Astronomers Have Discovered Another Earth

Advertisement
It's big news, set to shock and amaze the world.

But unfortunately, it's got nothing to do with a second Earth or better Planet than Earth planet.

However, since you're now reading, you'll almost certainly be interested in this research that looked into the clicking and sharing behaviors of social media users reading content (or not) and then sharing it on social media.



We here at Sci-Tech Universe noticed long ago that many of our followers will happily like, share and offer an opinion on an article - all without ever reading it. We're not the only ones to notice this. NPR shared an article on their Facebook page which asked "Why doesn't America read anymore?". The joke, of course, is that there was no article. They waited to see if their followers would weigh in with an opinion without clicking the link, and they weren't disappointed.


We've been hoping for a chance to try it ourselves, and this seemed like the perfect opportunity.

A group of computer scientists at Columbia University and the French National Institute looked into a dataset of over 2.8 million online news articles that were shared via Twitter. The study found that up to 59 percent of links shared on Twitter have never actually been clicked by that person’s followers, suggesting that social media users are more into sharing content than actually clicking on and reading it.

“People are more willing to share an article than read it,” the study’s co-author Arnaud Legout said in a statement, Washington Post reports. “This is typical of modern information consumption. People form an opinion based on a summary, or a summary of summaries, without making the effort to go deeper.”

This study looks into the psychology behind what makes people want to share content. Research conducted by The New York Times Customer Insight Group looked into what motivates people to share information. Just under half of the people asked in the survey said they share information on social media to inform people and to “enrich” those around them. Conversely, they found 68 percent share to reinforce and project a certain image of them – in a sense, to “define” them.

In the words of one participant from the study: “I try to share only information that will reinforce the image I’d like to present: thoughtful, reasoned, kind, interested and passionate about certain things.”

It also raises the question of whether online media is just a massive “echo chamber”, where we all just like pages and viewpoints that reinforce our own beliefs and are not interested in information for the sake of information. Even the algorithms of social media sites mean that individuals or pages that you tend to click on, like, or share – which are most often the articles or viewpoints that you agree with – will more frequently turn up on your News Feed.

As a user of online media, you’re probably quite aware of this.

So, if you are one of the lucky few who managed to click and read this article, we congratulate you! Although we do apologize for the misleading headline. In the meanwhile, have fun sharing the article and seeing who manages to chair a discussion on Earth 2.0, without ever reading it.

Astronomy

Behavior

Post A Comment:

69 comments:

  1. Nasty but so true

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They are just desperate to get "likes" from their friends--those who will likely also not read this article

      Delete
    2. Although, I do not appreciate being misguided, I found the concept of people sharing articles without reading them intriguing. I've, on occasion, shared or "archived" links to articles for me to read at a later time though, but I've never not read any of them.

      Delete
    3. Please stop waisting my time you idiots. If Science tech. Has nothing else to do but goof off, then I'm outta here.

      Delete
    4. I actually read this

      Delete
    5. *wasting

      Delete
  2. It's better than Earth only because that planet doesn't have liberals mooching off its government, raising taxes on job providing businesses, bashing police doing their jobs, and voting for Killary Klinton. Hahahahahaha. :-p

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Man, an article made just for you :-)

      Delete
    2. ROTFL! Exactly Angelos!

      Delete
    3. This article is about people like you, you dim wit.

      Delete
    4. While the inane article was specifically about people not reading before posting, it has also amply demonstrated how, many people post without thinking either. I posted the same thing (as above) on their Facebook page and was attacked by people who first, didn't think--much less see it was a joke--then defended their shallow response to the end. Once some people make a mistake nothing can get them to recognize it and adjust their response, they simply keep posting they are right and their 'opponent' is wrong/lying/etc. So, while unintentional, this silly article really demonstrated how people lack critical thinking and the ability to adjust their thinking when new information becomes available. Such a vapid article, yet with such far-reaching implications!

      Delete
    5. So basically youre just trolling.

      Delete
    6. lol..
      (I wanted to chastise about using "artist concepts" as represenative of proven truths)... But ummmm "nevemind!:

      Delete
    7. Definitely something to think about

      Delete
    8. Definitely something to think about

      Delete
    9. Definitely something to think about

      Delete
    10. This is bull shit why make some post that not even relevant to what the person click on! Interesting so you use the cover judge the book by its cover tactic to get people to read your shity ass posts haha. Well I read to part where you said well unfortunately there not and said fuck your post your stupid I don't need stats and statistics on how retarded people are okay I know people can barely read and write and hardly can do basic math. Just turn the tv on or the radio it all about celebrities and other idiot's let me guess close to 75 of the people don't read what there sharing oh wait they read the introduction and conclusion haha

      Delete
  3. Thanks for adding to the noise.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Never believe in statistics unless you falsified them yourself". The same can be said about the source of your statistics you provided. Congratulations on being part of the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Good point, but do you bother to read the repys?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can find a lot of people doing the same in comments of this post on Facebook page. And yes I bother!

      Delete
    2. So did I, I hope that those that don't are spending the time they save going out and participating in their more immediate environment. Preferably in a way that makes life better.

      Delete
    3. I generally have several possible reasons to share something. One it sparks my interest such as the title of this article. Sometimes it turns out to be fake like this one was though at least this one was meant as a study on the behaviors of modern day people in regards to clicking and commenting as to whether or not they read the article before sharing or reading it.
      Sometimes I share things because I like a photo that comes with it or even a video that comes with it. Sometimes I do it to look at later. This generally happens when I am in a hurry or need to be somewhere so I don't have time to read it when I encounter it. A lot of those times I make it only visible to myself.
      I try to fact check things but often don't bother yet is someone says something that indicates that a post is faulty for some reason or another I will often either delete it or reply thanking them for the information.

      Delete
  6. You nailed it! It's a worldwide psychological phenomenon! Finding out that people really do not read articles undermines the mythical political power of social networks or not?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can find a large of number of people, who have commented on the article without reading it, on link i posted on the page.

      Delete
    2. Interesting :) but am asking my self if am going to share it even after reading it like you asked wouldn't it be a bias in your study?

      Delete
    3. Both: people share and form opinions on reading -and- information needs to be made so it's digestible in how it's shared. Social media formats shared articles as PICTURE-HEADLINE-little blurb. So a third part: how social media serves forth information is probably the biggest part - everything else we say and do about it plays into the "everyone is stupid but me" mental construct.

      Delete
  7. I have often wondered the same! tempted to share, but actually read the article
    I only share if I only read the heading LOL ~B~

    ReplyDelete
  8. It's so funny! I share stuff without reading it all the time, but usually when it's stuff that is reinforcing facts that I have already researched and feel confident to be true....e.g. I would share an article on saving the bees because I have already researched the topic, and want my friends to read it and get on board. I bothered to read this article because it was new information that I hadn't yet validated. Cool study to stumble upon, and thank god there isn't a new Earth, then no doubt we'd give up on this one entirely!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Some people share it to their page to read it later... Then forget to read it.
    Do you take that into account? I'm reading this because a friend was tagged... And I usually like anything associated with her.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I hate you dear author of this article, as I clicked this article to find more resources and material for post apocalyptic scifi rpg project!

    I like to find new information and challenge my view of world and all of my knowledge, like Plato succested you should do. It's actually very fun to absorb knowledge that differs one you have always thinked to be other ways and then trying come to new view of things based your current knowledge based on your old and new knowledge of matter and also your own conclusions and/or theories based of everything about them... I might say first "That's not true and then start to think about it, maybe trying to find more knowledge about it, ponder and theoriazing about it in my head (while muttering it about it, I do mutter my thoughts aloud a lot)...

    ReplyDelete
  11. Good point!!! Sadly this is what we all have become, not only America.

    Now the question is, to share or not to share? Do I want to mislead people who, as you say, most likely just share or like this...

    ReplyDelete
  12. Too bad! I thought I would at last learn where to go with my friends Elon and Stephen. ;-)
    But thanks for this information:
    59% ! I didn't imagine it was that much!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thinking about it I would say it's was high than 59% but I'm not the one doing the inputting of the fax about this blog

    ReplyDelete
  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Really thought I was going to read about a cool planet, but this study you have done, and the results you posted, was interesting. Now I am ready to indulge in info about "what's out THERE". Keep up the good work.

    ReplyDelete
  16. This is the first time I write in this site. But the article is worth enough to do so!

    We live in the world of the tag line, the tweet and the title. No think or relfection about actual ideas or toughts... just the headline...

    ReplyDelete
  17. Really disappointed there is no new planet as described in your header! The only time I click an article I don't intend to read is when I am supporting a writer-friend but don't care too deeply for the subject. I never do it to promote myself. Mostly I read the articles I share.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I would also go to say that 75% of shared posts, are shared without researching the content. Nice research project you have going here.😂😂

    ReplyDelete
  19. Me so horny

    ReplyDelete
  20. Todos mis comentarios en FB los realizo sobre noticias publicadas por el diario más ultra conservador. Jamas publico una noticia sin comentarla personalmente, publicando la noticia original íntegramente. Sin embargo, no han faltado los que han tachado la noticia de "marxista", pues no menciono el nombre del diario "ultra conservador".

    ReplyDelete
  21. This shouldn't be a surprise. to paraphrase Jeff Brenzel (Yale University), the Library of Congress has over 20 million volumes (not including journals, publications, blogs, wikipedia, or other internet pages); yet, if you read one book a week, for 50 years, you'd only be able to get through approximately 2,600 books. In other words, we need to be extremely picky about what we choose to read in life. (cf. http://bigthink.com/videos/strange-beauty-how-reading-the-classics-will-change-you )

    ReplyDelete
  22. Fuck you, and your clickbait.

    ReplyDelete
  23. What no Earth 2.0, Thanks for tricking me. I did enjoy the article and I am glad I still take the time to read an article before sharing.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Absolutely love this !

    ReplyDelete
  25. Why does anyone care if the people actually read the shared article or not? People share for differing reasons - a title, alone, is sometimes sufficient for others. It's almost as though it is "wrong" of others to share an article without reading it. Why? It's information sharing. It's up to the reader/observer/individual receiving shared article... to determine what they believe/how they perceive it. It's as though the implication is that people aren't competent enough to make decisions for themselves anymore. Why are people concerned about this? I think it's stupid. It's an article - not a CPR manual.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Off-topic, but entertaining. This brings up a couple of other sad practices.

    1. Received link, but why?? When I send a link to someone, I usually write a 1-sentence summary of what I think is the key point. That way, the recipient doesn't need to guess why I think the article is important. Almost nobody else I know does this, and I'm disappointed at being an outlier.

    2. Click-bait: The author might not be the headliner. It is possible that an author writes a responsible article and a copy editor (or whoever) decides to put on a catchy click-bait headline which misrepresents the article. Readers then berate the author for the headline. I've tried to explain that the headline writer and the article author may be two different people. I've pretty much been ignored; so I've stopped. But I'm pretty sure this is a widespread dirty little secret of on-line journalism.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I didn't share it and I didn't read ALL of it either. fyi. Thanks for the insight.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I'd love to share it but boy, wouldn't I look stupid ��������

    ReplyDelete
  29. i only read if its generates curiosity. i dont have time to read and share everything. simple.

    ReplyDelete
  30. this is a bullshit article to justify clickbait headlines in order to get traffic to view and click on silly adverts all over this page. that is all.

    ReplyDelete
  31. well, could be true but still is no reason to share...I will wait for the real news about second earth..to share

    ReplyDelete
  32. I don't think it makes sense to expect that just because an article is shared, people are commenting on that article. Some are just looking for reasons to give opinion on topics, and could care less what the article is arguing. And people treat this as wrong, but is it? If so, why is it wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  33. This article is being regurgitated over so many clickbait style sites, it is becoming annoying now.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Read it ��

    ReplyDelete
  35. read it all, fascinating

    ReplyDelete
  36. You could've at least blurred out the peoples' names shown in the comment thread screenshot.

    ReplyDelete
  37. i think it's funny you need to test this, I've seen this borne out just by watching my own social media. :) People don't read, they just click and move on.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Man, I was really hoping for another planet to possibly exist, so I could escape this crazy planet of crazies. Good article none the less.

    ReplyDelete
  39. What a disappointment!! I really was excited to see if there was another earth out there!! even though you are probably right, this sucked!!

    ReplyDelete
  40. Ok, you guys suck. This is literally the worst clickbait I've ever given a chance to be real. I don't care about your research. I don't care about the article. I didn't read past the first paragraph or two to understand that you decided to lie to me. That you did so is really annoying, and I immediately will never attempt to come to your site again. Seriously, clickbait is bad enough. You just blatantly lied. This is the most egregious attempt to grab clicks that I've ever seen.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I guess the headline, "Why doesn't America read anymore," was accurate.

    ReplyDelete
  42. stupid article! I dont see any relevance at all.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Seriously, FU. This is disingenuous click bait. You've wasted my time with a bait and switch. Not following you anymore. Oh, and I read every link I post since I need to be ready to defend my position. Again, FU.

    ReplyDelete