Lately, it’s come to my attention there should be some sort of IQ test before people are allowed to internet. In fact, I think Facebook should stop having an age requirement of 13 and instead require people of all ages to prove they’ve reached a maturity level appropriate for posting cat pictures and arguing with strangers.
Here are some signs you may not be smart enough yet to use the internet:
You share stuff online without looking at where it came from.
Yeah, you, the one who just shared that story promising to destroy the political career of the politician you hate the most. I know, it’s so tempting, but seriously, look at the website it links to. Have you ever heard of Raw Story or Breitbart winning a Pulitzer for its journalism prowess? No? Then you might want to fact check that shit before sharing.
You keep trying to tell your friends those articles from The Onion are fake.
The only thing worse than failing to recognize fake news is failing to tell the difference between fake news and satire. The more outrageous/funny it is, the more likely it is to be satire, which is fake news intended to be funny and so exaggerated that the publisher assumes no one will be stupid enough to think it’s real.
Unfortunately, writers and publishers have been overestimating the intelligence of the public for years. Occasionally, they even overestimate the intelligence of other journalists. When I worked at a TV station, one of our reporters used a story she read in the paper about an escaped python named Monty in the area. Worse than that, she failed to even consider the date on the article, April 1. The newspaper ran a story about the TV station and “intrepid reporter” that fell for their April Fool’s Day joke article.
As a general rule, if you see something from The Onion, it’s satire and it’s meant to be funny, not taken to be the truth. (Those are instructions for all my friends who keep telling me those Onion articles aren’t real. No shit, Sherlock! Can I interest you in a story about an escaped python named Monty?)
Of course, when you have a presidential candidate/elected official who actually says and does crazy shit all the time, like, I don’t know, someone who just got elected president, it can be hard to tell the difference with lesser-known sources. Again, if you’re not sure, fact check the damn thing, or Google the source website to see if it’s known for its brilliantly witty satire.
You share stuff just because you want it to be true.
I understand the temptation, I really do. Every day I see articles screaming click-baity headlines like, “This Could Be the End of Donald Trump’s Career,” and holy SHIT do I wish that was real. HOWEVER, I am painfully aware of the vast gulf between what I want and what’s actually reality. (Case in point: My continued failure to win the fucking lottery.) Anyway, I know those headlines aren’t real, MUCH AS I WANT THEM TO BE, because:
A) No real reporter would write such a vague headline, nor would a professional journalist make a call like “the end of someone’s career.” Even if they thought it was the end of Trump’s career, the headline would just tell you what he did/said specifically, and let the public decide. (And let’s face it, the chump’s already said and done a hundred things that should have ended his career, so clearly this guy is defying all standards for the behavior of public officials and a lot of people just don’t care.) If you turned in an article with such a vague, sensationalist headline in a Jouralism 101 class, you would get it back with red marks all over that headline.
B) These types of headlines are also too vague, plus not funny enough, for satire, so this is definitely faux news.
C) The source site is inevitably not a reliable news organization.
You believe things you hear on TV and repeat them in social media flame wars, without bothering to fact check.
What, did you think fake news was limited to click-baity headlines on Facebook? No way. Do not repeat stuff you heard on Faux News—er, Fox News—without fact-checking. Keep in mind that all twenty-four-hour news channels often have a lot of time to “fill” when there’s no huge breaking news story like a politician who pays people to pee on him or whatever. They often fill this time with commentators arguing about the issues, which is fine, as long as you remember that is the equivalent to the Opinion section in the paper, and each of those commentators has an agenda. Some of them might exaggerate or outright lie, and chances are whoever’s hosting the show isn’t fact-checking everything everyone says in real time, because then they couldn’t keep up with the conversation.
Again, wanting to believe something bad you hear about a politician you don’t like doesn’t make it true. Check your facts on Snopes or Politifact before blathering that story you heard about a presidential candidate running a kiddie porn ring at a pizzeria or fathering a child with a space alien or anything else that may or may not get accepted by The Enquirer.
If you are doing any of the above things, please discontinue your usage of the internet until further notice.