Yeah, I go top comment(s) to see if the article is not clickbait. Then I'll read the summary to see if it's any good. Then I'll go to the article itself if those check out.
modern websites are a pain to navigate with popups, paywall, ads, heavy tracking that slows down navigation, autoplaying video ads etc
modern journalism = let's just report whatever the person or company says without fact checking, contextualizing or taking a stance. I believe this is done because it takes less effort and because it makes sure that the news org doesn't anger any of the persons/organizations it has tides with (for ads or direct funding)
The comments solve both problems, as lemmy is ad- and tracking-free and the people in the comments are mostly real people usually without any vested interests in the things they're discussing.
So OBVIOUSLY I only read the comments. I'll get the content of the article indirectly as it's being discussed.
This is absolutely true. I get more information and understanding from the discussion in the comments than I do the article. Using other platforms I want to read what people are discussing about the article than the article itself. Brings more depth to the conversation and the article.
Shoot, they won't just be posting a tl;dr, but a commentary on it, and sometimes really good context from their field or experience. It's basically the article, but written by a more intelligent journalist who is a part of whatever is being reported on, not just observing from interviews and phone calls (and lame corporate website 'about us' pages).
Exactly - no fluff or dancing around, they get right to the point and make concrete assertions. Then if they're wrong, people will correct them, and you get a debate that (hopefully) brings up various subtleties and connected issues for a more holistic view.
Think of it this way: There's value in having access to a list of curated content others have deemed "worth reading or looking at". But there is just as much value in engaging in some banter, provided it doesn't lead to outright war in the comments.
I admit, it is tiresome trying to seriously discuss a topic when people haven't actually read the article, but there is still an upside to a topic triggering at least enough interest to where people actually want to engage.
I tried to read the article but it was paywalled. Or it wanted me to turn off my ad blocker before I could read the article. Or it was a video. Or the source was something like www.patriotusaeaglenews.ru.
You ever used the web with javascript disabled? How do you do this on a mobile device? Are you sticking to this setting?
Lemmy is awesome to me for this reason: Mostlikely the bot comment is either at the top, or at the bottom. Former tells me that bo expert has yet entered the conversation. Maybe I have meaningful insight (I haven't yet. My shame).
The latter shows me I need to read the tldr first, before proceeding to read the conversation.
Or maybe I have already cosumed the article and I am still looking for other views on it.
Anyhow, I think it shows that the internet nowadays does no spread information, but user data.
I'm personally against the death penalty, but this article was garbage with garbage arguments. The top comments highlight why. Not only did people read the article, but they were also clear headed enough to point out all its flaws even when they are broadly on the same side as the authors.
I think they should copy paste the entire article in text and just link it in case someone need to confirm. I just dont want to open a browser and deal with site . Too much hazzle besides you are aldready going through it anyway.
Much better to just post an archive link. Lemmy’s not really big enough to garner this kind of attention yet, but copying article text wholesale is a good way to get DMCA claimed and that’s not fair to do to instance admins.