It is among social media service users, and the question is just whether they get news through each service. (No inference about other sources)
Itâs probably fair to say I get most of my news from Facebook (or other social media), but when I do and itâs something major, I automatically go to actual news websites to see if the story is true. So I get news from Facebook/social media, but I donât trust it until itâs verified.
WTF? Qt3 is not on the list?
Really.
I unfollowed The Hill on Twitter. They spin their stories for maximum click bait.
Yea, I watch CNN and Fox and MSNBC and then come here to see what any of it really means. So everybody on here better know what they are talking about. :)
We have been watching the CBS Evening News lately and boy has it changed from back in the day. Basically 30 second stories run thru as if they were all on a timer. I guess today a little about something given quickly is more important than actually going in depth.
As long as I can still watch my UFO videos, YouTube, weâre good.
Please donât shut down the fun conspiracies, like ghosts and bigfoots. What are kids going to watch to freak themselves out about when camping?
Does this affect Marble Hornets?
Where will I catch up on my Breatharian community updates?
There are a lot of shitty things we can (and should) go after, but Iâm just not feeling the outrage behind âEsquire writes an article about their core demographicâ.
White adolescents read Esquire? Really?
Yeah. Of all the shit going wrong in the world, this is like complaining about mismatched cutlery while the Titanic is sinking.
Reject all arguments which are based on the idea that there is a universal law of conservation of outrage. I can complain about this and about other things. Tricky, I know, but it can be done!
Whatâs the milestone before anyone can point out stupidity or complain about issues on social media? World hunger needs to be solved?
But you must recognize that you are in the top quintile of outrage capacity
I donât think outrage needs to be capped, based on other things being worse. Thatâs ludicrous. But I also donât think âEsquire writes about the problems of suburban white guysâ merits any outrage at all. White men are their demographic, and that demographic is interested in their own experiences.
Itâs like being angry that Sports Illustrated covers football.
Also, white people are still the majority of the population. You are allowed to write stories about them.
Sure. As a private entity Esquire can write whatever it wants. I think the point of this SocMed cycle is, once again, you have free speech, but not from consequences. If Esquire wants to spend pages on the lives of a couple of random white male teens, then itâs fair that random PoC on Twitter can weigh in.