I've been thinking a lot lately about the prevalence of echo chambers in basically every corner of the internet, and how they manipulate our opinions of things in both obvious and incredibly subtle ways.

Having spent a lot of time on Reddit, it's really easy after a while to see all the different echo chambers that different folks live in. Obviously the big conservative subs just have a completely different news cycle compared to the liberal ones, but even the liberal ones all form obvious biases and fairly large blind spots. All sides have the problem of just reading the headline and coming to a conclusion, regardless of the content of the article or who the authors are; the number of times I've seen the Irish Star, well known in Ireland as being a complete fucking rag notable only for celebrity gossip and nude photos on page 3, being posted to big subreddits as if it's real news, is absurd.

And when you pay attention you can easily spot when the propaganda machines start to accelerate, especially during and after election season. I'll always remember before the 2020 US election primaries when all of Reddit was supportive of Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg, while deriding Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren as being centrist career politician dinosaurs, and the second that Biden was chosen as the Democratic nominee the entire site opinion shifted to "Biden is the best candidate and we all support him 100%". And then the moment the election finishes and all the botnets go back into hibernation, it's right back to "should have been Bernie". And that was just the first time I noticed it. Once you notice it happening in your own circles, it's impossible to miss afterward because it happens for every single political discussion. It was the exact same thing in the 2024 election too with Harris. I'm sure some of it is just people showing solidarity when it matters, but so much of it is clearly artificial too, and I don't like that.

The thing that worries me the most is all the propaganda and manipulation I don't see, the stuff that's subtle enough to fly under my radar and successfully manipulate me as a result. I'd be an idiot to pretend like I'm 100% capable of spotting it all.

Anyways, with all that stated, I wanted to see where the users of Tildes get their news from. It's really difficult to find unbiased news, that much is a given, so I'd rather not rely on any one source.

Personally I try to get my news from the Associated Press as much as I can. Don't think much needs to be said about AP that hasn't already been said, it's kinda just the gold standard for journalism.

The Guardian is a reputable news site in the UK (and fairly popular outside of the UK too from what I've seen online), though one that has a definite left-wing bias. All news is biased news of course, and there is an argument to be made that reality itself has a left-wing bias, so I think it's fine overall for my use case. But I do worry that I'm only making that call because I myself am somewhat left-wing, and having news that reinforces my existing opinions is comforting and rewarding. And I don't think that's at all how we should be choosing which news to read and believe.

Have been considering a subscription to the New York Times as well, more for the cooking, puzzles, and classical music discussion than the news itself honestly. But I've seen a fair amount of discourse around the NYT; how much of that is reactionary Redditors reacting I am not certain of however. Their Wikipedia list of controversies is pretty long whatever the case. Plus there's that whole Boycott USA, buy EU movement going on that I should probably consider as a European (sorry yanks I know you guys are cool but you know how it is). I don't know honestly, anyone more media-literate than I am is welcome to weigh in.

There are probably loads of smaller, independent, and less Anglosphere-centric options I should be considering also, but I'm no expert in this stuff. If anyone has suggestions I'd very much appreciate them.

Generally I try to not read too much news since so much of it amounts to "everything is fucked and your life is going to get worse and worse forever because of things outside of your control good luck", which is generally not good for, y'know, trying to be happy. But I also think it's the duty of a citizen in a democratic society to not just have opinions of things, but to have informed opinions. Who am I to vote for X politician because they're pro-Palestine if I have never done my own research on the Israel-Palestine conflict outside of things I've seen on Instagram, and have hardly even researched the politician in the first place? I think far too many people are comfortable forming opinions based on vibes and news they find comfortable that already conforms to their pre-existing opinions.

Anyways, that's my big wall of text for the day. If anyone has recommendations for places to find news and/or sites worthy of my subscription money, or just general tips on how to stay properly informed in the disinformation world, please post them below.

EDIT: Just stumbled upon this post by DefinitelyNotAFae a few hours ago asking a very similar question as what I'm asking here, so sorry if there's some repetition!

Hey all, I've asked in the past but it feels even more pressing and I'm not sure I got all the recs, I'm looking for good news sources - newspaper, magazine, radio, etc - that provide a non-American, but preferably English language but translatable can work, perspective on their national affairs, American affairs and international affairs more broadly.

I assume Canada, the UK, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand are among those most accessible, but I don't know which sources are more reliable. Or I can get a "news update" from RadioNZ or RTÉ but I'm not sure what programs to catch for more of international news.

I can certainly check bias on a good bias checking website but if there are particular biases I'd love a heads up on those too. For example the Guardian is generally really good except I notice they're specifically bad about trans topics.

I want to avoid tabloids, and people whose news is 3 hour daily videos. I'd like to avoid extreme bias. Free is great but I'm willing to subscribe to online access for a Canadian newspaper for example.

(I am also interested in independent writers, like Heather Cox Richardson who is a historian that does daily news analysis and writeups with context. But I'm only following a few and they're all American so happy to diversify my sources. )

Just looking to get the perspective on, well, lots of things from others countries and I have a lot of radio time I could be using for it.

I figure that for each new story that hits a site like Reuters, theres at least a few that don't get chosen, hitting the editing floor so to speak (like scenes of a film falling to the editing room floor). Doe anyone know where these might be reported?

Like, an rss feed of some editor somewhere that lists the stories they passed over.

The word "content" in this text means works that you can consume for knowledge or for entertainment, e.g. books, films, TV-shows, video games, scientific articles, podcasts, poems, music, all of those Youtube-videos you have saved for later never to be watched again, etc...

With streaming services, apps and tools becoming worse and harder to use while also increasing their subscription costs more often to appease investors, AI is taking over not only our future jobs but also our hobbies and passions, i.e. the very thing we were supposed to be able to make more of. Sponsored as well as subtle user-made advertisements are infesting site after site, but increasingly, the interactions these ads get also come from bots. Social media is no longer a place where I “trick” my peers into thinking I had a wonderful weekend - when in reality it was mediocre at best - but instead a battleground of different actors trying to inflate numbers for short-term gain. It feels like no film, no video game or book, no service, no image, no friend nor foe on the internet exists anymore for anything other than a fleeting moment of transactional gain. Nothing seems trustworthy anymore. Nothing seems genuine.

With the most recent YouTube video by Technology Connections (“Algorithms are breaking how we think”, 22. February 2025) that talks about “algorithmic complacency” and how people today let themselves be fed curated content instead of finding the content they are interested in, it highlights a shift I have felt the past year but never have had the words to express clearly, which is the following: People don’t care anymore.

And why should they? It’s much easier to come home from a long school or work day and just get cheap dopamine without having to put brain power into searching for entertainment. After all, I’m not trying to learn anything right now.

Now, I know I am preaching to the choir on this site. I don’t need to tell you of the bad effects today’s customs and practices on the internet will have on us and especially the next generation, both short-term and in the long run, but the worst one I can see is not back pain, short-sightedness, decline of web-searching skills or even gullibility. It is apathy.

Propaganda, misinformation, disinformation, manipulation, advertising, reaching voters, gaining consumers, decreasing attention spans and a willingness to pay more as long as no additional effort is required on my part. Escaping this fate seems to require an ever-increasing supply of vigilance and effort. The thought arises: What exists behind us?

Now, this might seem nonsensical. We all love to go back to older things from time to time. Stuff from previous generations has always intrigued us. But I am asking you, have you given any thought to the mind-boggling amount of content out there that has already been made? Think about all the books, movies, music, video games - although all this most probably was made with profit in mind, it was still made by people who chose to make it because they could.

The other side of the coin is realizing how small a portion all of this represents, when compared to the amount that has been lost to time, in one way or another. Why then, does it seem like the minuscule amount of content we have left from times gone is not treated with any respect at all? Why are alternatives to modern content taken from us just because they do not entail profit? Libraries have fever books, video games are taken offline, free software starts selling your data or making the free version have big restrictions, and then there is of course the whole case of The Internet Archive. I have even had to sail the seven seas to get ahold of books that don’t come in a format that confines them to a specific, paid app. This last part is seemingly becoming the only way of accessing a whole lot of stuff nowadays, which is a shame.

In essence, as archives and physical media die, we look to the corporations of today to satiate our craving for quality content, and in so doing, we alienate ourselves from our uniqueness and our soul. Why read a boring book when this streaming service is constantly getting new movies? Why make art when AI can make it for me if I ever need it?

It is precisely for these reasons that we need to keep a steady grip of the very thing that makes us human: our interest in creating. It is good for the mind, for the body, for the personality, for the diversity.

Thus, this is an argument for - or rather, a call to action to - spending time with content that was not made for one-time use, but rather, content that respects the time you put into it, be it book, film or game, not forgetting to let yourself be inspired and expressing yourself in the process.

Or, let’s be honest, firstly as a novelty. I don't know anyone else personally who has bought, or would buy, a copy. I figured it would be interesting to see what it was like.

My wife and I stopped on Valentine’s day to buy a copy, and I think we were both surprised by the print. I knew Playboy magazines produced some notable interviews in the past, but a dozen important conversations over several decades isn’t exactly going to outweigh the sea of photographs they’re known for. The new edition was a surprising $20 in-person. It felt like a bit of a gamble, but I think it was worth it.

By the numbers, it’s ~125 pages long and features 3 pictorial photoshoots. Beyond a few pages of photos, the rest is basically all writing. There are a few ads, but nothing like the volume of ads in other magazines I’ve read recently. I figured the magazine would be full of risqué photos, but it’s more of a tasteful inclusion alongside other, more substantial discussion. It is essentially all writing, and it’s good writing.

From the outset, the Editor’s Letter (Mike Guy) sets the tone of the new printing:

Five years have passed since an issue of Playboy rolled off a printing press, and they have been strange years indeed. We’ve passed through the wreckage of a pandemic, sat on a violent political see-saw, and watched as discourse shrinks to tiny digital moments that explode into divisive range at precisely the time we need reason. Just as Playboy was frustrated with the conservative norms of the ‘50s, we want to challenge them now, too. This can mean just showing up, listening; it can mean choosing connecting and pleasure over sensation and isolation. It means rejecting poisonous, meme-driven narratives, as writer Magdalene Taylor urges in “The Rise of the Beta Male” …, her disturbing report from the front lines of our emerging dystopia about young men who have given up on sex. … The internet - OnlyFans, TikTok, and the rest - has stolen sexuality and fed it into the meat grinder of the attention economy. We’re doing our part to steal it back. As the poet Wallace Stevens wrote, “The greatest poverty is not to live in the physical world.”

I didn’t anticipate an article detailing a first-person investigation into the rise of anti-semitism, or an article about a far-out apocalyptic billionaire party, nor did I expect a humorous memoir about the rise of Nashville as the bachelorette party destination. But, these were funny, interesting pieces that spurred much discussion in my house. My wife and I have taken turns reading these long-form articles aloud each night. The article on an ultra-exclusive sex party in LA fell inline with the sort of topics I expected, but the writing and description of a beautiful spectacle made us pause and say, “that actually sounds like a fun time.”

It turns out you really can read Playboy for the articles, and more importantly resonate on the value of re-engaging human connection, disarming hate, building up our communities, and challenging our preconceived notions.

I recently watched Rūrangi (2020) and appreciated it¹ for having a story centered on a trans man and his experiences.

I’m interested in recommendations of other media featuring trans men/masc individuals. I want to cast a broad net, especially if there are other people who might find this useful, so:

• Any type of media is fine (books, memoirs, movies, shows, webcomics, anime, manga, games, etc.)
• Trans men and/or trans masc people should feature, but they don’t have to be the main focus
• The media can be specifically about the individual(s) trans identity or journey, but it can also simply feature the character(s) without delving into those aspects

Now, I’ll also add some more parameters for what I’m looking for specifically if you’re looking to recommend to me personally rather than in general. Don’t limit your recommendations to just these, though. I’m ultimately open to anything and want this topic to be valuable to others with different tastes/preferences as well:

• I’d love for the trans man to be older, since a lot of the trans representation I do already see tends towards depicting younger individuals (nothing wrong with that, of course, and I definitely understand why that is, but as a middle-aged guy myself I’m more drawn towards stories about people my age/older)
• I am interested in stories that are specifically focused on trans identity and journey
• As a gay guy, I’d love to read about my gay trans brethren
• Like Chappell Roan, I want nonfiction (but fiction is cool too)

1. While I did enjoy it, I thought the pacing of the movie was really odd. It wasn’t until after I watched it that I learned it was originally broadcast as a series and was later cut into a single film (which explains the pacing issues). For anyone interested in watching it, I assume the series version does a better job with pacing than the film version.

Ever since my diagnosis two years ago, I have had this as an ongoing conversation with my family. I always felt like there was very little accurate representation of ADHD in media. The few examples I could always think of were either very loosely coded as ADHD, or extreme stereotypes. I want to crowdsource some examples of ADHD representation in media, both good and bad.

Doug from Up: This is a common one that comes up a lot. I think it’s a really poor example. The only ADHD symptom is the squirrel joke they use a handful of times. It’s also (for my presentation at least) extremely inaccurate. Random things I see will indeed distract me, but Doug can come back from the conversation without a missed step. I think this one is extra harmful because it gives a false sense of how the ADHD brain works.

Dory from Finding Nemo: This is another common one people bring up. Dory’s intrusive and impulsive thoughts are much more accurate to my presentation, so it’s an improvement from Doug. I don’t like that she is often portrayed as stupid or careless. I’m not against a character with those traits, but with so few examples of ADHD in media, I think people may think it comes from the ADHD.

Evelyn Wang from Everything Everywhere All At Once: This example showed up recently on my Internet searches. I want to rewatch it again with the context of ADHD. I feel like it is probably a decent representation, but I can’t say for sure without a rewatch.

Percy Jackson: This is the only one on my list that is explicitly diagnosed with ADHD (and dyslexia and other issues). I will give them kudos for the explicit diagnosis, but I don’t think it’s a good representation. ADHD seems to just mean that he is bad at school. It seems that it has no impact on Percy outside of that. For my particular case, I was quite good in school, so it is inaccurate for me. I would be interested to hear if other people resonate more with it. Dyslexia seems to come up more in the books, so it may be a better representation for that.

Todd from Bojack Horsemen: I saved my personal favorite for last. I first watched Bojack Horsemen before my diagnosis, and ADHD wasn’t really on my mind. After my diagnosis, I realized how good of a portrayal Todd is. As a bonus, it is the only portrayal I have heard of that includes hyper focus (When Todd hyper focuses on writing the rock opera, and then the hyper focus switches to a video game). With the exception of the rock opera, I think I have had the same exact scenario play out in my own life. I had something I wanted to do, was able to focus on it, but was stolen away into a video game hyper focus.

Are there any other examples you have found?

This about sums it up. I'm looking for good magazines to read. I'm probably going to do a Vogue from Italy, UK, etc, some sort of techy magazines... a wide variety. I've been out of the magazine world for a time, though, so all I seem to know are Conde Nast titles.. which is depressing.

Stuff available in PDF is ideal, since I'll be pulling these from a library. The magazines don't have to be available in Libby or whatever, though.