508
this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2024
508 points (99.0% liked)
Technology
57473 readers
3677 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm pretty sure the main picture on the article is what the revised opt in/out message looks like. Previously it was opt-out with just a message describing the feature with a check box to have it open Settings when you were finished with the out of box experience so that you can look at the options later.
Edit: Fixed mention of opt-in to opt-out, thanks tal.
That's how this works, isn't it? Nobody reads past the headline. Everybody feels about it super strongly, just not strongly enough to actually read about it.
This might not be Reddit, but the Reddit behavior is still here.
It's not Reddit behavior. It's just the limited capacity we have for dealing with the flood of information we're exposed to. Between that and the daily stresses of work, family and whatever else a given person has going on, there's no time to filter out what is or isn't important, there's no time for nuance or thought, there's only time enough for a knee-jerk reaction before the next aggravating thing comes along.
I mean, there's a difference between not reading an article, and several people arguing back and forth over the article that none of them have read. Reddit and Lemmy people do a lot of the latter.
Cause no one wants to look like the idiot. And when no one has read the article, it's a lot harder to dispute the claims of what the article is about. It's a vicious cycle - someone who hasn't read the actual article makes claims about it, others who also haven't read it react and before you know it, you're ten posts deep, arguing about something that may or may not have happened. All it takes is one person to make an under-informed post and another to pick up on it. The difference between thousands and millions of users affects only the probability of it happening.