Munroe's Law of Average Familiarity: Even when they're trying to compensate for it, experts in anything wildly overestimate the average person's familiarity with their field.

https://xkcd.com/1810/

To put their study into context, it suggests that if Facebook asked users to rate whether an unrelated article was accurate before allowing you to share their own, many people would pay attention to whether their own articles were accurate, and less misinformation would be shared. This could be applied universally to any news article, both for detecting people sharing it, and populating the pre-share accuracy judgement. Instead, Facebook streamlines the process to increase engagement, and people blitz through it without stopping to consider the article's accuracy at all, distracted by thinking of all the likes they'll get for posting it. According to the study, when users are already primed to judge the accuracy of an article, they are more likely to self-regulate their own misinformation.

Blonde, sure, but IDK if I'd call her hair straw.

How do you downplay "a few people" saying one thing, without giving even a single example of your imaginary opposite?

Facebook would be giving away money if they ever actually sold your data. As everyone here knows, they use that data to target the ads that they sell.

Do journalists phrase it this way out of ignorance, or is it an intentional lie to make Facebook look even worse than it is?

> I'm so totally impressed at this Way New Development Paradigm. Let's call it the "Cascade of Attention-Deficit Teenagers" model, or "CADT" for short.

Sounds like the content is just as mature and insightful as the HN ddos redirect image. I see why objecting to being linked an image of a hairy ball in a 2011 image macro was wrong of me.

So for this case, since there was a definite future time, it would indeed be imminent?