> Merely reading false news posts [makes inaccurate beliefs] subsequently seem more true. >the widespread sharing of misinformation on social media is also sur

> Merely reading false news posts [makes inaccurate beliefs] subsequently seem more true. >the widespread sharing of misinformation on social media is also surprising, given the outlandishness of much of this content. Emotional reactions plausibly drive the first observation, so the second observation shouldn't be surprising. If it really is, then they don't see the emotional component. And yet: >Our results suggest that the current design of social media platforms—in which users scroll quickly through a mixture of serious news and emotionally engaging content, and receive instantaneous quantified social feedback on their sharing—may discourage people from reflecting on accuracy. They conclude that distraction is the cause, and that nagging users will solve it ("reminding them about accuracy in a subtle way that should avoid reactance"). Yet if the study is flawed, and the distraction tied up in emotional outrage, wounded identity, and spite, then those nags may only insense the users more. Of course, considering already-distracted Mechanical Turk workers and people who link to "right-leaning sites that professional fact-checkers have rated as highly untrustworthy" shows that the authors of the study failed to consider much more than emotional actors.