The Times article revealing Mr. Trump’s nearly $1 billion tax loss in 1995 drew some 5.5 million page views. That’s huge. The Washington Post doesn’t share its numbers, but behold the more than 13,000 online comments attached to just one of David A. Fahrenthold’s articles about how Mr. Trump ran his charity in ways that clashed with philanthropic moral conventions.
But in this new era, subscriber numbers are more important than fly-by-night readership.
I’m not exposed to this since I don’t use any social media except a few Sub-Reddits on highly specific topics like Coffee, DualSport, GolfGTI and Beer but this is a perfect circle. We have people who never used to use the web and think Facebook.com is the Internet mixed with entrepreneurs who know how to write on topics that rile people up and play into their assumptions and fears along with vitality of social networks and these idiots who share everything as a way of defining their identity.
Part of the advantage of me linking to things that you may have missed a month after the article came out is that I can remove articles that end up proving to be false. However, I’ve never had to do that because I link to individuals who don’t hide behind an identity OR I link to reputable news sources. When I have to link to Buzzfeed, I apologize.