Who shares the story, not who reports news, is what counts for casual readers | Hacker News Reader

Who shares the story, not who reports news, is what counts for casual readers

qz.com

69 pointspmcpinto23 comments

Before deleting my FB account, friends and family would post stuff non-stop all day long like any typical user, including photos, videos, live-stream, ect... When it came to sharing news stories, friends and family would share the most BS and ridiculous news stories and information imaginable, like "weed cures cancer" or "FB will start charging soon!" or those "like" farm posts that had some stuff you'd probably only see on rotten.com (is that still a thing?) but because they were asking for prayers and such, it was given a pass and "liked".

Anyhow, its funny how stuff like that got the most shares and likes from friends and family while anything remotely related to reality and grounded in truth was always looked over, such as anything reported by any legitimate news agency. Basically, anything that was written by some random fake news website was the most shared news by FB friends and family and taken seriously as fact (I know cause of people's comments on shared posts) cause everyone on FB trusts their friends and family and they help each other to boost their narcissistic narratives and world views.

Anyhow, moral of the story is, when you got a huge following and you post like crazy the most personal stuff, people support you no matter what you say, especially if you're family. You can spread whatever rumor you want and everyone will be on board every single time because shared news is always true and FB friends are just as smart as you are, so you trust them.

Maybe us quitters need to get back on FB and start posting nothing but links like this one to save the human race.

people don't go on FB to get persuaded by reason and evidence. it is about in-group reinforcement, otherization of disliked out-groups, scandal and rumor, and most of all it is about instant gratification and distraction from the tedium of our daily lives.

if you are aware enough to know how awful the FB environment is, and how much damage it does to your psyche, then you will quit. if you aren't aware enough to realize that then you will not be persuaded of such by someone badgering you in your news stream to be more skeptical, insightful, and reflective.

Well said! Way better than my over extended rant trying to convey similar points.

Not sure it's really a matter of trust. People just like juicy, sensational stories, and stories that cater to their weaknesses. National Enquirer has been in business since long before Facebook.

It might also be somehow that these social networks are not attractive to people in the audience who are critical of such stories.

How long do you want to spend on a site debunking stuff? That would not be much fun. Moreover, what would be the effect? Ideally, people would adjust their news filters and start to critical think for themselves. I don't think I've the right educational credentials for that. :-)

except National Inquirer was a 2 minute distraction while you stood in line waiting to pay for your groceries, whereas Facebook is a life-dominating addictive habit that displaces higher quality media consumption from the lives of its users.

Some people actually buy that rag.

Yeah I've thought about that too, people are just being entertained by all the crazy stuff on FB like they would be with National Enquirer.

I think this should be classified as a form of illiteracy. Maybe media illiteracy. A form of illiteracy where the only truths are group-held truths. An unwitting Shibboleth.

"The study did not look at the impact of stories shared by respected friends, colleagues, or family members on social media." Are we looking at a different story?

Also, one of the researcher's chosen sharers was the US Surgeon General - it's not exactly shocking that information was seen as more trustworthy than random AP articles, especially given how dire and sensationalised news coverage of health-related stories is.

16-17% more people said an article was "trustworthy" and "got the facts right" if it was recommended by someone that they trusted. 49-50% of people were still skeptical even then. This doesn't seem to be a dire sociological illness so much as an expected, common sense finding.

Unless you consider the 16% as a block of voters. I don't think any president has ever won more than a 16% margin of victory in my lifetime. Obama clocked in at ~8%, which is considered very, very high.

I'm struggling to remember the old Facebook, before it morphed into a (social) "news" aggregator. A few years ago, my news feed was mostly clever status updates and photos of some old high-school crush from last weekend. Now that sort of content is on Snapchat/Twitter/Instagram, and Facebook has what's left.

When was the last time facebook was genuinely fun for anybody?

Groups are a feature that often provide enjoyable experiences for me. I'm a member of a few that have fairly vibrant communities, focusing on art and hobbies. People share tips, questions, humor, plan events, and make friends. Overall I feel the design and experience is inferior to reddit, HN or even vBulletin, but the reach and popularity of Facebook are inescapable, which means lots of members and lots of content.

Is it just me, or is it a relatively new thing that FB focuses on public images/videos shared by friends rather than actual content made by friends.

I mean, it used till be a thing that "FB is where you go to see what your friends had for supper". Now it's more like " where you go to see news your friends likes".

I actually liked the first version more.

Interesting bastardization of a phenomenon documented in focus groups around news from a nearly decade ago:

"If the news is that important, it will find me [through social channels]."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/us/politics/27voters.html

I have always felt that was the case on FB and have been very keen to include the reporter/author, in the post, in addition to the URL and the full copy (partly because some maybe behind "censorship walls") I even try a "special" cross posting to (reddit url of a story post, to get people to see the conversation in the comments.

I have been thinking about this for a long time, it happens now on FB and whatsapp but happened earlier on email.

It's like a chain of trust where everyone trusts the last person who shared something but you never know on who you are trusting at the start of this "chain" if you share. So people share a lot of BS :/

OTOH maybe less BS than what they otherwise would?

I know that myself, I have an implicit categorization in my head about which of my FB friends knows about what, and which friends are just prone to share random clickbait. I approach the news I see accordingly.

To be fair, that's also how a lot of news gets reported in the actual media too. One forum or social media user says something interesting which then gets picked up by a bunch of smaller blogs which then in turn attract attention from well known news outlets.

It's how literal 'fake news' has gotten into the mass media. Because a bunch of smaller sites fell for a fake news site quoting a (non existent) interview from anther site, and then the likes of the Metro and Daily Mail assumed they knew what they were talking about.

And that's not even getting into industries where copy and pasting stories is seen as a 'default'. The gaming press is very easy to 'compromise' with photoshopped pictures and fake information, since everyone basically just takes their news from everyone else.

So yeah, not a social media or average Joe exclusive issue here. But one which affects the media itself.

tangential to this is the fact that a lot of 'news' is repackaging an original source for each platform

John Oliver had a great segment on this: https://youtu.be/bq2_wSsDwkQ

AP has really increased in importance as a result of this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com