Sadly enough, there is no solution for that problem.
That has to do with humans and with the amount of obligations they have in life. The most obvious solution would be education, improved and higher education levels for all.
But, even educated and smart people also enjoy easygoing, not challenging content. Where social media has democratized the creation, and propagation, of such the problem has always existed and arguably in much worse forms: centralized media.
Most media organizations have a political position and thus bias. While that bias may not show in news coverage, it often shows in the topics they select to cover and the type of specialists they invite to talk/write about those topics. Even history channel has been know to romantize topics.
Because humans like being entertained and many refer, after a day of hard work, easy content over difficult topics. Whether more easy content - and thus pseudo truth - is found on social media than in centralized systems is debatable. News Corp and many a tabloid do not excel at fact-checking either, they do excel at pushing an editorial agenda and thus influencing their audience though.
Despots and demagogues cleverly make use of that as well.
But it is true that social media has made the consumption of “much content” much easier, and also cheaper, than before. At least the consumption of headlines.
As what I have seen on my Facebook news feed, it is unbelievable how people are so gullible and quick to believing what they read online. People no longer verify facts and would quickly jump into believing whatever they read especially if they love and agree with it.
This problem is magnified with how easy it is to create an account in social-medias. People who have no authority and/or credibility to spread news and information are acting like they do, all for the sake of followers, likes and influence which is very unlike before wherein the only source of information for people are credible ones like books, newspapers and television.
Also due to how easy it is to create a website now and since it pays really well. A lot of people took this opportunity and have started creating "click bait articles" just to earn some extra money. This I think is why pseudo-knowledge or false news is so rampant on social medias nowadays.
The only solution I think for this would be a law that forbids anyone who is unauthorized or don't have any credibility to disseminate information or a law where it prohibits anyone to spread Fake News. It would also be great if everyone verify first what they read online before sharing it.
Don’t you think that constantly highlighting (bolding out) few important bits contributes to a culture of only skimming and thus possibly even more adoption of barely fact-checked knowledge?
Highlighting or emphasizing certain parts do create a culture of only skimming but I somehow think it is much more better than not highlighting or emphasizing your point at all. People now are usually in a hurry to read and will only skim a long article and/or mostly focus on the images being presented. Emphasizing your points makes the reader easily grasp the whole article.
I do apologize for the many bold parts in my answer in here though. :)
I don’t mind because I’m a reader. Yes, I *do* skim, and especially for subtitles, but I’m a fast [skim] reader and thus often find other words than those you highlighted.
Yet, if you look for example at the Daily Mail, they have an actual TL;DR: section above each article. Interestingly enough, it’s a news property which isn't know for having a highly intellectual audience.
Sadly enough, there is no solution for that problem.
That has to do with humans and with the amount of obligations they have in life. The most obvious solution would be education, improved and higher education levels for all.
But, even educated and smart people also enjoy easygoing, not challenging content. Where social media has democratized the creation, and propagation, of such the problem has always existed and arguably in much worse forms: centralized media.
Most media organizations have a political position and thus bias. While that bias may not show in news coverage, it often shows in the topics they select to cover and the type of specialists they invite to talk/write about those topics. Even history channel has been know to romantize topics.
Because humans like being entertained and many refer, after a day of hard work, easy content over difficult topics. Whether more easy content - and thus pseudo truth - is found on social media than in centralized systems is debatable. News Corp and many a tabloid do not excel at fact-checking either, they do excel at pushing an editorial agenda and thus influencing their audience though.
Despots and demagogues cleverly make use of that as well.
But it is true that social media has made the consumption of “much content” much easier, and also cheaper, than before. At least the consumption of headlines.
Hate to say this, but YES!
As what I have seen on my Facebook news feed, it is unbelievable how people are so gullible and quick to believing what they read online. People no longer verify facts and would quickly jump into believing whatever they read especially if they love and agree with it.
This problem is magnified with how easy it is to create an account in social-medias. People who have no authority and/or credibility to spread news and information are acting like they do, all for the sake of followers, likes and influence which is very unlike before wherein the only source of information for people are credible ones like books, newspapers and television.
Also due to how easy it is to create a website now and since it pays really well. A lot of people took this opportunity and have started creating "click bait articles" just to earn some extra money. This I think is why pseudo-knowledge or false news is so rampant on social medias nowadays.
The only solution I think for this would be a law that forbids anyone who is unauthorized or don't have any credibility to disseminate information or a law where it prohibits anyone to spread Fake News. It would also be great if everyone verify first what they read online before sharing it.
Don’t you think that constantly highlighting (bolding out) few important bits contributes to a culture of only skimming and thus possibly even more adoption of barely fact-checked knowledge?
Now that you mention it, Yes I think so too!
Highlighting or emphasizing certain parts do create a culture of only skimming but I somehow think it is much more better than not highlighting or emphasizing your point at all. People now are usually in a hurry to read and will only skim a long article and/or mostly focus on the images being presented. Emphasizing your points makes the reader easily grasp the whole article.
I do apologize for the many bold parts in my answer in here though. :)
I don’t mind because I’m a reader. Yes, I *do* skim, and especially for subtitles, but I’m a fast [skim] reader and thus often find other words than those you highlighted.
Yet, if you look for example at the Daily Mail, they have an actual TL;DR: section above each article. Interestingly enough, it’s a news property which isn't know for having a highly intellectual audience.
Perfect example, picked from their actual front page: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6161741/Feds-probe-suspicious-money-transfers-Trump-Tower-meeting.html
Remember though that highlighting targets eyeballs and can thus be a mechanic to bias.
>highlighting targets eyeballs and can thus be a mechanic to bias
Can't agree more and is actually a common media tactic nowadays :)
Nice book excerpt in the Guardian today.
View this answer on Musing.io