually the term Ramachandran used) in myself.
I know what you mean when you say rage drives your social media consumption, but in my case I wouldn't call it rage so much as self-righteousness. I don't rage too often and when I do I almost immediately feel embarrassed. But I find righteousness a much more seductive warm fuzzy feeling. Much of the media has optimized their business around it. (Ever wonder why some people get so worked up year after year about the War on Christmas?) Social media is very good at delivering my fix and keeping me coming back for more.
Generally what I do on HN is write most of a comment, get distracted by something, come back a few minutes later, think 'I don't care enough to finish this thought' and close the window. I find myself doing the same on Twitter fairly often, as well as Reddit, and it's proven an effective way to stop adding worthless noise to the internet. If I'm not really invested in what I'm trying to say, why would anyone else care? If I'm not passionate about writing it why would anyone want to read it?
That 'sober second thought' has saved me maybe an hour a month, if that, but I'm sure it's saved dozens of people a minute or two of mindless tripe each, and that's a pretty big win.
I have found myself typing out responses in an argumentative way more lately that result in me saying "what will this achieve? I've gotten the satisfaction of writing this message, sending it won't really do much." Then just deleting the message and moving on. It's not as satisfying at the time but I'd prefer that over starting pointless arguments.
I'm a long time lurker of HN who just created an account to correct something you are wrong about.
> I waste time trying to correct people who will never in a million years be swayed by a random internet comment.
The ability of strangers to broadcast opinion at each other is one of the largest changes in communications history. Society is structured by how we communicate with each other. Without writing we wouldn't have had command economies, without a printing press, we wouldn't have democracy* and without money we wouldn't have a free-market. How we communicate with each other literally builds our society. In a thousand years they will look back at this time as one of the fundamental turning points in human history.
Perhaps your one comment doesn't make a difference. But when it is voted up and it is repeated by others, it does. It creates a social feedback mechanism for creating morals and ideas and ultimately laws. It changes who we are as a society.
Being able to correct some random strangers wrongness on the internet is one of the most important fundamental inventions in the whole of human history.
Having said that, I totally agree with the article posted. It is not a process that engenders inner peace.
>What I have come to feel is that my use of the internet is mostly driven by rage - and it seems to be similar for a lot of people. On HN I waste time trying to correct people who will never in a million years be swayed by a random internet comment.
Interesting. I can empathize - I wonder if there is a natural progression of Internet participation, driven by age and personality.
Stage 1: wide-eyed wonder, and naivety. Ability to be impressed by the most mundane of cat pictures.
Stage 2: a misguided effort to set the world right by correcting people on the Internet one at a time. AKA "Why are there so many idiots online". AKA XKCD's "I can't go to sleep, someone is wrong on the Internet!" strip.
Stage 3: jadedness, cynicism. Correcting people takes too much effort, so mostly snide complaints and bitter comments.
Stage 4: disengagement. What's the point anymore.
Stage 5: enlightenment. Realizing that being negative about everything isn't all that great. Accepting that Internet comments are, on average, what they are. Engaging for specific purposes only: obtain information, develop an idea, practice writing, or - heaven forbid - just to be helpful.
Stage 6: ???
Of course, it's possible most people are just permanently stuck on one stage or another.
This is true of life for many people, not just online, though online tends to bring out the worst in people, in the same way that rolled-up car windows bring out more agression in people than, say, a bicycle would.
Ultimately snipping off the points where the rage is surfacing won't solve the problem. You might think that because you don't rant on twitter it is case closed, but in reality it's probably still there, looking for a way to get out.
Online tools allow so much of our traits to escape because they are instant, easy and somewhat detached if not outright anonymous. But if the underlying rage is still there, you'll find yourself with road rage, footpath rage, the list will go on. Until you can get zen about things, it will just continue.
The key is to re-center your life, focus on what you can achieve and change and release the things you can't. Many words have been written about this in many different contexts, but I prefer the Steven Covey (7 habits) definition of circle of influence, and circle of concern. If you let your circle of concern develop into a larger set than your circle of influence, then you'll be conflicted at your inability to change things, and become less effective as a result. And you'll find yourself raging at people with different political opinions, different life outlooks, people who are outside of your control.
I'm definitely not a religious person or one prone to quoting scripture, but I think there is a christian prayer which goes along the lines of 'grant me the wisdom to accept the things I cannot change, and the ability to change the things I can, and the wisdown to tell the difference'. OR something like that. I think its in the AA steps.
I would be surprised if all major religions don't have something along the same lines.
> What I have come to feel is that my use of the internet is mostly driven by rage - and it seems to be similar for a lot of people. On HN I waste time trying to correct people who will never in a million years be swayed by a random internet comment.
This, a million times. I've blocked a few websites (e.g. Reddit) because I kept being drawn into pointless comments and debates.
Stop ranting on twitter and discipline yourself to only use it to build your brand. No more socio-political I can haz cheezeburger tweets. Tweet useful information within some domain, you'll be surprised at the quality of people who will introduce themselves to you because you give them value.
I quit twitter full stop, about eight weeks ago. Don't miss it.
You're bang on re: amplification, though. People RAGE on twitter/facebook/etc because they seek validation and affirmation of their feelings, which is a natural human response. The issue is that unlike a conversation, social media echo-chambers can amplify a tiny comment into a eight week shit-slinging match involving thousands of people.
Twitter is Toxic - above and beyond Facebook. The 140 character limit forces people to be succinct to the point of bluntness, and hilarity frequently ensues.
If this helps, I for one do tend to give a lot of thought to what people are writing or replying to me - maybe way too much sometimes to the point where it can affect my mood, a lot. I don't really draw that line between "online conversation" and "real conversation", which a lot of youngens seem to do nowadays. I didn't grow up with the noise-pollution internet 2.0 for and from the masses, maybe that is why. For me it is as real a conversation as any with a person I don't personally know; if someone in real would reply to me like that, I would feel just as bad or offended or I would just as much re-research my point if I was wrong.
Otherwise what's the whole point of "social media" if all you are doing is stroking your own ego and not learning any thing?
What I have come to feel is that my use of the internet is mostly driven by rage - and it seems to be similar for a lot of people. On HN I waste time trying to correct people who will never in a million years be swayed by a random internet comment.
On Twitter the problem for me is not the noise - it is being able to rant at any given time. Whenever something upsets me, I can immediately tweet about it, which will amplify the emotions. The better alternative is to simply not get upset about things so much.
Being logged out really helped a lot, because sometimes the urge to correct was really strong. Obviously it is the strongest when reading the wrongest opinions, which are also held by people the least likely to change their opinion. Double waste of time.
Edit: I don't just rant on my Twitter account, but ranting is the most wasteful use of my time, hence the emphasis.