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

  • masterofn001@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    8 hours ago

    If it makes anyone feel any better, the researchers didn’t click the links either.

    To determine the political content of shared links, the researchers in this study used machine learning, a form of artificial intelligence, to identify and classify political terms in the link content.

    • otp@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 hours ago

      You’re lucky if researchers read the sources they cited beyond the abstract! Lol

  • NeoToasty@kbin.melroy.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    14 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
      ·
      13 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
      ·
      13 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)

  • Th4tGuyII@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    13 hours ago

    In addition, analyses with 2,969 false uniform resource locators revealed higher shares and, hence, SwoCs [Shares without Clicks] by conservatives (76.94%) than liberals (14.25%), probably because, in our dataset, the vast majority (76–82%) of them originated from conservative news domains.

    Damn, never would’ve seen that one coming /s

  • vaper@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    14 hours ago

    I wonder how many of us will read this article lol (I haven’t).

  • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    14 hours ago

    I don’t click links specifically for this reason… Why would I feed surveillance machine for fake news slop paid by elites to shape my opinion.

    Commom sense 101