Generalised scepticism: how people navigate news on social media
Abstract
Social media is an increasingly widely used and important source of news. News on social media is ‘selected’ by a variety of actors, including the editors and journalists that produce the content, and the algorithms developed by technology companies to make automatic display decisions based on users’ past behaviour and the actions of their friends. We analyse how people navigate news on social media, and focus on their perception of the different kinds of news selection involved. The analysis uses a mixed-methods design based on focus group material and survey data from Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Across all four countries, with their different political and media systems, we find (i) that the majority do not understand exactly how the information they receive is filtered by algorithms, but they do not uncritically accept it either, because they are sceptical of all forms of selection ‒ including that performed by editors and journalists, (ii) that approval for algorithmic selection is stronger amongst younger people, and (iii) that those with a high level of interest in ‘soft’ news topics (and low interest in ‘hard’ news topics) are more likely to approve of news algorithmically selected on the basis of what their friends have consumed. We argue that the way in which most people navigate news on social media is thus based on a ‘generalised scepticism’ where people question all kinds of selection.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The myth of fake news being common makes people more skeptical of news in general.
“Similar to the idea of perceived polarization increasing actual polarization, the myth of fake news being common makes people more skeptical of news in general (Altay, Berriche, & Acerbi, 2022; Fletcher & Nielsen, 2019; Guess et al., 2021).”
From Social Drivers and Algorithmic Mechanisms on Digital Media. (2024) · cites this paper as Fletcher & Nielsen, 2019
Cites
Filter Bubbles, Echo Chambers, and Online News Consumption
Flaxman, S., Goel, S., & Rao, J. M. (2016) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfw006 · Cited by 1,992 · see citing works
The social power of algorithms
Beer, D. (2017) · Information, Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2016.1216147 · Cited by 945 · cited 1× · see citing works
“The first of these considers the broad social, political and economic implications of algorithms, predominantly using a theoretical approach (for an overview, see Beer, 2017; Kitchin, 2017).”
BackgroundAre people incidentally exposed to news on social media? A comparative analysis
Fletcher, R., & Nielsen, R. K. (2018) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444817724170 · Cited by 738 · see citing works
Self-citationPolitical News in the News Feed: Learning Politics from Social Media
Bode, L. (2016) · Mass Communication and Society · doi:10.1080/15205436.2015.1045149 · Cited by 545 · see citing works
Should we worry about filter bubbles?
Zuiderveen Borgesius, F. J., Trilling, D., Möller, J., Bodó, B., de Vreese, C. H., & Helberger, N. (2016) · Internet Policy Review · doi:10.14763/2016.1.401 · Cited by 541 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…that there is not yet any empirical evidence that warrants any strong concern, partly because current technology does not appear to be responsive enough, and partly because people have always self-selected information in line with their interests and preferences (Zuiderveen Borgesius et al., 2016).”
BackgroundFirst I "like" it, then I hide it: Folk Theories of Social Feeds
Eslami, M., Karahalios, K., Sandvig, C., Vaccaro, K., Rickman, A., Hamilton, K., & Kirlik, A. (2016) · Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2858036.2858494 · Cited by 375 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Swart, J. (2021) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/20563051211008828 · Cited by 381 · see citing works
Social Media, Echo Chambers, and Political Polarization
Barberá, P. (2020) · Social Media and Democracy · doi:10.1017/9781108890960.004 · Cited by 373 · see citing works
Bryanov, K., & Vziatysheva, V. (2021) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0253717 · Cited by 211 · see citing works
Social Drivers and Algorithmic Mechanisms on Digital Media.
Metzler, H., & Garcia, D. (2024) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/17456916231185057 · Cited by 204 · see citing works
“Similar to the idea of perceived polarization increasing actual polarization, the myth of fake news being common makes people more skeptical of news in general (Altay, Berriche, & Acerbi, 2022; Fletcher & Nielsen, 2019; Guess et al., 2021).”
AI ‘Everywhere and Nowhere’: Addressing the AI Intelligibility Problem in Public Service Journalism
Jones, B., Jones, R., & Luger, E. (2022) · Digital Journalism · doi:10.1080/21670811.2022.2145328 · Cited by 84 · see citing works
How Effective Are Interventions Against Misinformation?
Altay, S. (2022) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/sm3vk · Cited by 32 · see citing works
- Authors
- Fletcher, R., & Nielsen, R. K.
- Affiliations
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Fletcher, Richard
- Venue
- Information, Communication & Society
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2018-03-20
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1751-1769
- ISSN
- 1369-118X (ISSN-L)
- 1468-4462
- OpenAlex
- W2790098223
- Cited by
- 146
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 15 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3
- FWCI
- 31.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Information Communication & Society (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Google (CTR00220)
- Digital News Report (CTR00150)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Social Sciences › Communication › Media Studies and Communication
- Social Sciences › Communication › Communication and COVID-19 Impact
- Keywords
- social media news, news selection, algorithmic filtering, young audiences
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review