They are right 🤣
this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2024
99 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37800 readers
86 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I can't say I'm too confident about data that was obtained by methods including 1) Facebook data collection (we trust that now?), 2) machine learning and 3) potentially nebulous, unspecific definitions of various political groups. Still, allow me to indulge in some confirmation bias, if you will:
This shouldn't surprise anyone, if you ask me. People are stressed and limited on time. Of course they'll take shortcuts!
On places like Bluesky, most articles, videos or news content I'd share would have more to do with how much I trust the person posting or sharing it than with its main body of content. I figure that someone I value has read it, and so I skip it, because reading it would feel like work and I have to deal with enough of that as it is.
Places like here, I take more caution, but as a direct consequence of that you'll notice I really don't post very much at all. Comments, sure, but that's because those are more my opinion than anything else. I don't have the bandwidth to put through more effort than I already am.
On places like Bluesky, most articles, videos or news content I’d share would have more to do with how much I trust the person posting or sharing it than with its main body of content. I figure that someone I value has read it, and so I skip it, because reading it would feel like work and I have to deal with enough of that as it is.
Not to mention, "You won't believe this one cool thing!" type headlines (like this one) are classic clickbaiting, and nobody wants to read a 10 page article that's basically just advertising.
missed their chance to make the body be a rickroll to catch everyone rebelling by clicking the headline to prove they don't obey authority.
Unfortunately, Sci-Hub doesn't have the requested document:
10.1038/s41562-024-02067-4
Rats! Anybody got a pdf?
I wasn't sure how to lazily and semi securely send you a pdf, so check your DMs
Wish it were possible to safely share this stuff more widely, but in the meantime, internet nerds gotta help each other out
What is the thing being shared here?
The paper mentioned in the OP, ( https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-02067-4 ) (paywalled link)
o7 Thank you!
Sci-hub is frozen in about 2021 due to a court case or something, as far as I remember, so new papers won't be on there
Ahhh, thank you.
I'm grateful for OPs who paste at least some of the relevant information into the post without having to click on the link. Personally it's better to avoid going to the site since you're bombarded with cookie notices, subscription solicitations, browser notification requests, and even ads of you're not using uBlock.
Go in your ublock filter lists and turn on all annoyance lists
It doesn't block them by default
Not to mention the tracking (ok, you mentioned cookie notices, but not the actual tracking) that will ultimately impact your social media feeds.
"Huh, my friend-across-the-aisle just posted something that contradicts my world view, but I'm not sure I trust that site. If I click on it, will my feed suddenly be flooded with more untrustworthy sources?"
It's usually not worth the risk.
Best
Clickbait
Headline
EVER!
I wish I could remember the article, but years ago there was some article with an outrageous headline, and the entire article was how nobody reads the article.
The researchers found that these links were shared over 41 million times, without being clicked. Of these, 76.94% came from conservative users and 14.25% from liberal users. The researchers explained that the vast majority—up to 82%—of the links to false information in the dataset originated from conservative news domains.
But what about the comments? How many are reading those?
the vast majority—up to 82%—of the links to false information in the dataset originated from conservative news domains.
around 75% of the shares were made without the posters clicking the link first
I would have guessed the number to be high, but not that high.
Can confirm.