Do we need daily news and social media?

I think daily news is probably a good thing, given how far back in time it goes. (Newspapers have had centuries.) Possibly even twice daily like certain eras of newspapers where you'd have a morning and evening gazette.

I question a lot more "24/7 news". At some point beyond "twice daily digests" it does seem like too much news. It certainly doesn't help that 24/7 news to keep "engagement numbers" such as viewer counts or retweet counts deeply blurs the lines between entertainment and unsubstantiated rumors with "news", but even if you could somehow crack down on "news-like entertainment" there's probably still way too much diminishing return on it all beyond once or twice a day.

I don't know how we solve that though and a lot of people would complain if you tried to ban cable news networks and news Twitter, but sometimes I do envy the people that lived in "at most twice a day" news cycles.

Of course not. 99.999% of the "daily news" or "social media" content is not so time sensitive that one needs a constant feed of it.

I don't do any social media. Well, okay...there is my occasional jaunt (like weeks or more between logins) into the fediverse via Mastodon. But it's not really "social" the way I use it.

And HN is about the only news I ever seek out. And even that is a low-priority task -- like right now I'm here for like 10-20mins because I have some time to kill before kicking off the release of a product update.

Do we need video games? Do we need Marvel movies? Do we need distractions from the ennui of daily life? What's stopping you from only reading AP news wires? What's the point of this post? Congrats, you've escaped the system and gleemed hidden knowledge, you're so smart.

In a democracy, the news is supposed to be the channel of information by which the populace is able to supervise the government.

Perhaps it is my advancing age that makes me wonder how such an important function can be thought of in parallel with social media.

Per Bettridge's law of headlines, obviously not.

Aaron Swartz's blog post "I hate the news" ( http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews ) expanded on that pretty well. "... But if that’s true on a scale of minutes, why longer? Instead of watching hourly updates, why not read a daily paper? Instead of reading the back and forth of a daily, why not read a weekly review? Instead of a weekly review, why not read a monthly magazine? Instead of a monthly magazine, why not read an annual book?"

I always say: "the best news is at least a week old".

"This thing happened" is often not all that interesting or insightful.

Why and how "this thing" happened with all the appropriate context is much more interesting, but that kind of analysis often taken times, so ... the best news is at least a week old.

Of course, we don’t need these things. Would be nice, though, to have more people view their output as what they are: statements designed to entertain, to gather ratings, to offend, to incite, to preen, to troll…. With some possible relation to reality of which you can’t quite judge.

Lots of water under the bridge since Morrow.

Nope. I quit news years ago. Consuming it can't do anything for you but rile you up, distracting you from your goals. If something serious happens in the world, you'll hear about it via social osmosis.

If you collapse both of these into saying internet-based information, then yes we do if we want advancements to continue to skyrocket like it has in the last 30 years.

nah