According to Digital Trends, Cornell University researchers examined nearly 11 million posts across 7 social media platforms including BlueSky, Mastodon, LinkedIn, Twitter/X, TruthSocial, Gab, and GETTR. They found that on every single platform, news from lower-credibility sites received 7% more engagement than posts from higher-credibility outlets. This pattern held true even when the same user posted both types of content, and it appeared consistently across both left-leaning and right-leaning platforms. The study revealed that sensational headlines and emotional framing drive clicks regardless of accuracy. Even AI systems struggle with news accuracy verification, meaning your feed is probably filled with unreliable content that’s performing well.
Sponsored content — provided for informational and promotional purposes.
We’re the problem too
Here’s the thing that makes this research so concerning—it’s not just about algorithms gone rogue. The study basically proves we’re actively choosing the junk food over the vegetables. When given the choice between credible reporting and sensational drama, we consistently click the drama. And platforms, being engagement machines, naturally amplify what we click.
So what happens when engagement becomes the only metric that matters? Quality journalism loses reach and influence. Good reporting gets drowned out by viral nonsense. The whole system becomes biased toward outrage rather than accuracy. It’s a vicious cycle where our own behavior trains algorithms to serve us worse content.
It’s not about left vs right
One of the most important findings here is that this isn’t a partisan issue. The pattern held across platforms with different political leanings. Whether you’re on TruthSocial or Mastodon, the same dynamic plays out—lower-quality news outperforms reliable sources.
That really challenges the narrative that misinformation is someone else’s problem. We all seem to have this built-in bias toward the sensational. The research suggests we’re rewarding outrage rather than accuracy, and that’s true regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum.
So what changes?
Platforms are apparently experimenting with credibility signals and AI fact-checking tools. We might see more prompts nudging us toward reliable sources. But honestly, how much faith should we put in platforms to fix a problem they’ve arguably helped create?
The real question is whether social media companies will actually prioritize credible sources over engagement metrics. History suggests they’ll follow the clicks. But if this research proves anything, it’s that we need to rethink our own consumption habits too. Maybe it’s time we stop blaming algorithms and start looking at our own click behavior.
You can dive deeper into the Cornell University findings or check out the full research paper for the complete picture. The evidence is pretty clear—if we want better information, we might need to start by being better consumers.
