Don't believe everything you read.

[rogueslayer452]

Taken from the Crunchy Questions Meme:

What are some truths you think everyone knows, but chooses to ignore?

That you shouldn't believe everything that you read on the Internet, and that you should always double and triple check the sources before sharing something you found online, and when in doubt just don't share it at all until there's actual confirmation.

And while I don't know if people consciously choose to ignore it, I do think that, thanks to the fast-paced nature of social media, it has made people want quick information rather than doing the research for themselves so they'll believe anything that immediately pops up on their feed and share it with others. Sometimes without even reading the links provided, because if the people they follow are linking it well, then it must be reliable and true, right? This is how misinformation gets spread, unfortunately, whether purposefully or not. We've all accidentally made this mistake, I've made it several times myself over the years, it happens. But I think we should try to make it a habit of not believing everything we see online without credible sources, or treat everything we see as mere rumors until proven otherwise.

Comments

[author-by-night.livejournal.com]

YES. And we all have done it - it's not a question of that. But it's something we all have to work on.

Headlines can also be incredibly misleading. Sometimes this is just because of the nature of articles - also, having written for a paper (a school paper, but still) I can tell you that the journalists do not choose the title of the story. That's the editor's job, and I remember there being times it was so obvious the editor scanned my article and chose the title. Other times, it's brevity. I do think from time to time, there is a more manipulative tinge, which is (a) when you get clickbait, and (b) when the writer perhaps WANTS you to take something very specific away from it.

[rogueslayer452.livejournal.com]

Headlines of articles is what I thought about, because you see people sharing links to articles with the headlines and making assumptions based on that alone without actually, y'know, reading the article in question. So many people do this, especially on social media, because I think they expect other people to read it and make conclusions and not do it themselves for some reason (which in a way I get, especially if an article is very long and you want a summarized version, but at the same time it takes less than a few minutes to skim an article to see if there's any merit to what people are claiming). When in reality, headlines are often misleading or don't tell the whole story. I've seen people take something out of context and try to twist it for whatever narrative they want to spin when, no, if you actually read the article or interview or whatever you can see they're saying the exact opposite of what you're claiming they said.

And it's true that some places intentionally use misleading headlines as clickbait for their own agenda or whatever. I think we can all benefit from learning how to tell the difference or just not commenting on anything until there's further confirmation on better sources reporting on something. But in this fast-paced information world, people want to to the first to comment or report about something without checking the sources and if anything is legit.

(Funnily enough, there was a website I used to check constantly but have since stopped because of the clickbaity titles of their articles, intentionally done to be more "woke" but oftentimes it's just cringey at best and at worst the articles were poorly researched and were just written to get a certain reaction from people, and once I realized that I was like, alright, I'm out.)

[author-by-night.livejournal.com]

When in reality,
  headlines are often misleading or don't tell the whole story. I've seen
  people take something out of context and try to twist it for whatever
  narrative they want to spin when, no, if you actually read the
  article or interview or whatever you can see they're saying the exact
  opposite of what you're claiming they said.

*Nods* I've seen this so many times.  It can also lead to heated internet debates clearly borne out of one or both parties not having any damn idea what they're talking about.

So many people do this, especially on social media, because I think they  expect other people to read it and make conclusions and not do it
  themselves for some reason (which in a way I get, especially if an
  article is very long and you want a summarized version, but at the same
  time it takes less than a few minutes to skim an article to see if
  there's any merit to what people are claiming). 

I did this once, and man, did I learn my lesson. I actually almost commented with that. I was in college and an Eljay N00b, and some article talked about how a blog writer had quit because of trolls. I assumed they meant more innocent trolls and made fun of her - without reading the whole article. (This was also when making fun of "wanky" fans was a thing, so I imagine I wanted to get some kind of token for finding someone to call butthurt. IDK.) The comments were like, "um, I can't blame her, the trolls threatened her life."  I had NO idea. I ate crow very quickly. 


But in this fast-paced information world, people want to to  the first to comment or report about something without checking
  the sources and if anything is legit.
Exactly! They also want information to be delivered quickly, so even if they're not "first", they still don't have patience for verbiage. 

(Funnily enough, there was a website I used to check constantly but have  since stopped because of the clickbaity titles of their articles,
  intentionally done to be more "woke" but oftentimes it's just cringey at
  best and at worst the articles were poorly researched and were just
  written to get a certain reaction from people, and once I realized that I
  was like, alright, I'm out.)

I'm thinking:

A. Buzzfeed.

B. Upworthy.

C. Cracked.

I've heard that as far as Upworthy goes, the siteowners actually felt pressured to get clickbaity because of Facebook's algorithms. I sort of get that, but won't you lose clicks if people begin to realize they're pointless? And everyone seems to have as thinking about it, I can't remember the last time I saw someone link to an article or video from Upworthy. 

[elizalavelle.livejournal.com]

I find it's a conscious challenge to remember that just because something seems credible it really isn't. It's especially hard when it's something I already am biased to believe. I'm trying to keep reminding myself of exactly what you've said because I don't want to share misinformation.

[rogueslayer452.livejournal.com]

It's especially hard when it's something I already am biased to believe.

Oh, absolutely, and I think we're all like that to an extent, since we all have our personal biases on things and if something we see feeds into that bias we're more willing to wholeheartedly believe it even if there's no credible proof. And we have to make the conscious decision of not believing something until it's been either officially confirmed or denied.

This is an overall issue, I think, when it comes to not just how people are online but just in real life. We tend to believe things we want to hear instead of what the actual truth is.

[noybusiness.livejournal.com]

On a similar subject of choosing ignore truths, I suspect that a large percentage of the people claiming the election was stolen don't *really* think there was vote tampering. They just don't think in their heart of hearts that the votes of liberals should count.
.

[giallarhorn.livejournal.com]

I think it's just harder now, because the amount of digging you have to do sometimes- like a small offhand remark becomes a rumor, and then all it takes is someone semi-reputable or with a big enough following to report on it, and viola. Telephone magnified by several billion times.

Doesn't help when you have deliberate acts of misinformation injected into the noise, now.

[rogueslayer452.livejournal.com]

It's kind of incredible how easily it is to spread misinformation nowadays, it doesn't take much. Someone makes a vague statement on Twitter or any other social media and people will rally with speculations and then before you know it, online articles are writing up pieces to be "the first" in reporting on something. And that's all it has become, to be honest, and that's just sad.

While it can be harder to dig up certain things, I do think people should be more wary or cautious when seeing something they've read online.