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

    • TʜᴇʀᴀᴘʏGⒶʀʏ@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      edit-2
      13 days ago

      This article is about sharing links without having read the content, not just scrolling past or commenting without reading first

      Edit: a more accurate headline would be

      Facebook users probably won’t read beyond this headline before sharing it, researchers say

      • Kintarian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        13 days ago

        Oh, ok. It seemed they were talking about people only reading the headlines, then sharing with people who only read the headlines.

      • Kintarian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        13 days ago

        At first the author states:

        The findings, which the researchers said suggest that social media users tend to merely read headlines and blurbs rather than fully engage with core content, appeared today (Nov. 19) in Nature Human Behavior. While the data were limited to Facebook, the researchers said the findings could likely map to other social media platforms and help explain why misinformation can spread so quickly online.

        This implies all social media users. Later it mentions sharing information.

        If I cared , I would read the paper. I think the author didn’t do a very good job from headline on.

        • TʜᴇʀᴀᴘʏGⒶʀʏ@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          13 days ago

          I know they think it might generalize to other platforms, but there’s little evidence to say so, and I doubt the percentage is nearly as bad on other platforms, especially Lemmy (which is the only social media I use, so the only thing relevant to me and many others here)

          There’s likely also a high percentage of people who form opinions about and comment on headlines without reading the content, but that’s not what this paper measured

    • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      13 days ago

      Right? Do you expect me to click on 90% of articles?

      Social media is a filter. I’m using it to figure out what is worth clicking on.

    • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      13 days ago

      And there are a bajillion of them, and all completely random. You could read for the rest of your life and not get through a single day’s worth of shared articles. That said, you really should read something before sharing it. That part is just stupid.

  • masterofn001@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    13 days 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
      11
      ·
      13 days ago

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

  • AmidFuror@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    13 days ago

    I share Onion headlines without reading the articles. The headline is usually about 90% of the laugh.

  • Stalinwolf@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    12 days ago

    Me attempting to take the time to read twenty poorly formatted articles per day, broken up into fourteen paragraphs each and seperated by what I assume are intended to be hundreds of intrusive ads and completely diverging from what the headline baited me into thinking this ad (er… article…) was about in the first place:

  • NeoToasty@kbin.melroy.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    13 days 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?

    • pivot_root@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      13 days ago

      We would like to use cookies for personalization and other data, and we promise that’s not just a sugar-coat for using cookies to track your browsing history and find the right advertisements to show you. If you agree, click this big green flashing button. If you disagree, click this link indistinguishable from the rest of the paragraph and scroll through our 378 partners to choose which ones you feel strongly enough about to disable. Oh, and when you reload the page, please do it again because we also included ourselves in that list and can’t save your preferences if you don’t let us use cookies.

      The web is awful without adblock and cookie banner block.

    • Rimu@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      13 days 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
      2
      ·
      13 days 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)