|
|
|
|
|
|
by paranoidrobot
1939 days ago
|
|
|
> I therefore [mostly] stop trying to get it from other sources That makes the assumption that these people were looking for news sources anyway. Sure, there's going to be some people that fall into that camp. I can't provide evidence either way, but I would be entirely unsurprised if there were a large percentage of people who don't look for news with any regularity at all. They wern't interested in hitting up a news site. And to be clear, when I say news, I don't mean the latest celebrity gossip mag, or some specialist/niche publication on their particular interests that might have some news content. |
|
|
It doesn't assume that, it assumes that they would have looked if they didn't get advice at the bus stop. If I have a cut and want to know if it needs stitches, I go to the hospital. If someone at the bus stop is a doctor and tells me that I don't need stitches, then I don't go to the hospital. However, I would have gone to the hospital if there wasn't a doctor at the bus stop.
News is the same. I want to keep up to date on the news. If Facebook doesn't show me the news, I have to go to a news site to get the news. However, if Facebook shows the news and I was going there anyways, then my news needs are taken care of incidentally.
> I can't provide evidence either way, but I would be entirely unsurprised if there were a large percentage of people who don't look for news with any regularity at all. They wern't interested in hitting up a news site.
I think you're right, but it's because they get enough news from Facebook. It might be enough news for you or me, or the kind of news we like, but it is for many people.
The interesting question is how many of them would look for news if Facebook stopped serving news.