• Fake news sharing in US is a rightwing thing, says study
    57 replies, posted
[QUOTE]Low-quality, extremist, sensationalist and conspiratorial news published in the US was overwhelmingly consumed and shared by rightwing social network users, according to [URL="http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/polarization-partisanship-and-junk-news/"]a new study from the University of Oxford[/URL]. The study, from the university’s “computational propaganda project”, looked at the most significant sources of “junk news” shared in the three months leading up to Donald Trump’s first [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/31/five-things-we-learned-from-trumps-first-state-of-the-union"]State of the Union addres[/URL]s this January, and tried to find out who was sharing them and why. “On Twitter, a network of Trump supporters consumes the largest volume of junk news, and junk news is the largest proportion of news links they share,” the researchers concluded. On [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/facebook"]Facebook[/URL], the skew was even greater. There, “extreme hard right pages – distinct from Republican pages – share more junk news than all the other audiences put together.” The research involved monitoring a core group of around 13,500 politically-active US [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/twitter"]Twitter[/URL] users, and a separate group of 48,000 public Facebook pages, to find the external websites that they were sharing. Users who shared similar collections of links were grouped together depending on what they were discussing: on Twitter, some identified cohorts included “Conservative Media”, “Trump Supporters” (a distinct group from “Republican Party”) and “Resistance”; on Facebook, those audience groups included “Hard Conservative”, “Women’s Rights” and “Military/Guns”. The findings speak to the level of polarisation common across the US political divide. “The two main political parties, Democrats and Republicans, prefer different sources of political news, with limited overlap,” the researchers write. But there was a clear skew in who shared links from the 91 sites the researchers had manually coded as “junk news” (based on breaching at least three of five quality standards including “professionalism”, “bias” and “credibility”). “The Trump Support group consumes the highest volume of junk news sources on Twitter, and spreads more junk news sources, than all the other groups put together. This pattern is repeated on Facebook, where the Hard Conservatives group consumed the highest proportion of junk news.” [/QUOTE] [QUOTE] Researchers said there was "limited overlap" of news sources shared between Democrats and Republicans, which they said speaks to the polarization that exists across the U.S. political divide. They warned that social media algorithms can be used to distribute polarizing political content and misinformation, adding that "filter bubble effects," which select what information to show in news feeds based on user preferences and behavior, have "polarized public life," which could leave consumers vulnerable to propaganda campaigns. "Given the central role that social media plays in public life, these platforms have become a target for propaganda campaigns and information operations," researchers wrote. They pointed to a recent U.S. elections review by Twitter that found that more than 50,000 automated accounts were linked to Russia. Facebook, meanwhile, has revealed that content from the Russian Internet Research Agency reached more than 126 million U.S. citizens before the 2016 presidential election. [/QUOTE] [URL]https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/feb/06/sharing-fake-news-us-rightwing-study-trump-university-of-oxford[/URL] [URL]http://www.newsweek.com/liberals-dont-share-believe-fake-news-much-right-wing-study-finds-800219[/URL]
Try to tell them that and they'll say it's fake news.
And water is wet. I thought this was an already known thing.
Not remotely surprising. I've got a broad spread of folks on my social media accounts, and it is rare to see those among my left-leaning friends and family sharing anything so egregiously stupid as those shared by the right-leaning crowd. Fox News and the GOP have instilled the Liberal Conspiracy so deeply in the minds of their viewers through a steady stream of unfounded propagandist bullshit that I legitimately believe a majority share of Republican voters have lost their ability to critically examine the content they consume. To see my suspicions confirmed by a highly respected research institution such as this one is quite disheartening. "Politics" in the US are sliding farther and farther away from differences in opinion on how our government should function, towards differences in perspective on objective reality, and that's alarming.
Wasn't there some guy a few years back who purposely spread fake news stories pretending to be an expert and he just couldn't get left people to take the bait?
[QUOTE=Splash Attack;53112563]Wasn't there some guy a few years back who purposely spread fake news stories pretending to be an expert and he just couldn't get left people to take the bait?[/QUOTE] Yeah, that's what I was going to say. There were those kids selling fake news stories during the election, and they were all conservative posts because the left-leaning would fact check outrageous sounding stories, even if it was something favorable to their views.
I believe it based in my Facebook. There are pure bullshit left wing fake news sources, but their volume is [I]trumped[/I] by the right wingers. And even most of the bad left wing sources I see posted aren't really FAKE news, but misleading news. Which is irksome but it's not the same.
I'm curious what sites they listed as junk news. was it mostly conspiracy blogs? satirical sites like the onion? heavily biased but generally somewhat factual sites like fox? special interest publications like range365? thinking back I've seen a lot more conservatives linking to conspiracy blogs but I wonder how much of that is just recall bias. I've seen more liberals linking to satirical news sites thinking it's real but I wonder if it's just that liberals tend to be younger and thus less likely to be able to pick out what is and isn't real. I've seen a pretty equal number of conservatives and liberals linking to biased but generally somewhat factual sites. I've only ever seen conservatives linking to special interest publications but that's entirely because all my special interests are ones generally enjoyed by conservatives e: found in the online supplement for the report what they consider junk news. it's almost all alt right blogs. of course a liberal isn't going to be reading alt right blogs bizarrely, pastebin is in the list too. not sure what that's about
[quote]Researchers said there was "limited overlap" of news sources shared between Democrats and Republicans, which they said speaks to the polarization that exists across the U.S. political divide. They warned that social media algorithms can be used to distribute polarizing political content and misinformation, adding that "filter bubble effects," which select what information to show in news feeds based on user preferences and behavior, have "polarized public life," which could leave consumers vulnerable to propaganda campaigns. [/quote] This is the scary part. It's not just that the group may want to tune out specific information, it's also that algorithms, when left unchecked, will intensify the problem, which may account for why we are having this sudden speed-up of polarization in the past 10 years.
[QUOTE=butre;53112590]e: found in the online supplement for the report what they consider junk news. it's almost all alt right blogs. of course a liberal isn't going to be reading alt right blogs[/QUOTE] ...which challenges the study how, exactly?
[QUOTE=butre;53112590] e: found in the online supplement for the report what they consider junk news. it's almost all alt right blogs. of course a liberal isn't going to be reading alt right blogs[/QUOTE] [URL="http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/93/2018/02/Polarization-Partisanship-JunkNews-OnlineSupplement.pdf"]Online Supplement here[/URL], for anyone interested. "Table 3: List of Junk News Sources" starts on page 6, and having a little skim through (the example links are rather helpful) they are mostly right wing stuff. [QUOTE=Zukriuchen;53112614]...which challenges the study how, exactly?[/QUOTE] What this study basically says, is that right-wing social media accounts are far more likely to share the right-wing junk news. It starts off by manually defining fake news as a predominantly right-wing phenomena, so the study itself is fairly meaningless, really. I've only been skimming through everything, but so far it's kinda...eh. E: To be more specific, the important point is whether a non-bias list of junk news would predominantly feature alt-right/right-leaning sites; I wouldn't have much problem believing they were, but this study just no-effort hand-waves that part despite it being rather important.
[QUOTE=RedDagger;53112630][URL="http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/93/2018/02/Polarization-Partisanship-JunkNews-OnlineSupplement.pdf"]Online Supplement here[/URL], for anyone interested. "Table 3: List of Junk News Sources" starts on page 6, and having a little skim through (the example links are rather helpful) they are mostly right wing stuff. What this study basically says, is that right-wing social media accounts are far more likely to share the right-wing junk news. It starts off by manually defining fake news as a predominantly right-wing phenomena, so the study itself is fairly meaningless, really. I've only been skimming through everything, but so far it's kinda...eh.[/QUOTE] If people on the right are sharing blogs that are based on bubkiss, and are more likely to do so, that is definitely spreading misinformation and if that happens more on the right than it does on the left it does fit the study so I dont see how you've actually debunked the study
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;53112614]...which challenges the study how, exactly?[/QUOTE] it doesn't challenge the findings, in that conservatives are more likely to post things from their list, but it challenges the relevance. they only had a small handful of liberal fake news sites (in fact, I only recognised one. "small handful" is giving them the benefit of the doubt) in a sea of dozens of alt right blogs. I don't see how "the alt right is more likely to read news for the alt right" has any significance whatsoever.
[QUOTE=butre;53112590]I'm curious what sites they listed as junk news. was it mostly conspiracy blogs? satirical sites like the onion? heavily biased but generally somewhat factual sites like fox? special interest publications like range365? thinking back I've seen a lot more conservatives linking to conspiracy blogs but I wonder how much of that is just recall bias. I've seen more liberals linking to satirical news sites thinking it's real but I wonder if it's just that [B]liberals tend to be younger and thus less likely to be able to pick out what is and isn't real.[/B] I've seen a pretty equal number of conservatives and liberals linking to biased but generally somewhat factual sites. I've only ever seen conservatives linking to special interest publications but that's entirely because all my special interests are ones generally enjoyed by conservatives e: [B]found in the online supplement for the report what they consider junk news. it's almost all alt right blogs. of course a liberal isn't going to be reading alt right blogs[/B] bizarrely, pastebin is in the list too. not sure what that's about[/QUOTE] I doubt there is a correlation between being younger and falling for satire or fake stories. I'd certainly like to see some evidence to back that up. Furthermore, it sounds like you're assuming there would be an equal number of fake right outlets as there are left ones. Perhaps there are more alt right blogs because they are simply more successful than their left wing counterparts
[QUOTE=butre;53112636]it doesn't challenge the findings, in that conservatives are more likely to post things from their list, but it challenges the relevance. they only had a small handful of liberal fake news sites (in fact, I only recognised one. "small handful" is giving them the benefit of the doubt) in a sea of dozens of alt right blogs. I don't see how "the alt right is more likely to read news for the alt right" has any significance whatsoever.[/QUOTE] How....? How do you not see "The alt right likes to lie to itself and it's constituent members" as a problem, maybe even a key problem in the american political atmosphere?
[QUOTE=Splash Attack;53112647]I doubt there is a correlation between being younger and falling for satire or fake stories. I'd certainly like to see some evidence to back that up. Furthermore, it sounds like you're assuming there would be an equal number of fake right outlets as there are left ones. Perhaps there are more alt right blogs because they are simply more successful than their left wing counterparts[/QUOTE] everything before the edit is conjecture and anecdote, and all pretty explicitly so. it is a possibility that there are simply more right wing fake news outlets, but an unbiased list would account for that. as it stands all the study is saying is that liberals don't read things not meant for them. [editline]6th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53112660]How....? How do you not see "The alt right likes to lie to itself and it's constituent members" as a problem, maybe even a key problem in the american political atmosphere?[/QUOTE] that has very little relevance to my post. the list itself seems biased is the root of the problem, and they seem to handwave their own bias by stating that they believe fake news to be a predominantly right wing phenomena early on in the study. what we have here could easily be a case of confirmation bias
[QUOTE=butre;53112662]everything before the edit is conjecture and anecdote, and all pretty explicitly so. it is a possibility that there are simply more right wing fake news outlets, but an unbiased list would account for that. as it stands all the study is saying is that liberals don't read things not meant for them.[/QUOTE] I think you're getting hung up on the wrong aspect of this. The alt right likes to peddle information that fits within their echochamber. They've been doing this for a while now, and as a result, have fed into their own bullshit so much they now believe in flat out bullshit but don't have a way to verify or check themselves inside that echo chamber. This is just talking about how in groups works, and you keep getting hung up on "Well alt-right readings aren't for those on the left" that isn't what anyone anyhwere is worried about.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53112666]I think you're getting hung up on the wrong aspect of this. The alt right likes to peddle information that fits within their echochamber. They've been doing this for a while now, and as a result, have fed into their own bullshit so much they now believe in flat out bullshit but don't have a way to verify or check themselves inside that echo chamber. This is just talking about how in groups works, and you keep getting hung up on "Well alt-right readings aren't for those on the left" that isn't what anyone anyhwere is worried about.[/QUOTE] you're not supposed to read between the lines when looking at a supposedly scientific study except to root out bias. you can't find your own meaning in science, it doesn't work that way. the only thing the study says is that conservatives are more likely to post from their predominantly conservative list of websites. the stuff about Facebook groups is just fluff
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53112635]If people on the right are sharing blogs that are based on bubkiss, and are more likely to do so, that is definitely spreading misinformation and if that happens more on the right than it does on the left it does fit the study[/QUOTE] The point is I was hoping for a little more focus on how they actually come up with a definitive list. Looking into it more, I got the relevant point: [quote]Sources of junk news were evaluated and reevaluated in a rigorously iterative coding process. A team of 12 trained coders, familiar with the US political and media landscape, labeled sources of news and information based on a grounded typology. The Krippendorff’s alpha value for inter-coder reliability among three executive coders, who developed the grounded typology, was 0.805. The 91 sources of political news and information, which we identified over the course of several years of research and monitoring, produce content that includes various forms of propaganda and ideologically extreme, hyper-partisan, and conspiratorial political information. We tracked how the URLs to these websites were being shared over Twitter and Facebook (see online supplement for details).[/quote] which is better than my original impression of it being this manually curated list, but I'd like a little more focus on how/if they got unbiased labelling of sources, since a bunch of left-leaning folks are more likely to produce the result of right-leaning sources being junk. The reason why it's a problem, as an example, is that in the hypothetical case of left-leaning users sharing an equal amount of junk sources (that are also left leaning), that would be completely missed if the study didn't feel they qualified as junk news due to their inherent bias. It's pretty much the core of the study, and I feel it didn't get enough focus for how important it is for something like this. When you get a list of junk news that's almost entirely right-leaning, the inevitable and obvious conclusion is that of the study. The study ain't bunk, but it has unaddressed issues that prevents me from being able to accept the conclusion 100%.
[QUOTE=butre;53112681]you're not supposed to read between the lines when looking at a supposedly scientific study except to root out bias. you can't find your own meaning in science, it doesn't work that way. the only thing the study says is that conservatives are more likely to post from their predominantly conservative list of websites. the stuff about Facebook groups is just fluff[/QUOTE] So when talking about echo-chambers, which is what this is, we can't acknowledge that this is an echo-chamber the alt right created, and feed for themselves?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53112666]I think you're getting hung up on the wrong aspect of this. The alt right likes to peddle information that fits within their echochamber. They've been doing this for a while now, and as a result, have fed into their own bullshit so much they now believe in flat out bullshit but don't have a way to verify or check themselves inside that echo chamber. This is just talking about how in groups works, and you keep getting hung up on "Well alt-right readings aren't for those on the left" that isn't what anyone anyhwere is worried about.[/QUOTE] What butre is saying is that if your list of junk websites mostly contains right leaning sites, of course you won't be finding as much fake news spread by the left. I mean - there's probably a reason why there are more right leaning junk news sites (because they read more junk news), but you run into an issue of confounding two factors in your study there, and that's not good form. I haven't read the study myself, though, but I think you're misunderstanding what butre is getting at tbh.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;53112693]What butre is saying is that if your list of junk websites mostly contains right leaning sites, of course you won't be finding as much fake news spread by the left. I mean - there's probably a reason why there are more right leaning junk news sites (because they read more junk news), but you run into an issue of confounding two factors in your study there, and that's not good form. I haven't read the study myself, though, but I think you're misunderstanding what butre is getting at tbh.[/QUOTE] If fewer left-leaning junk news sites exist and fewer left-leaning people link to junk news sites then obviously they're going to have much more trouble even finding left-leaning junk news sites to use in the study to begin with. That's not an issue with bias or bad form or anything like that. That's simply using available information.
[QUOTE=Alice3173;53112719]If fewer left-leaning junk news sites exist and fewer left-leaning people link to junk news sites then obviously they're going to have much more trouble even finding left-leaning junk news sites to use in the study to begin with. That's not an issue with bias or bad form or anything like that. That's simply using available information.[/QUOTE] again, a good list would've accounted for that. there's still the bizarre and inexplicable inclusion of pastebin on the list to tackle too. in what world pastebin is a news site of any kind I have no fucking clue. sure people put info on pastebin but that's like calling imgur a bastion of racism because someone hosted an a wyatt mann drawing on there
[QUOTE=butre;53112731]again, a good list would've accounted for that. there's still the bizarre and inexplicable inclusion of pastebin on the list to tackle too. in what world pastebin is a news site of any kind I have no fucking clue. sure people put info on pastebin but that's like calling imgur a fake news site because someone hosted an a wyatt mann drawing on there[/QUOTE] People do post random stuff on Pastebin that people take as fact. Look at GamerGate for example. Lots of 'news' was posted there as a way to aggregate information.
[QUOTE=butre;53112731] there's still the bizarre and inexplicable inclusion of pastebin on the list to tackle too. in what world pastebin is a news site of any kind I have no fucking clue[/QUOTE] I have a feeling the "example URLs" provided are the only URLs they checked, that's the impression I'm getting from the seed list spreadsheet. The example URL for pastebin is [url]https://pastebin.com/36q0yksm[/url], some 4chan dump on "Clinton Underground Child Sex Scandal". Go through the site list by frequency, and determine whether it's junk or not from one of the links, since they are going through a large amount of sites. Just seems like a minor hiccup tbh
[QUOTE=butre;53112731]again, a good list would've accounted for that. there's still the bizarre and inexplicable inclusion of pastebin on the list to tackle too. in what world pastebin is a news site of any kind I have no fucking clue. sure people put info on pastebin but that's like calling imgur a bastion of racism because someone hosted an a wyatt mann drawing on there[/QUOTE] How can you account for a lack of viable sites? And Pastebin should be obvious. 4channers (and thus a fair amount of alt-righters) like to dump into on Pastebin.
[QUOTE=Alice3173;53112758]How can you account for a lack of viable sites? And Pastebin should be obvious. 4channers (and thus a fair amount of alt-righters) like to dump into on Pastebin.[/QUOTE] theres already a handy list of viable sites available [url]https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/left/[/url] again, including pastebin is like calling imgur racist because there are a wyatt mann drawings hosted there
[QUOTE=butre;53112636]it doesn't challenge the findings, in that conservatives are more likely to post things from their list, but it challenges the relevance. [B]they only had a small handful of liberal fake news sites (in fact, I only recognised one. "small handful" is giving them the benefit of the doubt) in a sea of dozens of alt right blogs.[/B] I don't see how "the alt right is more likely to read news for the alt right" has any significance whatsoever.[/QUOTE] Bipartisanreport, Dailynewsbin, Deepstatenation, Hotpagenews, Mediaite, New York Daily News, Occupy Democrats, Shareblue, Odyssey Online are all left leaning sites. While most of the remaining ones are right-wing, there are a handful "neutral" ones and one or two conspiracy pages. It's entirely possible that they just couldn't find an equal amount of fake news websites for both sides.
[QUOTE=butre;53112761]theres already a handy list of viable sites available [url]https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/left/[/url][/QUOTE] Kinda missing an important detail here. It's not a matter of bias. It's a matter of bias PLUS providing incorrect information and conspiracy theory garbage. [QUOTE]again, including pastebin is like calling imgur racist because there are a wyatt mann drawings hosted there[/QUOTE] No, it's not like that at all. Pastebin has been actively used by the alt-right to spread conspiracy theories, ie: The one they linked in the supplement. This has not been an uncommon occurrence and if you paid any attention back when that conspiracy theory was floating around you'd have noticed that even here on Facepunch Pastebin was being linked fairly commonly as a reference for this shit because the actual source for the information was 4chan threads which would quickly hit capacity and subsequently get deleted. [QUOTE=Raidyr;53112792]It's entirely possible that they just couldn't find an equal amount of fake news websites for both sides.[/QUOTE] This is exactly what I've been saying this whole time but apparently by holding both sides to the same standard, even if that results in an uneven listing of sites to use, makes it somehow biased.
Strange that mediaite is on there though, MBFC says they do have a left bias but accurate reporting rating is high [editline]6th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Alice3173;53112796]Kinda missing an important detail here. It's not a matter of bias. It's a matter of bias PLUS providing incorrect information and conspiracy theory garbage. [/QUOTE] This is an important detail. This isn't fake news as in "Mostly accurate but biased" ala CNN and Breitbart, this is outright real fake news, before the term was watered down by the right.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.