Creators monetized the frenzy, promising exclusive clips, hidden angles, and forbidden footage, exploiting scarcity psychology while disclaimers quietly acknowledged uncertainty in fine print few readers noticed.
Traditional outlets faced a dilemma, either ignore the storm and seem detached, or cover it cautiously and risk amplifying unverified claims by repeating them alongside careful caveats.
Fact-checkers worked overtime, tracing sources, timestamps, and edits, discovering recycled charts, misattributed quotes, and context gaps that rarely traveled as far as the original incendiary posts.
Yet corrections rarely go viral, because outrage spreads faster than retractions, and audiences emotionally invested in a narrative resist information that threatens their chosen storyline.
The episode reignited debate over platform responsibility, questioning whether engagement-driven systems should throttle content framed as imminent catastrophe without corroboration from credible, independent sources. Continue reading…
