Question Description
Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions:It’s tempting to think that viral misinformation is a modern invention of social media and malicious actors. In fact, “fake news” is as old as news itself. For centuries, falsehoods have been shared widely as facts and stood uncorrected for months or years, even becoming accepted truth. Many of these stories were consequence-free, such as the widely believed report in 1569 of a Leicestershire woman who was “confirmed” to have given birth to a cat. Others led to tragedy and horror, such as viral rumors that the Black Plague was caused by Jews poisoning wells, which led to executions and violent pogroms throughout EuropeRegardless of the era, rumors and falsehoods spread via two basic steps: discovery, then amplification of unverified knowledge. What’s different now is that today’s communication platforms have fundamentally transformed the way information flows, propelling viral rumors exponentially faster and farther than ever. Widespread belief in certain types of viral rumors poses a threat to institutions that we rely on, including democracy itself. An urgent question has emerged: How can we mitigate the kind of high-consequence misinformation that’s increasingly plaguing our communication ecosystem? Friction, a system of checks to limit the spread of content, we believe, is the answer.Before the printing press, viral rumors spread through word-of-mouth chatter in the market square or pub. Still, businesspeople, rulers, and religious authorities required trustworthy knowledge, and they would spend enormous sums on timely, accurate news. For those under their employ, the earliest proto-journalists, sourcing truth was a constant struggle. Newsmen added “friction” to the process of sharing knowledge, painstakingly validating stories through second- and third-hand sources before they published—lest they lose their reputation and sponsors. This tension between speed and accuracy came to define early news reporting. News that was both timely and accurate was incredibly expensive, requiring verified couriers and messengers, known as postal systems. We can still see this holdover in the title of “post” in many newspaper names today.Early journalists were far from perfect, and many of the first newspapers competed for attention by aggressively peddling false, outrageous, or nakedly partisan stories, gruesome crime coverage in particular. But during the 19th century, some papers slowly matured and professionalized, building reputations for publishing factual narratives, and engendering trust as “objective” news sources. Through fits and starts, this patchwork system of news-gathering and distribution became the dominant way we empirically verify information before amplifying it. We learned to trust journalists, largely because they fact-check rumors.The internet—and social media in particular—blew the system of journalistic friction to pieces. First the internet transformed publishing. Blogging platforms enabled anyone to publish whatever, whenever, without the critical eye of a journalistic colleague. Publishing was now a democratized, zero-cost endeavor. When the social networks emerged, distribution and reach were also transformed. Hundreds of millions of people found themselves perpetually online in new, targetable, frictionless communities. Groups became digital gathering places for ordinary people, and not gatekeepers, to share information. The single-click Share button turned people into active participants in the distribution and amplification of information.Reduced friction has enabled important new voices to be heard, but it has also led to the rapid spread of significantly impactful viral misinformation. Hence, It’s time for proactive solutions; it’s time to reintroduce the sort of friction that can assist with collective sense-making.Q.The author discusses the examples of the Leicestershire woman and the Black Plague to drive home the point thata)peddling fake news could lead to both non-serious as well as horrific consequences.b)peddling fake news does not cause serious ramifications in the long run.c)consequences of endorsing fake news are either too negligible or too conspicuous.d)while most fake news stories are benign, some can lead to unexpected tragic consequences.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2024 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions:It’s tempting to think that viral misinformation is a modern invention of social media and malicious actors. In fact, “fake news” is as old as news itself. For centuries, falsehoods have been shared widely as facts and stood uncorrected for months or years, even becoming accepted truth. Many of these stories were consequence-free, such as the widely believed report in 1569 of a Leicestershire woman who was “confirmed” to have given birth to a cat. Others led to tragedy and horror, such as viral rumors that the Black Plague was caused by Jews poisoning wells, which led to executions and violent pogroms throughout EuropeRegardless of the era, rumors and falsehoods spread via two basic steps: discovery, then amplification of unverified knowledge. What’s different now is that today’s communication platforms have fundamentally transformed the way information flows, propelling viral rumors exponentially faster and farther than ever. Widespread belief in certain types of viral rumors poses a threat to institutions that we rely on, including democracy itself. An urgent question has emerged: How can we mitigate the kind of high-consequence misinformation that’s increasingly plaguing our communication ecosystem? Friction, a system of checks to limit the spread of content, we believe, is the answer.Before the printing press, viral rumors spread through word-of-mouth chatter in the market square or pub. Still, businesspeople, rulers, and religious authorities required trustworthy knowledge, and they would spend enormous sums on timely, accurate news. For those under their employ, the earliest proto-journalists, sourcing truth was a constant struggle. Newsmen added “friction” to the process of sharing knowledge, painstakingly validating stories through second- and third-hand sources before they published—lest they lose their reputation and sponsors. This tension between speed and accuracy came to define early news reporting. News that was both timely and accurate was incredibly expensive, requiring verified couriers and messengers, known as postal systems. We can still see this holdover in the title of “post” in many newspaper names today.Early journalists were far from perfect, and many of the first newspapers competed for attention by aggressively peddling false, outrageous, or nakedly partisan stories, gruesome crime coverage in particular. But during the 19th century, some papers slowly matured and professionalized, building reputations for publishing factual narratives, and engendering trust as “objective” news sources. Through fits and starts, this patchwork system of news-gathering and distribution became the dominant way we empirically verify information before amplifying it. We learned to trust journalists, largely because they fact-check rumors.The internet—and social media in particular—blew the system of journalistic friction to pieces. First the internet transformed publishing. Blogging platforms enabled anyone to publish whatever, whenever, without the critical eye of a journalistic colleague. Publishing was now a democratized, zero-cost endeavor. When the social networks emerged, distribution and reach were also transformed. Hundreds of millions of people found themselves perpetually online in new, targetable, frictionless communities. Groups became digital gathering places for ordinary people, and not gatekeepers, to share information. The single-click Share button turned people into active participants in the distribution and amplification of information.Reduced friction has enabled important new voices to be heard, but it has also led to the rapid spread of significantly impactful viral misinformation. Hence, It’s time for proactive solutions; it’s time to reintroduce the sort of friction that can assist with collective sense-making.Q.The author discusses the examples of the Leicestershire woman and the Black Plague to drive home the point thata)peddling fake news could lead to both non-serious as well as horrific consequences.b)peddling fake news does not cause serious ramifications in the long run.c)consequences of endorsing fake news are either too negligible or too conspicuous.d)while most fake news stories are benign, some can lead to unexpected tragic consequences.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions:It’s tempting to think that viral misinformation is a modern invention of social media and malicious actors. In fact, “fake news” is as old as news itself. For centuries, falsehoods have been shared widely as facts and stood uncorrected for months or years, even becoming accepted truth. Many of these stories were consequence-free, such as the widely believed report in 1569 of a Leicestershire woman who was “confirmed” to have given birth to a cat. Others led to tragedy and horror, such as viral rumors that the Black Plague was caused by Jews poisoning wells, which led to executions and violent pogroms throughout EuropeRegardless of the era, rumors and falsehoods spread via two basic steps: discovery, then amplification of unverified knowledge. What’s different now is that today’s communication platforms have fundamentally transformed the way information flows, propelling viral rumors exponentially faster and farther than ever. Widespread belief in certain types of viral rumors poses a threat to institutions that we rely on, including democracy itself. An urgent question has emerged: How can we mitigate the kind of high-consequence misinformation that’s increasingly plaguing our communication ecosystem? Friction, a system of checks to limit the spread of content, we believe, is the answer.Before the printing press, viral rumors spread through word-of-mouth chatter in the market square or pub. Still, businesspeople, rulers, and religious authorities required trustworthy knowledge, and they would spend enormous sums on timely, accurate news. For those under their employ, the earliest proto-journalists, sourcing truth was a constant struggle. Newsmen added “friction” to the process of sharing knowledge, painstakingly validating stories through second- and third-hand sources before they published—lest they lose their reputation and sponsors. This tension between speed and accuracy came to define early news reporting. News that was both timely and accurate was incredibly expensive, requiring verified couriers and messengers, known as postal systems. We can still see this holdover in the title of “post” in many newspaper names today.Early journalists were far from perfect, and many of the first newspapers competed for attention by aggressively peddling false, outrageous, or nakedly partisan stories, gruesome crime coverage in particular. But during the 19th century, some papers slowly matured and professionalized, building reputations for publishing factual narratives, and engendering trust as “objective” news sources. Through fits and starts, this patchwork system of news-gathering and distribution became the dominant way we empirically verify information before amplifying it. We learned to trust journalists, largely because they fact-check rumors.The internet—and social media in particular—blew the system of journalistic friction to pieces. First the internet transformed publishing. Blogging platforms enabled anyone to publish whatever, whenever, without the critical eye of a journalistic colleague. Publishing was now a democratized, zero-cost endeavor. When the social networks emerged, distribution and reach were also transformed. Hundreds of millions of people found themselves perpetually online in new, targetable, frictionless communities. Groups became digital gathering places for ordinary people, and not gatekeepers, to share information. The single-click Share button turned people into active participants in the distribution and amplification of information.Reduced friction has enabled important new voices to be heard, but it has also led to the rapid spread of significantly impactful viral misinformation. Hence, It’s time for proactive solutions; it’s time to reintroduce the sort of friction that can assist with collective sense-making.Q.The author discusses the examples of the Leicestershire woman and the Black Plague to drive home the point thata)peddling fake news could lead to both non-serious as well as horrific consequences.b)peddling fake news does not cause serious ramifications in the long run.c)consequences of endorsing fake news are either too negligible or too conspicuous.d)while most fake news stories are benign, some can lead to unexpected tragic consequences.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions:It’s tempting to think that viral misinformation is a modern invention of social media and malicious actors. In fact, “fake news” is as old as news itself. For centuries, falsehoods have been shared widely as facts and stood uncorrected for months or years, even becoming accepted truth. Many of these stories were consequence-free, such as the widely believed report in 1569 of a Leicestershire woman who was “confirmed” to have given birth to a cat. Others led to tragedy and horror, such as viral rumors that the Black Plague was caused by Jews poisoning wells, which led to executions and violent pogroms throughout EuropeRegardless of the era, rumors and falsehoods spread via two basic steps: discovery, then amplification of unverified knowledge. What’s different now is that today’s communication platforms have fundamentally transformed the way information flows, propelling viral rumors exponentially faster and farther than ever. Widespread belief in certain types of viral rumors poses a threat to institutions that we rely on, including democracy itself. An urgent question has emerged: How can we mitigate the kind of high-consequence misinformation that’s increasingly plaguing our communication ecosystem? Friction, a system of checks to limit the spread of content, we believe, is the answer.Before the printing press, viral rumors spread through word-of-mouth chatter in the market square or pub. Still, businesspeople, rulers, and religious authorities required trustworthy knowledge, and they would spend enormous sums on timely, accurate news. For those under their employ, the earliest proto-journalists, sourcing truth was a constant struggle. Newsmen added “friction” to the process of sharing knowledge, painstakingly validating stories through second- and third-hand sources before they published—lest they lose their reputation and sponsors. This tension between speed and accuracy came to define early news reporting. News that was both timely and accurate was incredibly expensive, requiring verified couriers and messengers, known as postal systems. We can still see this holdover in the title of “post” in many newspaper names today.Early journalists were far from perfect, and many of the first newspapers competed for attention by aggressively peddling false, outrageous, or nakedly partisan stories, gruesome crime coverage in particular. But during the 19th century, some papers slowly matured and professionalized, building reputations for publishing factual narratives, and engendering trust as “objective” news sources. Through fits and starts, this patchwork system of news-gathering and distribution became the dominant way we empirically verify information before amplifying it. We learned to trust journalists, largely because they fact-check rumors.The internet—and social media in particular—blew the system of journalistic friction to pieces. First the internet transformed publishing. Blogging platforms enabled anyone to publish whatever, whenever, without the critical eye of a journalistic colleague. Publishing was now a democratized, zero-cost endeavor. When the social networks emerged, distribution and reach were also transformed. Hundreds of millions of people found themselves perpetually online in new, targetable, frictionless communities. Groups became digital gathering places for ordinary people, and not gatekeepers, to share information. The single-click Share button turned people into active participants in the distribution and amplification of information.Reduced friction has enabled important new voices to be heard, but it has also led to the rapid spread of significantly impactful viral misinformation. Hence, It’s time for proactive solutions; it’s time to reintroduce the sort of friction that can assist with collective sense-making.Q.The author discusses the examples of the Leicestershire woman and the Black Plague to drive home the point thata)peddling fake news could lead to both non-serious as well as horrific consequences.b)peddling fake news does not cause serious ramifications in the long run.c)consequences of endorsing fake news are either too negligible or too conspicuous.d)while most fake news stories are benign, some can lead to unexpected tragic consequences.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions:It’s tempting to think that viral misinformation is a modern invention of social media and malicious actors. In fact, “fake news” is as old as news itself. For centuries, falsehoods have been shared widely as facts and stood uncorrected for months or years, even becoming accepted truth. Many of these stories were consequence-free, such as the widely believed report in 1569 of a Leicestershire woman who was “confirmed” to have given birth to a cat. Others led to tragedy and horror, such as viral rumors that the Black Plague was caused by Jews poisoning wells, which led to executions and violent pogroms throughout EuropeRegardless of the era, rumors and falsehoods spread via two basic steps: discovery, then amplification of unverified knowledge. What’s different now is that today’s communication platforms have fundamentally transformed the way information flows, propelling viral rumors exponentially faster and farther than ever. Widespread belief in certain types of viral rumors poses a threat to institutions that we rely on, including democracy itself. An urgent question has emerged: How can we mitigate the kind of high-consequence misinformation that’s increasingly plaguing our communication ecosystem? Friction, a system of checks to limit the spread of content, we believe, is the answer.Before the printing press, viral rumors spread through word-of-mouth chatter in the market square or pub. Still, businesspeople, rulers, and religious authorities required trustworthy knowledge, and they would spend enormous sums on timely, accurate news. For those under their employ, the earliest proto-journalists, sourcing truth was a constant struggle. Newsmen added “friction” to the process of sharing knowledge, painstakingly validating stories through second- and third-hand sources before they published—lest they lose their reputation and sponsors. This tension between speed and accuracy came to define early news reporting. News that was both timely and accurate was incredibly expensive, requiring verified couriers and messengers, known as postal systems. We can still see this holdover in the title of “post” in many newspaper names today.Early journalists were far from perfect, and many of the first newspapers competed for attention by aggressively peddling false, outrageous, or nakedly partisan stories, gruesome crime coverage in particular. But during the 19th century, some papers slowly matured and professionalized, building reputations for publishing factual narratives, and engendering trust as “objective” news sources. Through fits and starts, this patchwork system of news-gathering and distribution became the dominant way we empirically verify information before amplifying it. We learned to trust journalists, largely because they fact-check rumors.The internet—and social media in particular—blew the system of journalistic friction to pieces. First the internet transformed publishing. Blogging platforms enabled anyone to publish whatever, whenever, without the critical eye of a journalistic colleague. Publishing was now a democratized, zero-cost endeavor. When the social networks emerged, distribution and reach were also transformed. Hundreds of millions of people found themselves perpetually online in new, targetable, frictionless communities. Groups became digital gathering places for ordinary people, and not gatekeepers, to share information. The single-click Share button turned people into active participants in the distribution and amplification of information.Reduced friction has enabled important new voices to be heard, but it has also led to the rapid spread of significantly impactful viral misinformation. Hence, It’s time for proactive solutions; it’s time to reintroduce the sort of friction that can assist with collective sense-making.Q.The author discusses the examples of the Leicestershire woman and the Black Plague to drive home the point thata)peddling fake news could lead to both non-serious as well as horrific consequences.b)peddling fake news does not cause serious ramifications in the long run.c)consequences of endorsing fake news are either too negligible or too conspicuous.d)while most fake news stories are benign, some can lead to unexpected tragic consequences.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions:It’s tempting to think that viral misinformation is a modern invention of social media and malicious actors. In fact, “fake news” is as old as news itself. For centuries, falsehoods have been shared widely as facts and stood uncorrected for months or years, even becoming accepted truth. Many of these stories were consequence-free, such as the widely believed report in 1569 of a Leicestershire woman who was “confirmed” to have given birth to a cat. Others led to tragedy and horror, such as viral rumors that the Black Plague was caused by Jews poisoning wells, which led to executions and violent pogroms throughout EuropeRegardless of the era, rumors and falsehoods spread via two basic steps: discovery, then amplification of unverified knowledge. What’s different now is that today’s communication platforms have fundamentally transformed the way information flows, propelling viral rumors exponentially faster and farther than ever. Widespread belief in certain types of viral rumors poses a threat to institutions that we rely on, including democracy itself. An urgent question has emerged: How can we mitigate the kind of high-consequence misinformation that’s increasingly plaguing our communication ecosystem? Friction, a system of checks to limit the spread of content, we believe, is the answer.Before the printing press, viral rumors spread through word-of-mouth chatter in the market square or pub. Still, businesspeople, rulers, and religious authorities required trustworthy knowledge, and they would spend enormous sums on timely, accurate news. For those under their employ, the earliest proto-journalists, sourcing truth was a constant struggle. Newsmen added “friction” to the process of sharing knowledge, painstakingly validating stories through second- and third-hand sources before they published—lest they lose their reputation and sponsors. This tension between speed and accuracy came to define early news reporting. News that was both timely and accurate was incredibly expensive, requiring verified couriers and messengers, known as postal systems. We can still see this holdover in the title of “post” in many newspaper names today.Early journalists were far from perfect, and many of the first newspapers competed for attention by aggressively peddling false, outrageous, or nakedly partisan stories, gruesome crime coverage in particular. But during the 19th century, some papers slowly matured and professionalized, building reputations for publishing factual narratives, and engendering trust as “objective” news sources. Through fits and starts, this patchwork system of news-gathering and distribution became the dominant way we empirically verify information before amplifying it. We learned to trust journalists, largely because they fact-check rumors.The internet—and social media in particular—blew the system of journalistic friction to pieces. First the internet transformed publishing. Blogging platforms enabled anyone to publish whatever, whenever, without the critical eye of a journalistic colleague. Publishing was now a democratized, zero-cost endeavor. When the social networks emerged, distribution and reach were also transformed. Hundreds of millions of people found themselves perpetually online in new, targetable, frictionless communities. Groups became digital gathering places for ordinary people, and not gatekeepers, to share information. The single-click Share button turned people into active participants in the distribution and amplification of information.Reduced friction has enabled important new voices to be heard, but it has also led to the rapid spread of significantly impactful viral misinformation. Hence, It’s time for proactive solutions; it’s time to reintroduce the sort of friction that can assist with collective sense-making.Q.The author discusses the examples of the Leicestershire woman and the Black Plague to drive home the point thata)peddling fake news could lead to both non-serious as well as horrific consequences.b)peddling fake news does not cause serious ramifications in the long run.c)consequences of endorsing fake news are either too negligible or too conspicuous.d)while most fake news stories are benign, some can lead to unexpected tragic consequences.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions:It’s tempting to think that viral misinformation is a modern invention of social media and malicious actors. In fact, “fake news” is as old as news itself. For centuries, falsehoods have been shared widely as facts and stood uncorrected for months or years, even becoming accepted truth. Many of these stories were consequence-free, such as the widely believed report in 1569 of a Leicestershire woman who was “confirmed” to have given birth to a cat. Others led to tragedy and horror, such as viral rumors that the Black Plague was caused by Jews poisoning wells, which led to executions and violent pogroms throughout EuropeRegardless of the era, rumors and falsehoods spread via two basic steps: discovery, then amplification of unverified knowledge. What’s different now is that today’s communication platforms have fundamentally transformed the way information flows, propelling viral rumors exponentially faster and farther than ever. Widespread belief in certain types of viral rumors poses a threat to institutions that we rely on, including democracy itself. An urgent question has emerged: How can we mitigate the kind of high-consequence misinformation that’s increasingly plaguing our communication ecosystem? Friction, a system of checks to limit the spread of content, we believe, is the answer.Before the printing press, viral rumors spread through word-of-mouth chatter in the market square or pub. Still, businesspeople, rulers, and religious authorities required trustworthy knowledge, and they would spend enormous sums on timely, accurate news. For those under their employ, the earliest proto-journalists, sourcing truth was a constant struggle. Newsmen added “friction” to the process of sharing knowledge, painstakingly validating stories through second- and third-hand sources before they published—lest they lose their reputation and sponsors. This tension between speed and accuracy came to define early news reporting. News that was both timely and accurate was incredibly expensive, requiring verified couriers and messengers, known as postal systems. We can still see this holdover in the title of “post” in many newspaper names today.Early journalists were far from perfect, and many of the first newspapers competed for attention by aggressively peddling false, outrageous, or nakedly partisan stories, gruesome crime coverage in particular. But during the 19th century, some papers slowly matured and professionalized, building reputations for publishing factual narratives, and engendering trust as “objective” news sources. Through fits and starts, this patchwork system of news-gathering and distribution became the dominant way we empirically verify information before amplifying it. We learned to trust journalists, largely because they fact-check rumors.The internet—and social media in particular—blew the system of journalistic friction to pieces. First the internet transformed publishing. Blogging platforms enabled anyone to publish whatever, whenever, without the critical eye of a journalistic colleague. Publishing was now a democratized, zero-cost endeavor. When the social networks emerged, distribution and reach were also transformed. Hundreds of millions of people found themselves perpetually online in new, targetable, frictionless communities. Groups became digital gathering places for ordinary people, and not gatekeepers, to share information. The single-click Share button turned people into active participants in the distribution and amplification of information.Reduced friction has enabled important new voices to be heard, but it has also led to the rapid spread of significantly impactful viral misinformation. Hence, It’s time for proactive solutions; it’s time to reintroduce the sort of friction that can assist with collective sense-making.Q.The author discusses the examples of the Leicestershire woman and the Black Plague to drive home the point thata)peddling fake news could lead to both non-serious as well as horrific consequences.b)peddling fake news does not cause serious ramifications in the long run.c)consequences of endorsing fake news are either too negligible or too conspicuous.d)while most fake news stories are benign, some can lead to unexpected tragic consequences.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions:It’s tempting to think that viral misinformation is a modern invention of social media and malicious actors. In fact, “fake news” is as old as news itself. For centuries, falsehoods have been shared widely as facts and stood uncorrected for months or years, even becoming accepted truth. Many of these stories were consequence-free, such as the widely believed report in 1569 of a Leicestershire woman who was “confirmed” to have given birth to a cat. Others led to tragedy and horror, such as viral rumors that the Black Plague was caused by Jews poisoning wells, which led to executions and violent pogroms throughout EuropeRegardless of the era, rumors and falsehoods spread via two basic steps: discovery, then amplification of unverified knowledge. What’s different now is that today’s communication platforms have fundamentally transformed the way information flows, propelling viral rumors exponentially faster and farther than ever. Widespread belief in certain types of viral rumors poses a threat to institutions that we rely on, including democracy itself. An urgent question has emerged: How can we mitigate the kind of high-consequence misinformation that’s increasingly plaguing our communication ecosystem? Friction, a system of checks to limit the spread of content, we believe, is the answer.Before the printing press, viral rumors spread through word-of-mouth chatter in the market square or pub. Still, businesspeople, rulers, and religious authorities required trustworthy knowledge, and they would spend enormous sums on timely, accurate news. For those under their employ, the earliest proto-journalists, sourcing truth was a constant struggle. Newsmen added “friction” to the process of sharing knowledge, painstakingly validating stories through second- and third-hand sources before they published—lest they lose their reputation and sponsors. This tension between speed and accuracy came to define early news reporting. News that was both timely and accurate was incredibly expensive, requiring verified couriers and messengers, known as postal systems. We can still see this holdover in the title of “post” in many newspaper names today.Early journalists were far from perfect, and many of the first newspapers competed for attention by aggressively peddling false, outrageous, or nakedly partisan stories, gruesome crime coverage in particular. But during the 19th century, some papers slowly matured and professionalized, building reputations for publishing factual narratives, and engendering trust as “objective” news sources. Through fits and starts, this patchwork system of news-gathering and distribution became the dominant way we empirically verify information before amplifying it. We learned to trust journalists, largely because they fact-check rumors.The internet—and social media in particular—blew the system of journalistic friction to pieces. First the internet transformed publishing. Blogging platforms enabled anyone to publish whatever, whenever, without the critical eye of a journalistic colleague. Publishing was now a democratized, zero-cost endeavor. When the social networks emerged, distribution and reach were also transformed. Hundreds of millions of people found themselves perpetually online in new, targetable, frictionless communities. Groups became digital gathering places for ordinary people, and not gatekeepers, to share information. The single-click Share button turned people into active participants in the distribution and amplification of information.Reduced friction has enabled important new voices to be heard, but it has also led to the rapid spread of significantly impactful viral misinformation. Hence, It’s time for proactive solutions; it’s time to reintroduce the sort of friction that can assist with collective sense-making.Q.The author discusses the examples of the Leicestershire woman and the Black Plague to drive home the point thata)peddling fake news could lead to both non-serious as well as horrific consequences.b)peddling fake news does not cause serious ramifications in the long run.c)consequences of endorsing fake news are either too negligible or too conspicuous.d)while most fake news stories are benign, some can lead to unexpected tragic consequences.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions:It’s tempting to think that viral misinformation is a modern invention of social media and malicious actors. In fact, “fake news” is as old as news itself. For centuries, falsehoods have been shared widely as facts and stood uncorrected for months or years, even becoming accepted truth. Many of these stories were consequence-free, such as the widely believed report in 1569 of a Leicestershire woman who was “confirmed” to have given birth to a cat. Others led to tragedy and horror, such as viral rumors that the Black Plague was caused by Jews poisoning wells, which led to executions and violent pogroms throughout EuropeRegardless of the era, rumors and falsehoods spread via two basic steps: discovery, then amplification of unverified knowledge. What’s different now is that today’s communication platforms have fundamentally transformed the way information flows, propelling viral rumors exponentially faster and farther than ever. Widespread belief in certain types of viral rumors poses a threat to institutions that we rely on, including democracy itself. An urgent question has emerged: How can we mitigate the kind of high-consequence misinformation that’s increasingly plaguing our communication ecosystem? Friction, a system of checks to limit the spread of content, we believe, is the answer.Before the printing press, viral rumors spread through word-of-mouth chatter in the market square or pub. Still, businesspeople, rulers, and religious authorities required trustworthy knowledge, and they would spend enormous sums on timely, accurate news. For those under their employ, the earliest proto-journalists, sourcing truth was a constant struggle. Newsmen added “friction” to the process of sharing knowledge, painstakingly validating stories through second- and third-hand sources before they published—lest they lose their reputation and sponsors. This tension between speed and accuracy came to define early news reporting. News that was both timely and accurate was incredibly expensive, requiring verified couriers and messengers, known as postal systems. We can still see this holdover in the title of “post” in many newspaper names today.Early journalists were far from perfect, and many of the first newspapers competed for attention by aggressively peddling false, outrageous, or nakedly partisan stories, gruesome crime coverage in particular. But during the 19th century, some papers slowly matured and professionalized, building reputations for publishing factual narratives, and engendering trust as “objective” news sources. Through fits and starts, this patchwork system of news-gathering and distribution became the dominant way we empirically verify information before amplifying it. We learned to trust journalists, largely because they fact-check rumors.The internet—and social media in particular—blew the system of journalistic friction to pieces. First the internet transformed publishing. Blogging platforms enabled anyone to publish whatever, whenever, without the critical eye of a journalistic colleague. Publishing was now a democratized, zero-cost endeavor. When the social networks emerged, distribution and reach were also transformed. Hundreds of millions of people found themselves perpetually online in new, targetable, frictionless communities. Groups became digital gathering places for ordinary people, and not gatekeepers, to share information. The single-click Share button turned people into active participants in the distribution and amplification of information.Reduced friction has enabled important new voices to be heard, but it has also led to the rapid spread of significantly impactful viral misinformation. Hence, It’s time for proactive solutions; it’s time to reintroduce the sort of friction that can assist with collective sense-making.Q.The author discusses the examples of the Leicestershire woman and the Black Plague to drive home the point thata)peddling fake news could lead to both non-serious as well as horrific consequences.b)peddling fake news does not cause serious ramifications in the long run.c)consequences of endorsing fake news are either too negligible or too conspicuous.d)while most fake news stories are benign, some can lead to unexpected tragic consequences.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.