That big News icon on iOS devices might be sucking in more readers than you realise…
For all the panic, soul-searching and debate about the “fake news” phenomenon, there’s one basic truth I rarely see discussed.
Much of the blame for the spread of “fake news” can be placed squarely at the feet of the general public, far too few of whom actually apply critical thinking to the things they share on social media. And agreeing with the sentiment is no excuse for sharing something fake – that’s just cognitive bias at work:
But I agree with the sentiment, so it’s OK to share NO. NO. NO. That’s not good enough any more. Maybe that was OK back in the innocent noughties, but if you’re willing to reflexively share this without engaging your critical thinking, then I’ll bet that you’re willing to share more serious bullshit memes without thinking them through.
There’s a kind of arrogant paternalism in thinking that we can “save” people from “fake news”, without this central problem being addressed.
Interesting summation of Medium’s current business philosphy from Ev Williams:
If remuneration is not part of the equation for why you publish, I can’t imagine a stand-alone web site serving you better than Medium in terms of cost, simplicity, and, most importantly, reaching an audience.
If remuneration is part of your equation, you’re also in the right place, as long as you’re not looking to build an advertising-funded site.
(Worth noting: this was in response to a post listing all the publications that have quit Medium.)
Google search no longer shows results as you type, waiting until you've finished your query. Why this return to 2009's search?
"Pivot to Video" seems to be the new excuse for layoffs - but how realistic is it?
Can you enhance a membership model with exclusive, behind-the-scenes content? Josh Marshall thinks so…
Why your site homepage is a different beast from your newspaper front page
Are persistent social sharing buttons and bars making sites less readable?
How does the infamous Infowars make money? It's not by advertising…
A year on - is The Times's controversial editions publishing strategy delivering growth for the title?