Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday February 08 2018, @11:20AM   Printer-friendly
from the it's-a-right-wing-thing dept.

Fake News Sharing in US is a Right-Wing Thing, Says Study

A study by researchers at Oxford University concluded that sharing fake and junk news is much more prevalent amongst Trump supporters and other people with hard right-wing tendencies.

From the Guardian:

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 State of the Union address 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 Facebook, 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.

Polarization, Partisanship and Junk News Consumption over Social Media in the US

What kinds of social media users read junk news? We examine the distribution of the most significant sources of junk news in the three months before President Donald Trump's first State of the Union Address. Drawing on a list of sources that consistently publish political news and information that is extremist, sensationalist, conspiratorial, masked commentary, fake news and other forms of junk news, we find that the distribution of such content is unevenly spread across the ideological spectrum. We demonstrate that (1) on Twitter, a network of Trump supporters shares the widest range of known junk news sources and circulates more junk news than all the other groups put together; (2) on Facebook, extreme hard right pages—distinct from Republican pages—share the widest range of known junk news sources and circulate more junk news than all the other audiences put together; (3) on average, the audiences for junk news on Twitter share a wider range of known junk news sources than audiences on Facebook's public pages.

http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/polarization-partisanship-and-junk-news/

[Ed. note: page is loading very slowly; try a direct link to the actual report (pdf). --martyb]


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:00PM (18 children)

    by NotSanguine (285) <{NotSanguine} {at} {SoylentNews.Org}> on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:00PM (#634863) Homepage Journal

    Indeed. Let us recall that just because researchers claim they use a certain methodology, it doesn't mean [wattsupwiththat.com] that they actually do. Research that comes up with a notable political bias probably isn't firing on all cylinders.

    Absolutely! You couldn't be more correct.

    So tell us, now that you have access to the data and the methodology, when will you have a report for us as to whether or not you can replicate the results?

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:24PM (17 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:24PM (#634886) Journal

    So tell us, now that you have access to the data and the methodology, when will you have a report for us as to whether or not you can replicate the results?

    Certainly. There's just the matter of funding. The above group in question received funding of around 2 million Pounds over five years. I think that's a reasonable amount in order to fund replication of the data. I await your check.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:30PM (16 children)

      by NotSanguine (285) <{NotSanguine} {at} {SoylentNews.Org}> on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:30PM (#634892) Homepage Journal

      if you wish your unfounded assertions to have any value other than bloviation, you need to provide some evidence.

      What's that? You won't provide any evidence for your assertions? Then we must assume they're bullshit.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
      • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by khallow on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:37PM (14 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:37PM (#634903) Journal
        And that's the funding level at which I'll provide said evidence. Let us keep in mind the original researchers did not have to do this work on their own dime. I see no reason I should either.
        • (Score: 5, Touché) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:45PM (13 children)

          by NotSanguine (285) <{NotSanguine} {at} {SoylentNews.Org}> on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:45PM (#634909) Homepage Journal

          You also didn't need to claim they were right or wrong. You, apparently, without spending millions, knew what was correct and what wasn't.

          Now you say you need millions to back up your claim? Why should I pay for *you* to determine if *your* assertions are correct?

          Without evidence, what you claim is just rank speculation. If you want those claims treated as anything else, *you* need to back up *your* claims.

          Or is the world required to just take your word for it? Not so much.

          --
          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
          • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by khallow on Thursday February 08 2018, @02:52PM (12 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @02:52PM (#634936) Journal

            Why should I pay for *you* to determine if *your* assertions are correct?

            Because you're the one whining about it. I think it's reasonable that you pay as a result.

            Without evidence, what you claim is just rank speculation. If you want those claims treated as anything else, *you* need to back up *your* claims.

            And I'm not willing to provide said evidence on my own dime.

            Or is the world required to just take your word for it? Not so much.

            Funny how that applies to everything, even the research we're discussing and your opinions.

            • (Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:04PM (11 children)

              by NotSanguine (285) <{NotSanguine} {at} {SoylentNews.Org}> on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:04PM (#634971) Homepage Journal

              Or is the world required to just take your word for it? Not so much.

              Funny how that applies to everything, even the research we're discussing and your opinions.

              Nope. The researchers helpfully provided all their data and their methodology. Which allows other researchers to either replicate or refute their results. That's called *science*

              As for my opinions, I didn't offer any WRT this study. In fact, I didn't express *any* opinion about the study itself. I expressed the opinion that you were making unsubstantiated claims. That doesn't imply that I believe the researchers were correct.

              But the researchers did provide me with the tools and information I'd need to get enough information to form an opinion about the research.

              Which is a heck of lot more than you did. Which is zero. Rather, you just spouted off without any evidence at all.

              --
              No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
              • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by khallow on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:28PM (10 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:28PM (#635093) Journal

                The researchers helpfully provided all their data and their methodology.

                But not the funding as I have helpfully noted earlier. And you're making a rather generous assumption that what they claim is their data and methodology actually is. That is one of the points of replication.

                But the researchers did provide me with the tools and information I'd need to get enough information to form an opinion about the research.

                But as I have noted, not the funding.

                Which is a heck of lot more than you did. Which is zero.

                Let us remember that that research led to conclusions which happen to be politically convenient? I will not "provide" when no one is paying me to undertake that considerable effort. Instead, let us recall that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And bad research in this area has been funded before.

                • (Score: 4, Touché) by aristarchus on Thursday February 08 2018, @07:07PM (9 children)

                  by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday February 08 2018, @07:07PM (#635126) Journal

                  Obvious rebuttal: khallow, you're doing it again! You have had your ass handed to you. You have lost this debate. Answer the nice Soylentil's question, and show the data and the skew, or please stop.

                  --
                  You are currently banned from moderating. The last day of your ban is 2022-03-25.
                  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday February 08 2018, @08:31PM

                    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday February 08 2018, @08:31PM (#635179) Journal

                    Spoiler alert: he ain't gonna. The guy's so far out of his depth it's anyone's guess as to whether drowning, barotrauma, or one of those giant fish that's 2/3 jaws will get him first.

                    --
                    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                  • (Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:48PM (7 children)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:48PM (#635263) Journal
                    Here's my rebuttal [soylentnews.org] to this whole mess. TL;DR is that the researchers used methods with serious problems, have conflicts of interest, and present their research in a very partisan way yet I need to show "evidence" that the research is flawed for free.
                    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Thursday February 08 2018, @11:04PM (5 children)

                      by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday February 08 2018, @11:04PM (#635267) Journal

                      Shut up, khallow. Listen to much wiser men who have gone before you.

                      "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

                      Laplace [rationalwiki.org]

                      You have only asserted these things, due to a delusional mind. None of them are true. You just believe them. The rest of Soyentildom has grown tired of your constant ideological foaming at the mouth. Pay up, or shut up.

                      --
                      You are currently banned from moderating. The last day of your ban is 2022-03-25.
                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday February 08 2018, @11:40PM (4 children)

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @11:40PM (#635283) Journal

                        You have only asserted these things, due to a delusional mind.

                        Rather than be an idiot, read my post that I linked. There's a reason I didn't make a substantial reply in my previous post.

                        None of them are true.

                        "None"? I bet my assertions about the funding for the group behind this research has a greater likelihood of being true than that assertion does.

                        You just believe them. The rest of Soyentildom has grown tired of your constant ideological foaming at the mouth. Pay up, or shut up.

                        I like this more assertive aristarchus. Now, just think on top of that. You should be doing pretty well, if you can manage that.

                        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Friday February 09 2018, @12:01AM (3 children)

                          by aristarchus (2645) on Friday February 09 2018, @12:01AM (#635296) Journal

                          I bet my assertions about the funding for the group behind this research has a greater likelihood of being true than that assertion does.

                          Bet it doesn't! Yeah, where does that leave us? You are not helping your case, khallow. We are all pulling for you, and trying to get you to realize that you are just embarrassing yourself. You have nothing but conservative conspiracy wishful thinking behind your accusations, made obvious by your refusal to provide even the slightest evidence for them. So my dear and fluffy khallow, please desist before you make an even bigger ass out of yourself.

                          --
                          You are currently banned from moderating. The last day of your ban is 2022-03-25.
                          • (Score: 0, Offtopic) by khallow on Friday February 09 2018, @12:25AM (2 children)

                            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 09 2018, @12:25AM (#635308) Journal

                            Bet it doesn't!

                            Source is here [europa.eu]. Did make a whoops. It was Euros not British pounds. That'll save some money (Pound is about 14% more than the Euro).

                            You have nothing but conservative conspiracy wishful thinking behind your accusations, made obvious by your refusal to provide even the slightest evidence for them.

                            Fortunately, one can read my posts and see for themselves. I suggest instead of continuing this vapid assault, you just read my most substantial criticism [soylentnews.org] of the research. I recognize most of my writing was not very informative or well thought out with some error, but that post is my best argument to date.

                            • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @12:57AM (1 child)

                              by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @12:57AM (#635322)

                              OMG get these commie bastards out of here, how dare SN publish an article funded by CORDIS!!!

                              CORDIS is the Community Research and Development Information Service.

                              It is the European Commission's primary public repository and portal to disseminate information on all EU-funded research projects and their results in the broadest sense.

                              The website and repository include all public information held by the Commission (project factsheets, publishable reports and deliverables), editorial content to support communication and exploitation (news, events, success stories, magazines, multilingual "results in brief" for the broader public) and comprehensive links to external sources such as open access publications and websites.

                              Such a bastion of liberal horror! /s

                              While I do think the study needs to be taken with a big grain of salt your accusations are pretty baseless and obviously a result of being triggered by this topic. QED? lol

                              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 13 2018, @02:08AM

                                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 13 2018, @02:08AM (#636937) Journal
                                The obvious rebuttal is that the EU's very existence is at stake and they are funding research which suspiciously smells like propaganda to defend themselves.

                                Brexit took away an important member of the EU. Far right groups are throughout the EU (with the potential to cause either breakups of existing states or additional Brexit votes. Meanwhile on the US side, the Trump election gave many of those European far right groups credibility. Now, we see the EU funding research which portrays the alt-right (the US flavor of the far right) as a bunch of gullible dupes. What a coincidence!

                                Needless to say, I don't buy that this is a coincidence, but rather part of some overall strategy for discrediting political threats to the EU.
                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @06:25PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @06:25PM (#635631)

                      Here's my rebuttal [urbandictionary.com] to all of you! Jolly good show!

                      I cannot believe the mods went for it... Sad!

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @02:13PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @02:13PM (#634923)

        Oh, no! The mothership seriously cut khallows funding! It asks now more trolling for the same money!
        Expect an increased activity.