I'm just terrified of the results of this research to be honest. While Facebook certainly don't offer a reliable source of news (and that's a platform fault)... turning to WhatsApp is basically...
“We continue to see a rise in the use of messaging apps for news as consumers look for more private (and less confrontational) spaces to communicate,” Newman said.
I'm just terrified of the results of this research to be honest.
While Facebook certainly don't offer a reliable source of news (and that's a platform fault)... turning to WhatsApp is basically taking for gold whatever your chosen contacts tells you.
I couldn't imagine ever saying this words: It's even worse than facebook.
Yeah don't you have to be invited to a group to even use WhatsApp? I mean it's not like you can just download it and start talking to people right? You have to know the group or be invited? So any...
Yeah don't you have to be invited to a group to even use WhatsApp? I mean it's not like you can just download it and start talking to people right? You have to know the group or be invited? So any information you're getting is from a specific set of people right?
Yeah, basically you only get information from people you probably find more close to your same viewpoint, through the "story" feature. I never used it so I'm not so sure.
Yeah, basically you only get information from people you probably find more close to your same viewpoint, through the "story" feature. I never used it so I'm not so sure.
Nah, people use the "story" feature just like Snapchat or Instagram. This is different. I only know of this situation in Brazil, where fake news spread like wildfire. Recently, this image was...
Nah, people use the "story" feature just like Snapchat or Instagram. This is different.
I only know of this situation in Brazil, where fake news spread like wildfire. Recently, this image was shared in Facebook and WhatsApp groups. On Facebook, it was removed after a few days and didn't spread as much. But we have no idea how far people have spread this message over WhatsApp groups.
A translation of the image: "There are 193 countries in the world, ONLY THREE OF THEM use electronic voting machines, BRAZIL, CUBA, AND VENEZUELA [angry emoji]"
The implication here is that Brazil is going to be a communist country if you vote for the wrong group. I mean, it's crazy stuff, but some people really believe in this shit. Mostly old people and uneducated young people from what I see in my daily life.
Is this any different than a headline saying youngsters are talking to their friends about news rather than in public places? Or am I just completely not grasping the usage here? Like I could see...
Facebook and Twitter are still used by many users to discover news but the discussion then takes place on messaging apps such as WhatsApp, often because people feel less vulnerable discussing events on such apps.
Is this any different than a headline saying youngsters are talking to their friends about news rather than in public places? Or am I just completely not grasping the usage here?
Like I could see an extreme of this where we revert back to local bubbles and don't interact with the outside world, but this is fighting against everything else that's happened to communication since the industrial revolution. I can't read this as anything other than a response to toxic public forums.
I might argue that it's a good thing to be taking news sources from elsewhere and dragging them back into the people who directly impact your life. It could serve to further connect those things and make it less far off. I admit that because most of my news discussion occurs with strangers who likely don't live near me, I'm not as in touch with the local perspective as I should be.
It's different because of the reach of it and the predominance it's getting. If you've only your group of friends with which you discuss things, you end up with a rather close vision and...
It's different because of the reach of it and the predominance it's getting.
If you've only your group of friends with which you discuss things, you end up with a rather close vision and representation of the reality. It's bad but it's also limited to the 4-5 close people you talk with about this, at the bar.
With an app like whatsapp you can literally form "a cult" around a single personality that act as news source across the entire globe if you want. And, potentially, nobody can notice it until it's formed because, well, it's a private group, not an open website that publish news.
I don't see anything (in this article) suggesting that it's the only way people are consuming news. It also doesn't make any claims about news discovery changing, only discussion. I imagine that...
I don't see anything (in this article) suggesting that it's the only way people are consuming news. It also doesn't make any claims about news discovery changing, only discussion. I imagine that just means stumbling upon news as it's been for a while now and sending a link to talk about it with your friends.
I hardly find "young people are using facebook less and talking to their friends more about news" as a scary thing, honestly. Not much of value is being lost in not shouting at strangers online, and it's being replaced by something which is basically the status quo for humanity: discussing it with the people in our lives (except with more access to different news than we would've had in the past, of course).
I think it's a shame that with all this great technology, the main places that we discuss these things are complete shitholes that the youth don't find much reason to participate in, but I can't see what they're turning to as some harmful evil.
Full research can be found here, but the current link is broken. I already e-mailed Reuters and tweeted to Nic Newman to see if this is fixed soon. 2. Over half (54%) agree or strongly agree that...
Full research can be found here, but the current link is broken. I already e-mailed Reuters and tweeted to Nic Newman to see if this is fixed soon.
2. Over half (54%) agree or strongly agree that they are concerned about what is real and fake on the internet. This is highest in countries like Brazil (85%), Spain (69%), and the United States (64%) where polarised political situations combine with high social media use. It is lowest in Germany (37%) and the Netherlands (30%) where recent elections were largely untroubled by concerns over fake content.
I guess I'll highlight a few things that Reuters found out: I should mention this year is election year in Brazil. Something else that is interesting to read: New York Times Co. Subscription...
I guess I'll highlight a few things that Reuters found out:
Across all countries, the average level of trust in the news remains relatively stable at 44%, with just over half (51%) agreeing that they trust the news media they themselves use most of the time. By contrast, 34% of respondents say they trust news they find via search, and fewer than a quarter (23%) say they trust the news they find in social media.
Over half (54%) agree or strongly agree that they are concerned about what is real and fake on the internet. This is highest in countries like Brazil (85%), Spain (69%), and the United States (64%) where polarised political situations combine with high social media use. It is lowest in Germany (37%) and the Netherlands (30%) where recent elections were largely untroubled by concerns over fake content.
I should mention this year is election year in Brazil.
There is some public appetite for government intervention to stop ‘fake news’, especially in Europe (60%) and Asia (63%). By contrast, only four in ten Americans (41%) thought that government should do more.
For the first time researchers measured news literacy. Those with higher levels of news literacy tend to prefer newspaper brands over TV, and use social media for news very differently from the wider population. They are also more cautious about interventions by governments to deal with misinformation.
With Facebook looking to incorporate survey-driven brand trust scores into its algorithms, we reveal in this report the most and least trusted brands in 37 countries based on similar methodologies. We find that brands with a broadcasting background and long heritage tend to be trusted most, with popular newspapers and digital-born brands trusted least.
Last year’s significant increase in subscriptions in the United States (the so-called Trump Bump) has been maintained, while donations and donation-based memberships are emerging as a significant alternative strategy in Spain, and the UK as well as in the United States. These payments are closely linked with political belief and come disproportionately from the young.
Television remains a critical source of news for many – but declines in annual audience continue to raise new questions about the future role of public broadcasters and their ability to attract the next generation of viewers.
Consumers remain reluctant to view news video within publisher websites and apps. Over half of consumption happens in third-party environments like Facebook and YouTube. Americans and Europeans would like to see fewer online news videos; Asians tend to want more.
Podcasts are becoming popular across the world due to better content and easier distribution. They are almost twice as popular in the United States (33%) as they are in the UK (18%). Young people are far more likely to use podcasts than listen to speech radio.
Podcasts have been very popular in Brazil too. I really enjoy listening to them while playing something chill, like Europa Universalis. I used to listen to it while playing Euro Truck Simulator too, but I need a new controller.
Voice-activated digital assistants like the Amazon Echo and Google Home continue to grow rapidly, opening new opportunities for news audio. Usage has more than doubled in the United States, Germany, and the UK with around half of those who have such devices using them for news and information.
I wonder how much of this is due to publishers' video players inevitably being utter crap (relative to e.g. YouTube).
Consumers remain reluctant to view news video within publisher websites and apps. Over half of consumption happens in third-party environments like Facebook and YouTube.
I wonder how much of this is due to publishers' video players inevitably being utter crap (relative to e.g. YouTube).
The only auto-playing video player I was "okay" with was Bloomberg's. But I hated it when it was unrelated to the news article I was reading. I liked when it was a bit from Bloomberg TV that...
The only auto-playing video player I was "okay" with was Bloomberg's. But I hated it when it was unrelated to the news article I was reading. I liked when it was a bit from Bloomberg TV that complemented the written news article.
Publisher's like New York Times and Bloomberg make great videos, but the videos shouldn't auto-play if the video is not talking about the same thing on the news article. In this article, "Bitcoin’s Price Was Artificially Inflated Last Year, Researchers Say", the video explains what Bitcoin/Ethereum is, but the video is completely unrelated to the information written. It's fine to explain what Bitcoin is in this context, but this should be in a hyperlink, i don't know, it simply shouldn't get as much attention as the written article.
You can get lost with so much information in just one link.
I'm just terrified of the results of this research to be honest.
While Facebook certainly don't offer a reliable source of news (and that's a platform fault)... turning to WhatsApp is basically taking for gold whatever your chosen contacts tells you.
I couldn't imagine ever saying this words: It's even worse than facebook.
Yeah don't you have to be invited to a group to even use WhatsApp? I mean it's not like you can just download it and start talking to people right? You have to know the group or be invited? So any information you're getting is from a specific set of people right?
Yeah, basically you only get information from people you probably find more close to your same viewpoint, through the "story" feature. I never used it so I'm not so sure.
Nah, people use the "story" feature just like Snapchat or Instagram. This is different.
I only know of this situation in Brazil, where fake news spread like wildfire. Recently, this image was shared in Facebook and WhatsApp groups. On Facebook, it was removed after a few days and didn't spread as much. But we have no idea how far people have spread this message over WhatsApp groups.
A translation of the image: "There are 193 countries in the world, ONLY THREE OF THEM use electronic voting machines, BRAZIL, CUBA, AND VENEZUELA [angry emoji]"
The implication here is that Brazil is going to be a communist country if you vote for the wrong group. I mean, it's crazy stuff, but some people really believe in this shit. Mostly old people and uneducated young people from what I see in my daily life.
Is this any different than a headline saying youngsters are talking to their friends about news rather than in public places? Or am I just completely not grasping the usage here?
Like I could see an extreme of this where we revert back to local bubbles and don't interact with the outside world, but this is fighting against everything else that's happened to communication since the industrial revolution. I can't read this as anything other than a response to toxic public forums.
I might argue that it's a good thing to be taking news sources from elsewhere and dragging them back into the people who directly impact your life. It could serve to further connect those things and make it less far off. I admit that because most of my news discussion occurs with strangers who likely don't live near me, I'm not as in touch with the local perspective as I should be.
It's different because of the reach of it and the predominance it's getting.
If you've only your group of friends with which you discuss things, you end up with a rather close vision and representation of the reality. It's bad but it's also limited to the 4-5 close people you talk with about this, at the bar.
With an app like whatsapp you can literally form "a cult" around a single personality that act as news source across the entire globe if you want. And, potentially, nobody can notice it until it's formed because, well, it's a private group, not an open website that publish news.
I don't see anything (in this article) suggesting that it's the only way people are consuming news. It also doesn't make any claims about news discovery changing, only discussion. I imagine that just means stumbling upon news as it's been for a while now and sending a link to talk about it with your friends.
I hardly find "young people are using facebook less and talking to their friends more about news" as a scary thing, honestly. Not much of value is being lost in not shouting at strangers online, and it's being replaced by something which is basically the status quo for humanity: discussing it with the people in our lives (except with more access to different news than we would've had in the past, of course).
I think it's a shame that with all this great technology, the main places that we discuss these things are complete shitholes that the youth don't find much reason to participate in, but I can't see what they're turning to as some harmful evil.
Full research can be found here, but the current link is broken. I already e-mailed Reuters and tweeted to Nic Newman to see if this is fixed soon.
2. Over half (54%) agree or strongly agree that they are concerned about what is real and fake on the internet. This is highest in countries like Brazil (85%), Spain (69%), and the United States (64%) where polarised political situations combine with high social media use. It is lowest in Germany (37%) and the Netherlands (30%) where recent elections were largely untroubled by concerns over fake content.
This part scared the hell out of me
I guess I'll highlight a few things that Reuters found out:
I should mention this year is election year in Brazil.
Something else that is interesting to read: New York Times Co. Subscription Revenue Surpassed $1 Billion in 2017
Reddit: Native video ads are here!. Awful timing, guys.
Podcasts have been very popular in Brazil too. I really enjoy listening to them while playing something chill, like Europa Universalis. I used to listen to it while playing Euro Truck Simulator too, but I need a new controller.
creepy!
I wonder how much of this is due to publishers' video players inevitably being utter crap (relative to e.g. YouTube).
The only auto-playing video player I was "okay" with was Bloomberg's. But I hated it when it was unrelated to the news article I was reading. I liked when it was a bit from Bloomberg TV that complemented the written news article.
Publisher's like New York Times and Bloomberg make great videos, but the videos shouldn't auto-play if the video is not talking about the same thing on the news article. In this article, "Bitcoin’s Price Was Artificially Inflated Last Year, Researchers Say", the video explains what Bitcoin/Ethereum is, but the video is completely unrelated to the information written. It's fine to explain what Bitcoin is in this context, but this should be in a hyperlink, i don't know, it simply shouldn't get as much attention as the written article.
You can get lost with so much information in just one link.
Which is also owned by Facebook, by the way.
...Oh. Suddenly that headline makes me much less happy...