Does any of that make social media any better?
It’s the reason why they would prefer a first hand encounter from someone via social media without the narrative being twisted.
This is the lie social media sells.
Nothing is vetted. There's no standard of information hygiene on social media. Anything posted could be a misunderstanding, or fabricated, or deliberate clickbait propaganda.
In fact, that's exactly what engages the algorithms; its why modern social media is such a cesspool, because clickbait is easier to produce and more engaging than professional journalism, and the algorithm boosts that garbage to everyone.
But I'm not in this thread to argue this thoroughly.
Frankly, if you came to Lemmy with the belief that social media (especially corporate social media) is more reliable than news outlets... I don't know what to tell you.
I think your question is one of perception.
People trusted “tabloids” (newspapers) back then. They were respected institutions, generally. Public payed attention to investigative journalists, and that’s how stuff got out.
They read news. From newspapers. This was normal.
…And these kind of took over from sheer engagement, not necessarily reliability.
TBH, if someone on X told me the sky is blue, I’d still be skeptical. Hence I’m the opposite of you, I suppose: I find it wild that these artificial spaces have become the world’s de-facto news feed over professional journalism.
save