12 comments

  • heikkilevanto 1 hour ago
    I had a similar experience many decades ago, taking a long overland trip and being out of touch of news for almost half a year. Coming back, I realized that the world had gone on perfectly well without me following all the daily drama. Most news seemed so irrelevant for a while after that trip.

    Of course I fell back in to following the news, and the rest of the internet. Thank you for reminding me that it is not so important.

    • llmslave2 41 minutes ago
      I did this except it was more like a month. When I got back I realised how much happier I was to be off of X and oblivious to the news. There is virtually zero utility to being "informed" of most things, and plenty of downsides.
  • sallveburrpi 1 hour ago
    Escaping the internet on a luxury trip doesn’t disprove political conflict… it just shows how privilege can opt out of reality and sell the experience as clickbaity insight.
    • kadir1234 53 minutes ago
      Not "privilege" per se, I think that's the wrong word. Republican or Democrat, left or right, rich or very very rich - there is a lot of self-selection bias in judging the world from a pool of people who decided to go on vacation to the Galapagos...
    • lapcat 1 hour ago
      It's definitely privileged to take a trip to the Galapagos, but I don't think it's privileged to ignore the news. A lot of poor people ignore the news. They may be too busy, or they may feel powerless to change anything. I think the real question is what exactly this entirely content-free statement means: "I’ll be focusing more on stories that actually matter instead of chasing the flash-in-the-pan ephemera that nobody remembers the next week."
      • truculent 1 hour ago
        Privilege isn't just about wealth. The point is that although anyone can ignore the news, the news won't necessarily ignore them!
        • slyall 30 minutes ago
          The point is that 90% of the news is unimportant. Often you can read a weekly and that is enough

          A politician said something and other politicians reacted. Usually unimportant unless it was backed by a law or something. If it was important then the weekly will cover it.

          Main Character of the day on Social media. unimportant

          A crime happened nearby. Unimportant

          A celeb did something. Unimportant

          Something happened to random person. Unimportant

          Sport result. If you follow that team you already know, if not then not important.

          Seriously go to the front page of the New York times or some other outfit and count the stories that you needed to read today.

          • ryandrake 0 minutes ago
            I think OP's point is that if your life is so blessed that "90% of the news is unimportant to you" then that itself is a great, fortunate privilege.

            For example, I can tell you that if you are an immigrant in the USA from one of the (now many) targeted countries, even one with legal residency, news about ICE's actions is very relevant and very important to you.

        • dasil003 1 hour ago
          That's just it though, the "news" is not providing valuable information to the majority of people, it's mostly a series of takes designed to fit into easily digestible narratives so they can attract enough viewers to survive as a business.
        • lapcat 1 hour ago
          > Privilege isn't just about wealth.

          Which poor people exactly do you consider privileged, and why?

          > The point is that although anyone can ignore the news, the news won't necessarily ignore them!

          What can they do about the news, though? I specifically said, "they may feel powerless to change anything".

          • resize2996 46 minutes ago
            > Which poor people exactly do you consider privileged, and why?

            those with insulation from genocide and displacement despite poverty.

            their point is that, say, a german peasant in 17th century couldn't avoid the Thirty Years War.

          • XorNot 49 minutes ago
            We live in democracies. The price of entry is a citizenry informed enough to choose how they want many issues of state handled.

            The alternative is worse, and the result of an uninformed citizenry can be disasterous and a regression towards non-democracy.

            • phantasmish 18 minutes ago
              99.9% of people would be better voters if they put five hours a week toward reading about and better understanding shit from an undergrad liberal arts program (history, political philosophy, statistics, media studies, basic physical science, economics) and five hours a year into catching up on the news, than vice versa.
            • its_ethan 23 minutes ago
              The price of entry is actually just being born in the country (or at least that's all that's required in most democracies).

              You personally might have the expectation that when you vote, you should be informed about what you're voting on/for - but that is entirely optional.

              edit: I'd love to hear about some of your proposed solutions to solving this problem ;)

    • black_13 1 hour ago
      [dead]
  • lrvick 21 minutes ago
    I just got rid of my smartphone, which forces me to spend a lot more time thinking when I am not at home. Would highly recommend.
  • bdcravens 23 minutes ago
    You could also go to jail for a week. No internet access there (at least there isn't supposed to be ....)
  • stanleykm 1 hour ago
    does going on vacation for a week count as “disappearing”?
  • ropetin 39 minutes ago
    > Contrary to the national security threat machine’s picture of a country at war with itself, we all got along so swimmingly that the idea of a civil war or anything like it struck me as laughable, as did the notion that the statistically insignificant number of politically-motivated killings, though real, said anything at all about the vast majority of real-world Americans.

    This line of thinking drives me crazy, especially from someone like Ken. Just because a bunch of privileged Americans were friendly with each other while enjoying an amazing time in nature doesn't immediately negate the very real problems going on in the US.

  • DetectDefect 1 hour ago
    I have to wonder why the author bought a round-trip ticket?
  • adolph 28 minutes ago
    The article doesn't deliver on the headline of why the author disappeared. At no point is the motivation for going to the Galapagos disclosed.
  • lawgimenez 35 minutes ago
    I bet everything will get partisan right after if they got stuck on that island. Or stay for a year. This is delusional.
  • kristofferR 1 hour ago
    Over the past couple of weeks, I’ve been obsessively researching and buying backpacking gear and soaking up tips for next spring. I am massively looking forward to being on a mountain alone for a few days with only a Garmin inReach Mini as my link to the outside world, gonna be nice to disconnect like that.