How to stay sane in a world that rewards insanity

Influencers, parasociality, and identity

• Several commenters challenge the article’s claim that changing your mind is “impossible”: social-media figures flip positions often yet retain audiences by keeping the same persona and confidence.
• Parasocial relationships are seen as the core: followers are attached to personality, performance, and brand affiliations, not consistent beliefs or facts.
• One small creator describes actively discouraging parasocial bonds and feeling punished by platforms and audiences for not cultivating a “cult of me.”

Algorithms, groups, and polarization

• Commenters stress that algorithms amplify tribal group dynamics: groups are inherently conflict-prone, and recommendation systems accelerate this into “wicked problems.”
• Some argue social media merely exposes or accelerates pre-existing human tribalism and corporate/organizational dynamics, not inventing them.

Articulate extremism vs truth

• A long subthread disputes the article’s line about learning from “articulate” opposing views.
• Many argue articulateness is orthogonal to truth, intelligence, or morality, citing flat-earth apologetics, think tanks, and sophist-style rhetoric.
• Others counter that while there are articulate cranks, there are far more articulate defenses of well-supported ideas; exposure still has value if paired with critical evaluation.

Manufactured consent and media distrust

• Multiple comments defend the idea that “every major news story is manufactured consent” as at least directionally reasonable, referencing ownership structures and constrained Overton windows.
• Others say blanket cynicism becomes nihilistic and is itself a cognitive trap.

Centrism, “both-sides-ism,” and moral asymmetry

• A contentious thread attacks the piece as “enlightened-centrist gruel” that erases genuine moral bright lines (e.g., around abuse, corruption).
• Counterarguments distinguish anti-extremism from false equivalence: rejecting polarization doesn’t require treating all sides as equally valid.
• “Both-sides-ism” and “centrism” are debated as either lazy fallacies or weaponized labels used to silence nuanced engagement.

Echo chambers, language drift, and incentives

• Several point to echo chambers and shifting vocabulary as key: the same words (“liberal,” “extremism,” “evil,” “healthy”) now encode incompatible worldviews.
• Sanity is framed as low-return: extremism, conspiracism, and rage content reliably monetize; moderate, nuanced voices struggle for attention.

Coping strategies and structural fixes

• Suggested individual tactics: reduce or quit social media, diversify information sources (ideally beyond algorithmic feeds), cultivate offline relationships, practice skepticism and self-reflection.
• Structural ideas include platform fragmentation, stronger moderation in smaller communities, or user-controlled filters; others warn of anonymity loss, echo chambers, and state/corporate abuse of censorship.
• A few propose broader cultural or spiritual anchors (religion, classic texts, philosophy), while skeptics see this as another potential vector for manipulation.

Meta

• Several note that the HN thread itself exemplifies the article’s concerns: tribal reactions, attacks on “the other side,” and arguments about whether moderation is itself a partisan stance.