I’ve got to say… this assignment was much harder than I thought it would be. Tracking one’s own media consumption across multiple platforms and devices is honestly a pain in the you-know-what. So I got a little creative. Truth be told, it also freaked me out a bit.

Hear me out… I watch a lot of random stuff on Facebook videos and YouTube (yeah, I’m old enough to remember Myspace…lol). Come to find out, you can download your entire activity history from Google, across all devices. That realization alone was a little unsettling. Google really does track everything you do online.

Anyway, back to the assignment. Instead of using the typical “I woke up at…” approach, I pulled metadata from my activity history over a little more than a 24-hour period. I also marked videos I found interesting or questionable by saving them as I was watching them. Below is a sample of what I watched, and fair warning, I’m all over the place.

I didn’t change my habits at all, I just paid more attention to what I normally do and watch. Most of my media consumption came from YouTube, along with some quick Google searches and general doom scrolling through Facebook videos like anyone else.

What surprised me wasn’t just how much media I consume (it’s a lot), but also that at some level, there are questionable credibility and creators. Not necessarily fake, but exaggerated, biased, or missing context.

---

Media Diary

March 28, 2026

9:00 a.m. – 11:30 p.m.
Started off watching longer YouTube videos about an RV tour (in the market soon) and one about rattlesnakes and how their rattles work. These felt pretty normal and informative, slower pace, nothing really raised red flags.

12:30–1:00 p.m.
Watched a couple more videos about gaming and general aviation, and watched some updated news regarding the recent Air Canada crash. Mostly entertainment or educational content. Nothing stood out as misleading. Also had lunch with my wife at home. We’re big fans of a good cheese plate.

1:00–7:00 p.m.
Played Star Citizen with friends. This game has been in development since 2012 and is crowdfunded—I’ve definitely invested more money into it than I probably should have. Since this was a big block of time, I’ll mention a YouTube creator I follow for this game—BoredGamer. I’d consider him a pretty reliable source within that niche.

7:00 p.m.
Jumped back on YouTube and started scrolling casually. Saw a mix of home improvement, memes, and random clips.

• “Most Insane Cancel Culture Story” caught my attention right away—it already sounded a bit over the top. The video talks about a guy who raised money holding a Bush Light sign, donated it, then got investigated by a journalist over old social media posts from when he was 16. The company pulled support, public backlash followed, and eventually the journalist got fired due to his own past posts. The video tried to frame it like public outrage caused the journalist’s firing, which is only partially true, but it felt like there was more to the story than what was being presented.

8:00–10:45 p.m.
This is where things started to shift. I was watching short clips between homework and dinner.

A few that stood out:

• “This Metal Horseshoe Made The Oxygen EXPLODE”
• “Does your portfolio have a trading algo yet??”
• “Get a Glock, they’re actually made of porcelain.”

The first and last one made me pause. I’ve heard that claim before and knew it didn’t sound right or atleast misleading at best, flat-out wrong at worst.

March 29, 2026

9:00–10:00 a.m.
Heavy scrolling, mostly YouTube Shorts. Watched things like:

• “$102 Million CASH OUT”
  • This one caught my attention because the creator, Infinite Wealth Lab, uses movie clips to promote financial advice.
• “Saved MILLIONS in TAXES By REFUSING the DELIVERY”
• “Navy Seal Reveals Why All Moms Should Carry a Gun”
  • This one was interesting. It strongly pushes the idea of gun ownership through a worst-case scenario involving children. Regardless of where someone stands on that issue, the video clearly leans into fear and emotional impact to make its point.

At this point, a pattern was pretty obvious from the content I was now consuming. Big claims, strong opinions, and a lot of authority being used to sell the message.

1:00–3:30 p.m.
More Shorts, even faster pace:

• “PRICE of LOYALTY? $1 MILLION in CRYPTO.”
• “What If Young People Paid Zero Tax?”
  • This video from Triggernometry proposes no income tax until age 30 and none after 60. It encourages economic participation and suggests alternatives to things like Social Security. Interesting idea, but clearly framed as a strong opinion.
• “The baby had new marks every morning. The dog knew…”

This was probably the most questionable stretch. Everything was quick, emotional, and clearly designed to get a reaction more than encourage critical thinking.

What Actually Seemed Questionable

Most of what I saw wasn’t outright fake—it was more subtle than that. It felt like half-truths, exaggerated claims, or information framed in a specific way to push a certain reaction.

The law enforcement videos stood out the most. Titles like “tyrant cop” or “gets owned” immediately tell you how you’re supposed to feel before you even watch. That’s not neutral—it’s framing. Even if the situation is real, you’re only seeing a snapshot with limited context, and the creator is setting the tone for how you interpret it.

Then there are the emotional videos, like the one about the baby and the dog. Those are probably the easiest to believe because they hit you emotionally first. But once you slow down and think about it, there’s usually no real source or proof backing them up.

How I Tried to Fact-Check

For some of these, I actually stopped and started looking things up.

For the “porcelain Glock” idea being discredited by WarriorPoetSociety (referencing a scene from Die Hard 2), I checked reliable sources, including manufacturer information. Turns out it’s a myth and a significantly perpetuated one. Glocks absolutely contain metal components and are detectable on any medal detector, especially airport systems. This confirmed my initial reaction that the video was true

Another example was a story about a woman dying in a hyperbaric chamber accident involving a horse. My first reaction was, “No way that can’t be real.” But after digging into it, I found that it was a real incident.

So my approach became pretty simple; if I couldn’t verify something fairly quickly through credible sources, such as searching through a variety of “agreed upon services” validate the credible source, and then bounce against several AI platforms like ChatGPT and Grok, I wasn’t going to treat it as reliable or share it.

Reflection

This exercise made me realize that I come across way more questionable content than I could have ever imagined, and it’s not always obvious. The idea that every bit of information and content has to be verified, I fear, most of us would rather just take the influx of information at face value until someone challenges us.

Most of it comes down to how things are presented:

• Big, attention-grabbing claims
• Emotional hooks
• Strong opinions framed like facts

I also noticed how quickly the algorithm locks you into a pattern of content. Watch one “bad cop” video, and all of the sudden you’re seeing five more videos, all within the same framing. Same thing with financial content, pet videos, or political takes.

A significant takeaway for me is how easy it is to just keep scrolling through content without really questioning anything your seeing. Most of this content is designed to be consumed quickly, not critically. It scratches an itch, entertainment, or self-validation, and over time, it can reinforce whatever you already believe.

I don’t think all of this is intentional, but I do think there’s an economic incentive behind it. Platforms benefit from engagement, and content creators know what gets clicks. That said, there’s definitely potential for and likely has been done to deliberately engage in manipulation.

After going through this, I’d say I’m definitely more skeptical. Especially with short-form content like YouTube Shorts and fast-paced Facebook videos. I don’t use TikTok, but I imagine it’s the same. If something sounds extreme or too clean of a story, it probably deserves a second look.