A new study of 35 million news links circulated on Facebook reports that more than 75% of the time they were shared without the link being clicked upon and read

  • NeoToasty@kbin.melroy.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Because Facebook isn’t treated seriously like a news format, a lot of my friends don’t go on Facebook to read the news, and neither do I. Most of the time, articles are only posted to drive a certain narrative, that’s how Facebook works.

    And yes a lot of the time I don’t read a news article past the headline. Mostly is because I’m bombarded with “PLZ ACCEPT COOKIES AND WE GIV U NO CHOICE TO DISAGREE” some of the time. The screen grays out. Some news outlets blur some of the article. I’m nagged to subscribe and shit.

    Why the fuck would I then want to read it? I’ll only read what I’m interested in, I don’t want to read an entire article of “oops, the world sucks today” or “Trump is fucking things up again” or “uh you’re going to hell” and whatever. Why would I want to read that in-depth?

    • Rimu@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      16 hours ago

      it’s actually about how often posts are shared without reading, not how often people glance at a headline.

    • ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Yup. If I actually want to read an article and it isn’t a site I already know isn’t too bad, I’ll right click copy the link and put it in the archive machine to get to a readable version of it. I really don’t think they can blame us at this point for not wanting to click every shitty clickbait headline, nor is it necessarily a bad thing that people aren’t (especially people who don’t use adblock and just accept cookies to make the shit go away. With the quality of reporting on most of these sites, they’re definitely not getting a good deal)