• Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    4 months ago

    “Our work demonstrates that while most people actually prefer to engage with and share factual information, when they are tired, overwhelmed, or just plain lazy(+), they’re less likely to think about the veracity of a news story, and can get stuck into habits where they click on more stories from sites producing misinformation.”

    This effect can be particularly important when online media production focuses on a particular topic, for example during election cycles, leading to readers inadvertently clicking on links from sites they would not otherwise go to for their news content.(++)

    (+) or stupid. They didn’t say that but it feels like they really wanted to

    (++) like businessinsider.com

    • ryannathans@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Mentioning a site’s url or name online increases their ranking in search engines and drives more traffic to the site

  • Ooops@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Did we really need studies using math and statistics to understand that

    a) if you flood everything with shit, some gets through

    b) it’s not an accident but an applied system to increase engagement (=clicks=money)

    c) tired people are less attentive

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    4 months ago

    “We know false news stories can spread more quickly than factual content,” says Alex, "and we know how damaging they can be to public discourse and trust in democratic institutions.

    We absolutely don’t know that. If we did, then the way we’re handling news and information is disastrously insane.

    I agree with it, I’m saying The Powers That Be don’t want us to change anything. It’s been that way since Reagan.

    Fucking Reagan