Notifications are useful only for items and actions which need to be know about and acted upon now. The moment you descend into never clearing your notifications, then suddenly only the top...
Notifications are useful only for items and actions which need to be know about and acted upon now. The moment you descend into never clearing your notifications, then suddenly only the top notification is ever relevant. Unless there is a local even which is going to impact you immediately, a notification is inappropriate for it. An email alert would be far more relevant.
My wife gets news alerts on her phone, and her telling me what is going on is more than enough for me (I would do anything to get her to disable them). I did not need to hear about the Iran bombings at 8 PM, in the middle of the first vacation we have taken in months. I did not need to spend the next 2 hours of that night discussing it, feeling anxious about the possible outcomes, and reading news articles about it. I did not need my wife to be up half the night because of the anxiety it caused.
I don't have notifications for almost anything on my phone. I want to be present in my life, not being interrupted all the time. Even so, I'd argue it's important that we pay attention to what...
I don't have notifications for almost anything on my phone. I want to be present in my life, not being interrupted all the time.
Even so, I'd argue it's important that we pay attention to what happens in the world around us. I'd argue the US bombing Iran is precisely the type of thing it's important to know about then and there.
These are moments like 9/11, US invasion of Iraq, the Boxing Day tsunami, The 2005 Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, Cyclone Nargis, the Wenchuan earthquake, the 2008 Mumbai attacks, The 2008 US financial collapse in September, the 2010 Haiti earthquake, the Smolensk airplane crash, the Deepwater Horizon spill, the Fukushima nuclear meltdown and so on.
Phones sometimes throttle or delay notifications due to the jungle of spam people receive. My one notification on Iran was not shown to me before 3 hours later. That was 2 hours after I was at work and present due to the nature of the industry I work in and the all-hands situation that followed.
It's imperative for the rights, dignity and well-being of people all around the world that we care about people and the crises and conflicts that dominate the lives of millions.
In 1937 Norwegian poet Arnulf Øverland wrote:
You mustn't endure so sincerely well the injustice that doesn't affect yourself!
The consequences of civic apathy, relinquishing society to only the most engaged can be dire. The world needs you, your wife and all the other sensible people.
If we don't talk about these topics in our lives, we end up with populists, extremists and egotistical societies that enable bad people.
Out of curiosity… why? I agree that's important to know, but why do you think it's important to know as soon as possible?
Even so, I'd argue it's important that we pay attention to what happens in the world around us. I'd argue the US bombing Iran is precisely the type of thing it's important to know about then and there.
Out of curiosity… why? I agree that's important to know, but why do you think it's important to know as soon as possible?
This is my sticking point, as well. There's very few, if any, global crises which benefit from my immediate attention more than my attention in a few days. And if the difference between these...
This is my sticking point, as well. There's very few, if any, global crises which benefit from my immediate attention more than my attention in a few days. And if the difference between these things is my mental health and endurance, I'll choose the one that allows me to survive a world with instant communication next to my bed while I sleep.
You're essentially saying that it doesn't matter if one opts out of living in the present, of choosing not to be a part of the society we live in, that living in "parallel societies" is perfectly...
You're essentially saying that it doesn't matter if one opts out of living in the present, of choosing not to be a part of the society we live in, that living in "parallel societies" is perfectly acceptable.
All my interactions with society around me are affected by being out of the loop. I can make an untold number of faux pas.
Empathy works at the speed of knowledge. Being close in time strengthens experience, knowledge and memory of an event.
Imagine being on a space ship on 9/11, and not being able to return to earth for a couple of days, a week, a month.
Imagine not being told by people on the ground that 9/11 had happened "because this wouldn't benefit from my immediate attention now more than in a few days, or when I'm back on Earth".
I as the astronaut would rightfully feel lied to through omission.
I have a right and duty to know what's going on around me. That's part of our social contract living in a society. We rightfully expect people to be on the same page.
Again, I have FEW alerts for myself. Precisely because news outlets are sending huge messages as if a politician saying something is imperative for me to know this minute. It's not.
However, there are many stories locally, nationally and internationally each and every week we should know of. Not knowing about these means I'd not be taking part on society. I live in a democracy, being a part of civic society is a duty to me at least.
I said none of those things. I specifically said global crises for a lot of the reasons you brought up. I agree with everything you've said, except for your interpretation of what I said. As a...
You're essentially saying that it doesn't matter if one opts out of living in the present, of choosing not to be a part of the society we live in, that living in "parallel societies" is perfectly acceptable.
I said none of those things.
I specifically said global crises for a lot of the reasons you brought up. I agree with everything you've said, except for your interpretation of what I said.
As a simple example, if there's a missing person alert in my community, I want to know about it because minutes matter and I can alter the chain of events. There are very few, if any, global crises where that's true.
On empathy, I've come to believe that it can be over indulged. There's no shortage of atrocities being committed against people and creatures at all times, and as someone who's heart bleeds easily, I can't finding in this world if I can't put boundaries around things I can effect and things I cannot, and try to only give the former urgency.
Any argument around immediacy for global news ignores the reality that I was asleep when 9/11 happened, and didn’t find out until after I woke up, because Australia has dramatically different...
Any argument around immediacy for global news ignores the reality that I was asleep when 9/11 happened, and didn’t find out until after I woke up, because Australia has dramatically different timezones compared to where the events happened.
Australia sleeps at the same time, as do a majority of people in most societies. If I'm out of the news loop, so many conversations become "have you heard about ____" and someone having to explain...
Australia sleeps at the same time, as do a majority of people in most societies.
If I'm out of the news loop, so many conversations become "have you heard about ____" and someone having to explain what has happened rather than discussing that same issue, implications, feelings etc.
That's what I'd lose and everyone loses if they're out of the loop: These important social aspects. The glue that keeps society together.
There's a reason many newspapers used to come out in print twice a day, and cities had mail 2. 3 or even 5 times a day: The ability to have a simultaneous conversation, in a society where people are living at the same present time with updated references has real value in many areas.
I get the feeling that this is fairly central to your position, but I genuinely can’t understand why it’s so different to start from a position of “let me tell you about XYZ because you haven’t...
If I'm out of the news loop, so many conversations become "have you heard about ____" and someone having to explain what has happened rather than discussing that same issue, implications, feelings etc.
I get the feeling that this is fairly central to your position, but I genuinely can’t understand why it’s so different to start from a position of “let me tell you about XYZ because you haven’t already heard, and then let’s discuss our opinions on it” when compared to the alternative of “we both have a vague idea of the news, let’s discuss our opinions on it”
If anything, I feel like the second option would be more frustrating, because you don’t know which details the other party does or doesn’t know if you learned from different primary or secondary sources. At least if my friend is telling me “here’s what happened” then by definition we’re starting from the same place, and then discussing our opinions from that common ground?
Who remembers where they were when they heard of 9/11? October 7th 2023? Would you remember where you were if you only learned about it the next day or a couple days later? No. Simply put, since...
Who remembers where they were when they heard of 9/11? October 7th 2023?
Would you remember where you were if you only learned about it the next day or a couple days later? No.
Simply put, since before the advent of the telegraph, people have recognized that we live in an interconnected world.
That's why many newspapers came out twice a day. In some cities mail was delivered up to 5 times a day so we could have as close to real-time communications as possible.
There is value to knowing what's happening right now
We feel stronger empathy and feeling when we know what people are experiencing now, than learning of something that happened yesterday or a week ago
We can only make decisions based on information we know, and who knows what things
We can only talk with those around us about things we know about.
This is basic human psychology.
Quite simply: The moment is lost.
This is not due to phones in our pockets, the internet, tv or even radio.
We live in a world here and now. There is an inherent value in knowing important things quickly.
Wouldn't you feel left out if you learned your sister gave birth on the other side of the world if you only learned of it a couple days later? Knowing wouldn't change anything practical for my life, I'm not going to change any decisions, plan on going or whatever.
Again, I have very few alerts. I'm not advocating that we need to be constantly online, but we need to be a part of the world around us. If I were to get news only once a day or every couple of days, I'm not getting news, I'm getting " olds", as everyone will agree.
Everyone who's remotely interested in psychology will also agree:
"The first person reached the South Pole a month ago" simply doesn't hit any of us with the same strength and therefore doesn't affect us the same way as knowing quickly.
We live in a world with a fourth dimension: time.
(you'll notice this topic is dead due to my response coming a day later. I'd expect that changes how it's viewed, the impact of what's being said and so on. Again, timing matters)
I kind of feel that 9/11 is the perfect example of why being “overinformed” is a bad thing. I remember where I was when I heard the news. And as a young person on the opposite side of the country...
I kind of feel that 9/11 is the perfect example of why being “overinformed” is a bad thing. I remember where I was when I heard the news. And as a young person on the opposite side of the country with pressing personal issues to deal with, it made relatively little difference to me.
I say relative because most people at the time became completely deranged. People were obsessed with news which was full of the scariest shit they could imagine and news stories were full of things we would later find out were lies (WMDs in particular come to mind). And it lead to us going to wars in multiple countries, killing many innocent people along the way. It also lead to draconian domestic laws being passed that reduced our freedoms, such as the USA PATRIOT act.
So no, I absolutely do not accept that this level of information urgency is necessary; if anything it’s an overwhelmingly negative thing that kills our mental health at best and destroys our society and murders people at worst.
I do remember 9/11 (and I'm not even American), but other that a nice to have bit of trivia/nostalgia, what are the benefits? For instance, I have no recollection of when I heard about October 7th...
Who remembers where they were when they heard of 9/11? October 7th 2023?
I do remember 9/11 (and I'm not even American), but other that a nice to have bit of trivia/nostalgia, what are the benefits? For instance, I have no recollection of when I heard about October 7th 2023, and… that's… ok?
All of this is true. All of this is contingent on what the newsbreakers' preferences share. So yeah, "shared reality" is great in principle, but not remotely necessarily in practice. The existence...
All of this is true. All of this is contingent on what the newsbreakers' preferences share. So yeah, "shared reality" is great in principle, but not remotely necessarily in practice.
The existence and nontrivial popularity of books like "The Most Dangerous Book in the World: 9/11 as Mass Ritual" should raise concerns here. Dismiss the supernatural claims, but what was it about these events that seared so deeply into people's minds? Why do those two terror attacks you mention, out of everything that has happened since the year 2000, deserve to be experience by billions of people, while other events, that affected more people, languish in obscurity? Why should every American recall exactly where they were when they heard that news, but not that news? Is it such a coincedence that the PATRIOT ACT was ready to roll? How many insane conspiracy theories have come out of just these last couple of years of Israel-Palestine mass media? How many of them were cranks and how many were propaganda?
These conspiratorial thought patterns are created by these news-created events' existence. Keeping "in the loop" is important, but training our own emotional cues based on events we cannot materially access or meaningfully understand is surrendering a significant degree of emotional cognizance of our immediate realities.
I live in the US and hear gunshots almost every night. Most of the time it's some asshole who won a bet or video game celebrating, but sometimes I have heard cries for help and fleeing in the street. I have heard those screams terminated. None of this reaches any publication. Nobody in my neighborhood can look to the local paper the next day for an explanation to tell their children who hear these things. So, of course, Nextdoor and Facebook and Ring are always full of universally deranged speculation. Because there has to be a cover-up, right? Or we must not matter at all? Because the eye of god is not upon these people, only what makes for sensation and manipulation.
I'd like to passionately disagree with you for a moment here, primarily regarding push notifications for these topics. While I disagree with your perspective on civic apathy, I don't wish to argue...
I'd like to passionately disagree with you for a moment here, primarily regarding push notifications for these topics. While I disagree with your perspective on civic apathy, I don't wish to argue with you on that, as that is a matter of personal opinion.
I disagree that receiving information on these events via push notifications is useful, unless one works specifically in an industry where being alerted to geopolitical events in real time is necessary. If anything, I'd say that it's completely unhealthy, as it distracts from the day-to-day reality that most people exist in. By providing unnecessary, emotionally draining information in real time, it forces one to contend with dire, emotionally challenging events without the full scope of knowledge related to that event - at random intervals.
I just fail to see the positive difference that immediate notifications provide, compared to one controlling one's media consumption - i.e. listening on the radio in the car, checking via desktop or smartphone in a spare moment, watching the evening news, etc.
A personal example. I live within driving distance of where Melissa Hortman was assassinated. I found out about her death the next morning, when I checked the news before running errands. I had already planned to check the news that morning, as I was mildly worried that something bad would happen during/to the "No Kings" protests. (one of which was within walking distance to me) I learned of the tragedy when I was already alert, drinking coffee, and beginning my day. I was able to learn more information about the event via the radio, while driving towards my errand.
If I had learned about the assassination via a push alert from a phone, it would have been the first thing I'd seen in the morning. I'd have consumed the information while half awake, and it would literally have been how I started my day. And, it wouldn't have changed my day for the better, or improved my reaction to the event, or even improved my safety. (while I wasn't in the area of the shelter in place order, had I been, I would have received an alert via an emergency alert.)
What is the immediate benefit in knowing a fraction of important information during the random moments of one's life? Isn't understanding the context and scope of the information - often after the dust has settled - better than it interrupting the small joy's of one's day to day existence?
In these moments where mental health stability is arguably a luxury - being reminded of global tragedies in real time doesn't serve to better one's perspective or ability to engage. You can stay informed, even if you are not alerted to information.
I've been subscribed to the digital New York Times and other news apps for 10+ years now. I'm an avid newsreader, yet... I now have mine turned off. I tried leaving on just "Breaking news" in the...
I've been subscribed to the digital New York Times and other news apps for 10+ years now. I'm an avid newsreader, yet...
I now have mine turned off. I tried leaving on just "Breaking news" in the NYT app for "urgent and important stories", but NYT kept pushing not urgent and not important stories to me.
I want to know if China invades Taiwan, the president dies, the stock market surprise drops 10%, or congress passes a bill banning gay marriage or gender transitions. Basically significantly world or country-altering events.
What I don't consider to be breaking news: someone winning some round of Wimbledon (yay, but not world or country-altering), UPenn banning trans athletes (sucks, but not world or country-altering), P Diddy being found guilty (good, but not world or country-altering), or China making some angry statement about Taiwan (part of an important arc of events, but itself is not significantly world or country-altering).
I think this is very reasonable. Ironically, or fittingly, however you see it, this thread was taking place around the same time of the passing of the "Big beautiful bill", that'd obviously be one...
I think this is very reasonable.
Ironically, or fittingly, however you see it, this thread was taking place around the same time of the passing of the "Big beautiful bill", that'd obviously be one of those types of big news stories that will affect the world at large significantly.
But there are also stories we don't know the impact of without the benefit of hindsight:
Was the news some hours ago that US delivery of some military aid to Ukraine is cancelled or at least delayed due to lack of stores of those items in US national defense the turning point in the war? History has few smoking guns.
How about locally? Is a double homicide seven houses down the street from you something you'd want to know about immediately?
What about if this only becomes public knowledge a week after the fact? Could this then be something not worth knowing about for another day or two?
Personalization and being able to choose are options available to media. They're choosing to fail at giving people reasonable systems. Surely for their own perceived benefit.
I used to have the BBC news app on my phone. Their breaking news alerts became completely absurd. I'd long-ago turned them off, but I remember my partner sending me a screenshot of the "Beckham...
I used to have the BBC news app on my phone. Their breaking news alerts became completely absurd. I'd long-ago turned them off, but I remember my partner sending me a screenshot of the "Beckham stands in queue to walk past the queen lying in state" notification, which was the final straw for their use of notifications. I've since had to uninstall it as they removed the search/filter function, so you couldn't pick the news that interested you (I used to be able to highlight more local news from where I grew up in the UK), instead you just had to read whatever some[one/bot/algo] decided I was supposed to read.
Attention truly is a scarce resource - apps should remember that and be much more sparing with how they try to capture that of their users. Getting greedy with sending notifications might get a brief kick in interaction, but it surely must lead to a more long-lasting downturn as users silence/delete an app that clamours too much.
Notifications are useful only for items and actions which need to be know about and acted upon now. The moment you descend into never clearing your notifications, then suddenly only the top notification is ever relevant. Unless there is a local even which is going to impact you immediately, a notification is inappropriate for it. An email alert would be far more relevant.
My wife gets news alerts on her phone, and her telling me what is going on is more than enough for me (I would do anything to get her to disable them). I did not need to hear about the Iran bombings at 8 PM, in the middle of the first vacation we have taken in months. I did not need to spend the next 2 hours of that night discussing it, feeling anxious about the possible outcomes, and reading news articles about it. I did not need my wife to be up half the night because of the anxiety it caused.
I don't have notifications for almost anything on my phone. I want to be present in my life, not being interrupted all the time.
Even so, I'd argue it's important that we pay attention to what happens in the world around us. I'd argue the US bombing Iran is precisely the type of thing it's important to know about then and there.
These are moments like 9/11, US invasion of Iraq, the Boxing Day tsunami, The 2005 Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, Cyclone Nargis, the Wenchuan earthquake, the 2008 Mumbai attacks, The 2008 US financial collapse in September, the 2010 Haiti earthquake, the Smolensk airplane crash, the Deepwater Horizon spill, the Fukushima nuclear meltdown and so on.
Phones sometimes throttle or delay notifications due to the jungle of spam people receive. My one notification on Iran was not shown to me before 3 hours later. That was 2 hours after I was at work and present due to the nature of the industry I work in and the all-hands situation that followed.
It's imperative for the rights, dignity and well-being of people all around the world that we care about people and the crises and conflicts that dominate the lives of millions.
In 1937 Norwegian poet Arnulf Øverland wrote:
The consequences of civic apathy, relinquishing society to only the most engaged can be dire. The world needs you, your wife and all the other sensible people.
If we don't talk about these topics in our lives, we end up with populists, extremists and egotistical societies that enable bad people.
Out of curiosity… why? I agree that's important to know, but why do you think it's important to know as soon as possible?
This is my sticking point, as well. There's very few, if any, global crises which benefit from my immediate attention more than my attention in a few days. And if the difference between these things is my mental health and endurance, I'll choose the one that allows me to survive a world with instant communication next to my bed while I sleep.
You're essentially saying that it doesn't matter if one opts out of living in the present, of choosing not to be a part of the society we live in, that living in "parallel societies" is perfectly acceptable.
All my interactions with society around me are affected by being out of the loop. I can make an untold number of faux pas.
Empathy works at the speed of knowledge. Being close in time strengthens experience, knowledge and memory of an event.
Imagine being on a space ship on 9/11, and not being able to return to earth for a couple of days, a week, a month.
Imagine not being told by people on the ground that 9/11 had happened "because this wouldn't benefit from my immediate attention now more than in a few days, or when I'm back on Earth".
I as the astronaut would rightfully feel lied to through omission.
I have a right and duty to know what's going on around me. That's part of our social contract living in a society. We rightfully expect people to be on the same page.
Again, I have FEW alerts for myself. Precisely because news outlets are sending huge messages as if a politician saying something is imperative for me to know this minute. It's not.
However, there are many stories locally, nationally and internationally each and every week we should know of. Not knowing about these means I'd not be taking part on society. I live in a democracy, being a part of civic society is a duty to me at least.
I said none of those things.
I specifically said global crises for a lot of the reasons you brought up. I agree with everything you've said, except for your interpretation of what I said.
As a simple example, if there's a missing person alert in my community, I want to know about it because minutes matter and I can alter the chain of events. There are very few, if any, global crises where that's true.
On empathy, I've come to believe that it can be over indulged. There's no shortage of atrocities being committed against people and creatures at all times, and as someone who's heart bleeds easily, I can't finding in this world if I can't put boundaries around things I can effect and things I cannot, and try to only give the former urgency.
Any argument around immediacy for global news ignores the reality that I was asleep when 9/11 happened, and didn’t find out until after I woke up, because Australia has dramatically different timezones compared to where the events happened.
Australia sleeps at the same time, as do a majority of people in most societies.
If I'm out of the news loop, so many conversations become "have you heard about ____" and someone having to explain what has happened rather than discussing that same issue, implications, feelings etc.
That's what I'd lose and everyone loses if they're out of the loop: These important social aspects. The glue that keeps society together.
There's a reason many newspapers used to come out in print twice a day, and cities had mail 2. 3 or even 5 times a day: The ability to have a simultaneous conversation, in a society where people are living at the same present time with updated references has real value in many areas.
I get the feeling that this is fairly central to your position, but I genuinely can’t understand why it’s so different to start from a position of “let me tell you about XYZ because you haven’t already heard, and then let’s discuss our opinions on it” when compared to the alternative of “we both have a vague idea of the news, let’s discuss our opinions on it”
If anything, I feel like the second option would be more frustrating, because you don’t know which details the other party does or doesn’t know if you learned from different primary or secondary sources. At least if my friend is telling me “here’s what happened” then by definition we’re starting from the same place, and then discussing our opinions from that common ground?
Who remembers where they were when they heard of 9/11? October 7th 2023?
Would you remember where you were if you only learned about it the next day or a couple days later? No.
Simply put, since before the advent of the telegraph, people have recognized that we live in an interconnected world.
That's why many newspapers came out twice a day. In some cities mail was delivered up to 5 times a day so we could have as close to real-time communications as possible.
This is basic human psychology.
Quite simply: The moment is lost.
This is not due to phones in our pockets, the internet, tv or even radio.
We live in a world here and now. There is an inherent value in knowing important things quickly.
Wouldn't you feel left out if you learned your sister gave birth on the other side of the world if you only learned of it a couple days later? Knowing wouldn't change anything practical for my life, I'm not going to change any decisions, plan on going or whatever.
Again, I have very few alerts. I'm not advocating that we need to be constantly online, but we need to be a part of the world around us. If I were to get news only once a day or every couple of days, I'm not getting news, I'm getting " olds", as everyone will agree.
Everyone who's remotely interested in psychology will also agree:
"The first person reached the South Pole a month ago" simply doesn't hit any of us with the same strength and therefore doesn't affect us the same way as knowing quickly.
We live in a world with a fourth dimension: time.
(you'll notice this topic is dead due to my response coming a day later. I'd expect that changes how it's viewed, the impact of what's being said and so on. Again, timing matters)
I kind of feel that 9/11 is the perfect example of why being “overinformed” is a bad thing. I remember where I was when I heard the news. And as a young person on the opposite side of the country with pressing personal issues to deal with, it made relatively little difference to me.
I say relative because most people at the time became completely deranged. People were obsessed with news which was full of the scariest shit they could imagine and news stories were full of things we would later find out were lies (WMDs in particular come to mind). And it lead to us going to wars in multiple countries, killing many innocent people along the way. It also lead to draconian domestic laws being passed that reduced our freedoms, such as the USA PATRIOT act.
So no, I absolutely do not accept that this level of information urgency is necessary; if anything it’s an overwhelmingly negative thing that kills our mental health at best and destroys our society and murders people at worst.
I do remember 9/11 (and I'm not even American), but other that a nice to have bit of trivia/nostalgia, what are the benefits? For instance, I have no recollection of when I heard about October 7th 2023, and… that's… ok?
All of this is true. All of this is contingent on what the newsbreakers' preferences share. So yeah, "shared reality" is great in principle, but not remotely necessarily in practice.
The existence and nontrivial popularity of books like "The Most Dangerous Book in the World: 9/11 as Mass Ritual" should raise concerns here. Dismiss the supernatural claims, but what was it about these events that seared so deeply into people's minds? Why do those two terror attacks you mention, out of everything that has happened since the year 2000, deserve to be experience by billions of people, while other events, that affected more people, languish in obscurity? Why should every American recall exactly where they were when they heard that news, but not that news? Is it such a coincedence that the PATRIOT ACT was ready to roll? How many insane conspiracy theories have come out of just these last couple of years of Israel-Palestine mass media? How many of them were cranks and how many were propaganda?
These conspiratorial thought patterns are created by these news-created events' existence. Keeping "in the loop" is important, but training our own emotional cues based on events we cannot materially access or meaningfully understand is surrendering a significant degree of emotional cognizance of our immediate realities.
I live in the US and hear gunshots almost every night. Most of the time it's some asshole who won a bet or video game celebrating, but sometimes I have heard cries for help and fleeing in the street. I have heard those screams terminated. None of this reaches any publication. Nobody in my neighborhood can look to the local paper the next day for an explanation to tell their children who hear these things. So, of course, Nextdoor and Facebook and Ring are always full of universally deranged speculation. Because there has to be a cover-up, right? Or we must not matter at all? Because the eye of god is not upon these people, only what makes for sensation and manipulation.
I'd like to passionately disagree with you for a moment here, primarily regarding push notifications for these topics. While I disagree with your perspective on civic apathy, I don't wish to argue with you on that, as that is a matter of personal opinion.
I disagree that receiving information on these events via push notifications is useful, unless one works specifically in an industry where being alerted to geopolitical events in real time is necessary. If anything, I'd say that it's completely unhealthy, as it distracts from the day-to-day reality that most people exist in. By providing unnecessary, emotionally draining information in real time, it forces one to contend with dire, emotionally challenging events without the full scope of knowledge related to that event - at random intervals.
I just fail to see the positive difference that immediate notifications provide, compared to one controlling one's media consumption - i.e. listening on the radio in the car, checking via desktop or smartphone in a spare moment, watching the evening news, etc.
A personal example. I live within driving distance of where Melissa Hortman was assassinated. I found out about her death the next morning, when I checked the news before running errands. I had already planned to check the news that morning, as I was mildly worried that something bad would happen during/to the "No Kings" protests. (one of which was within walking distance to me) I learned of the tragedy when I was already alert, drinking coffee, and beginning my day. I was able to learn more information about the event via the radio, while driving towards my errand.
If I had learned about the assassination via a push alert from a phone, it would have been the first thing I'd seen in the morning. I'd have consumed the information while half awake, and it would literally have been how I started my day. And, it wouldn't have changed my day for the better, or improved my reaction to the event, or even improved my safety. (while I wasn't in the area of the shelter in place order, had I been, I would have received an alert via an emergency alert.)
What is the immediate benefit in knowing a fraction of important information during the random moments of one's life? Isn't understanding the context and scope of the information - often after the dust has settled - better than it interrupting the small joy's of one's day to day existence?
In these moments where mental health stability is arguably a luxury - being reminded of global tragedies in real time doesn't serve to better one's perspective or ability to engage. You can stay informed, even if you are not alerted to information.
I've been subscribed to the digital New York Times and other news apps for 10+ years now. I'm an avid newsreader, yet...
I now have mine turned off. I tried leaving on just "Breaking news" in the NYT app for "urgent and important stories", but NYT kept pushing not urgent and not important stories to me.
I want to know if China invades Taiwan, the president dies, the stock market surprise drops 10%, or congress passes a bill banning gay marriage or gender transitions. Basically significantly world or country-altering events.
What I don't consider to be breaking news: someone winning some round of Wimbledon (yay, but not world or country-altering), UPenn banning trans athletes (sucks, but not world or country-altering), P Diddy being found guilty (good, but not world or country-altering), or China making some angry statement about Taiwan (part of an important arc of events, but itself is not significantly world or country-altering).
Attention is a scarce resource.
I think this is very reasonable.
Ironically, or fittingly, however you see it, this thread was taking place around the same time of the passing of the "Big beautiful bill", that'd obviously be one of those types of big news stories that will affect the world at large significantly.
But there are also stories we don't know the impact of without the benefit of hindsight:
Was the news some hours ago that US delivery of some military aid to Ukraine is cancelled or at least delayed due to lack of stores of those items in US national defense the turning point in the war? History has few smoking guns.
How about locally? Is a double homicide seven houses down the street from you something you'd want to know about immediately?
What about if this only becomes public knowledge a week after the fact? Could this then be something not worth knowing about for another day or two?
Personalization and being able to choose are options available to media. They're choosing to fail at giving people reasonable systems. Surely for their own perceived benefit.
I used to have the BBC news app on my phone. Their breaking news alerts became completely absurd. I'd long-ago turned them off, but I remember my partner sending me a screenshot of the "Beckham stands in queue to walk past the queen lying in state" notification, which was the final straw for their use of notifications. I've since had to uninstall it as they removed the search/filter function, so you couldn't pick the news that interested you (I used to be able to highlight more local news from where I grew up in the UK), instead you just had to read whatever some[one/bot/algo] decided I was supposed to read.
Attention truly is a scarce resource - apps should remember that and be much more sparing with how they try to capture that of their users. Getting greedy with sending notifications might get a brief kick in interaction, but it surely must lead to a more long-lasting downturn as users silence/delete an app that clamours too much.