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This discussion has been archived.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: -1, Flamebait) by khallow on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:43PM (6 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:43PM (#635259) Journal

    I've been doing this crazy voting thing about 50 years, and I've never met anyone paid to vote, offer me money to vote, offer anyone I know money to vote, heard of any bids.

    I have. Anyone who votes to protect funds they receive from government, be it health care payouts, Social Security, a government funding stream, etc has been successfully paid to vote.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   -2  
       Flamebait=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Flamebait' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   -1  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @01:55AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @01:55AM (#635349)

    Oh please, spare me. That's 100% of population. Of course people vote based on their (perceived) self interest. Some vote for social programs, some vote for tax cuts and military, some vote for religion...

    What's your problem anyway? I though self-interest was the holy grail of you Randian assholes. When it's other people's self-interest, now it's suddenly immoral and unfair? Boo-fucking-hoo.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 09 2018, @05:34PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 09 2018, @05:34PM (#635599) Journal

      Of course people vote based on their (perceived) self interest.

      The point here is that the future of their democracy is also in their self interest. But these programs create a conflict of interest where people are voting for the swag rather than a well operating and low corruption government.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 09 2018, @06:00PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 09 2018, @06:00PM (#635616) Journal

      When it's other people's self-interest, now it's suddenly immoral and unfair?

      You should try to understand libertarianism first. The problem here isn't that other people have self-interest, but instead that they are using the power of government to further their self-interest at the expense of many other people and the future of their country. Libertarians don't do that.

      For example, we have the sorry spectacle of a considerable portion of the developing world sacrificing the future of its youth just so the older generations can have a more comfortable retirement.

  • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday February 09 2018, @07:01AM (2 children)

    by aristarchus (2645) on Friday February 09 2018, @07:01AM (#635428) Journal

    Just because you have voted to protect your government contract, that does not mean everyone with a government contract does the same, khallow. Some actually provide the bid for service at the highest quality and the lowest cost. So who is your uncle that keeps you on the government tit? My god, I have known so many of these types, people with DOD positions, because they were related to high ranking officers, even though they were mentally deficient, much like the aforementioned khallow, and Ethanol_fueled. Affirmative action, y'all? So, who are your relatives, khallow? We all know you could not have gotten your job based on your native intelligence.

    --
    You are currently banned from moderating. The last day of your ban is 2022-03-25.
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 09 2018, @08:52AM (1 child)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 09 2018, @08:52AM (#635449) Journal

      Some actually provide the bid for service at the highest quality and the lowest cost.

      Sounds like you've been hitting the pixie dust a bit much. But sure, I agree, there are situations where there is only one bidder and hence, trivially, the bid is highest quality and lowest cost available. It also happens to be lowest quality and highest cost, but hey, it's not my money anymore once the taxman taketh.

      So who is your uncle that keeps you on the government tit? My god, I have known so many of these types, people with DOD positions, because they were related to high ranking officers, even though they were mentally deficient, much like the aforementioned khallow, and Ethanol_fueled.

      And I thought I was triggered! I'm also still on the fence as to whether you are EF or not.

      We all know you could not have gotten your job based on your native intelligence.

      Interesting that you have moved on to purely imaginary personal attacks. Very classy.

      I remain concerned that you'll leave us in our hour of need. Who will waste our time in the future once you're gone? Does that mean EF will leave us too?

      • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday February 09 2018, @09:11AM

        by aristarchus (2645) on Friday February 09 2018, @09:11AM (#635456) Journal

        I remain concerned that you'll leave us in our hour of need.

        You have been saying this for years now, khallow. It is about as accurate at your other predictions, and as truthful as your assertions in this particular instance, which, by the way, is way off topic. Personal attacks? You weasel, you.

        --
        You are currently banned from moderating. The last day of your ban is 2022-03-25.