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
Psychologist say you came to comment section just because of that heading.
They’re goddam right!
No shit. It’s almost like human attention has limits that don’t scale like a hockey stick.
Now reading out of spite
I don’t read 90% of the articles because they’re mostly crap.
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.
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.
Politics, sensationalism, click bait, fear mongering. A lot of content is useless to me.
Maybe they are just aware of clickbait bullshit? Make headlines deliver on the payload of the article.
I wonder how many of us will read this article lol (I haven’t).
I confirm
Here’s the direct link to the paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-02067-4 And they shared their code used to query the data here: https://github.com/geocomplexity/SwoCMetaURL/blob/main/Code.md
This headline is barely even about the article. The blurb provides enough context to know what the content is about atleast.
But apparently most links on social media don’t even do that.
It’s accidentally proving its point, much like that meme where the paper on the inaccessibility of science is being denied by a paywall.
Jokes on you I read the summary which is totally enough to cover the actual content of the article with no lack of detailed information whatsoever.
