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This discussion has been archived.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.
1 (2)
  • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Thursday February 08 2018, @12:22PM (31 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @12:22PM (#634842) Homepage Journal

    https://www.google.com/search?ei=nj98WqazI9PcjwPmgb_IAg&q=is+oxford+university+liberal+or+conservative&oq=Is+oxford+a+liberal+university&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.0i22i30k1.66517.78705.0.82322.52.33.1.0.0.0.563.6566.3-5j6j4.15.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..36.16.6664...0j0i13k1j0i67k1j0i131k1j0i3k1j0i10k1.0.uhRFAvU41hU [google.com]

    OK, the claim is that UK universities are neither liberal nor conservative. https://www.quora.com/Is-Oxford-university-a-liberal-institution [quora.com]

    That doesn't preclude the likelihood that some liberals at Oxford got together, and decided that "fake news is conservative".

    Maybe we should ask Hillary about fake news, when she isn't dodging sniper fire in some Eastern European country?

    --
    Let's go Brandon!
    • (Score: 4, Informative) by c0lo on Thursday February 08 2018, @12:39PM (13 children)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @12:39PM (#634850) Journal

      That doesn't preclude the likelihood that some liberals at Oxford got together, and decided that "fake news is conservative".

      Letting aside your USian political spectrum is so skewed to the right that you may call all the Oxford guys even communist (when compared with your standard), my question is "Why would they do that"? Not like they stand to gain anything from it, they're not voting in US election, so why?

      Note: you know? you don't get to be an Oxford professor if you are irrational. Maybe you can afford that, they don't

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
      • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 08 2018, @12:54PM

        by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday February 08 2018, @12:54PM (#634858) Homepage Journal

        Don't mind Runaway. He gets a little testy when he doesn't get his regularly scheduled booty bump [tweaker.org].

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
      • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by khallow on Thursday February 08 2018, @12:58PM (9 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @12:58PM (#634862) Journal

        my question is "Why would they do that"?

        In other words, aside from the political bias, why would they do that? Let us also note that there is probably considerable funding in providing propaganda that shows one side of a US debate is "fake news".

        • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:02PM (4 children)

          by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:02PM (#634865) Homepage Journal

          In other words, aside from the political bias, why would they do that? Let us also note that there is probably considerable funding in providing propaganda that shows one side of a US debate is "fake news".

          You may be right. We're all waiting to hear back as to whether or not you can replicate the results.

          --
          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
          • (Score: 1, Troll) by khallow on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:26PM (3 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:26PM (#634888) Journal
            2 million Pounds [ox.ac.uk] over five years. I think that's reasonable for the request above.
            • (Score: 3, Touché) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:34PM (2 children)

              by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:34PM (#634896) Homepage Journal

              I made no assertions as to the invalidity of the results. You did.

              Either provide evidence to support those assertions or quit pretending you're doing anything other than hand waving and making unfounded claims.

              --
              No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
              • (Score: 2) by arulatas on Thursday February 08 2018, @07:59PM (1 child)

                by arulatas (3600) on Thursday February 08 2018, @07:59PM (#635162)

                I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.
                George Bernard Shaw

                --
                ----- 10 turns around
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:44PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:44PM (#635261)

                  George Bernard Shaw [youtube.com] would have gassed the pigs and you may as well be quoting Hitler or Stalin.

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:14PM (2 children)

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:14PM (#634874) Journal

          In other words, aside from the political bias, why would they do that?

          .uk TLD [wikipedia.org] Are you saying that not only Russians are trying to influence US elections, but the brits too?

          TFA is a study of propaganda using social media and uses US as a subject. The author political bias is absolutely inconsequential for US politics.
          But you may be right to worry, it may throw some rocks into the propaganda machines even if not intended as such.

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
          • (Score: 2, Funny) by khallow on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:29PM (1 child)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:29PM (#634891) Journal
            European Union [ox.ac.uk] actually. They're the ones directly funding the organization in question. And such research can also be used to attack Brexit and other separatist outbreaks.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @02:21PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @02:21PM (#634926)

              Search for open mics in your area, I'm sure your comedy will improve if you persist enough.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @02:15PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @02:15PM (#634925)

          The butthurt is strong in this one. /Yoda

      • (Score: 1, Redundant) by Runaway1956 on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:30PM (1 child)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:30PM (#634893) Homepage Journal

        Why? For any number of reasons. Boredom is a possibility. A bunch of bored students sitting around, talking about the savages in the States, and their stupid elections. "Hey, let's see if all that fake news is put out by the right, or the far right, alright?" "Ha! Just as I suspected! America's right may put out fake news, but most of it is from the extreme right, or alt-right!"

        So, uhhhh - you tell us: Why did they do this study?

        --
        Let's go Brandon!
        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:57PM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:57PM (#634916) Journal

          So, uhhhh - you tell us: Why did they do this study?

          DRY [soylentnews.org]

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @12:49PM (10 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @12:49PM (#634854)

      Who decided that democrats are liberal? I mean, if you want really fake news, you couldn't start in a better place. What, "liberal" because of Kennedy? How long did that last? They shot that horse in '68. You don't go after the mob and live to tell about it.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:35PM (9 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:35PM (#634899) Homepage Journal

        We in America decided that Dems are more liberal than Reps. People in Europe tend to agree with that, while at the same time pointing out that we don't have a liberal party. We have a right and a further right party, no left party. Still, liberal is a useful term. Try to keep up.

        --
        Let's go Brandon!
        • (Score: 2) by fritsd on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:52PM (4 children)

          by fritsd (4586) on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:52PM (#635010) Journal

          Actually, I like the Political Compass [politicalcompass.org]. It makes more sense to add ad dimension.

          • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday February 08 2018, @05:34PM (3 children)

            by Thexalon (636) on Thursday February 08 2018, @05:34PM (#635053)

            That is certainly an improvement, but the fact of the matter is that nobody fits into a neat little box, and it often depends a lot on who's getting paid and who's doing the paying.

            For instance, everybody whose local economy does not depend on military spending is, when asked about it, likely to say something along the lines of "Grr, why should I have to pay all this money so the Air Force can get planes that don't fly, and the Army can get tanks they didn't ask for?" Whereas everybody whose local economy does depend on military spending is pretty universally in favor of it, even if they know it serves no actual government purpose but does keep themselves or their family members employed.

            In short, it's not "All politics is local" but "All politics is personal".

            --
            The inverse of "I told you so" is "Nobody could have predicted"
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @01:53AM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @01:53AM (#635348)

              A great example is my dad.

              He never served in the military. He was an industrial PhD scientist who worked for food companies that were not military suppliers. He never lived in a town with a military base.

              He wants a bigger military. He has wanted more nukes since at least when he was in college in the 1960s, probably earlier. He wants more soldiers, more sailors, and more airmen. He wants bombers, submarines, and aircraft carriers. He especially wants space-based weapons and anti-ICBM systems.

              He isn't rich, but he's willing to pay. He donated over $1000 to Trump, and has spent quite a bit supporting the NRA. Although he isn't fond of taxes, he sees the military as the most important expense of the federal government.

              ...

              I'm a slightly less-good example, due to my employer selling bombs, but I didn't randomly choose my career. It's not like I would have been happy making phone apps and web pages. I love making things to harm America's enemies. Even before I got employed this way, I agreed with my dad.

              My brother is also a slightly less-good example, in his case due to a military base near his house. Thing is, he had his opinions before he moved there.

              • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @05:10AM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @05:10AM (#635388)

                I love making things to harm America's enemies

                USA.gov's enemies are almost exclusively of its own making.

                In 1853, USAian Commodore Perry sailed a fleet with 61 cannons into Tokyo Bay and told the Japanese in no uncertain terms that they would open themselves to trade.

                In 1896, USAian Marines invaded and occupied Hawaii and USA.gov never left.

                In 1898, yellow journalism took USA.gov into a war of Imperialism against Spain.

                WWI was a European matter. USA.gov had no business getting involved.

                ...and as soon as WWI was over, USA.gov (and a dozen other Capitalist countries) invaded the newborn USSR (and never bothered to tell USAians it was doing that).

                In the 1930s, USA.gov sent a fleet to blockade Japanese trade in the Malaccan Strait.
                Pearl Harbor was payback.

                The coup which deposed the democratically-elected prime minister of Iran in 1953 and installed a brutal monster was directed by CIA.

                The USAian invasion and occupation of Vietnam was overt Imperialism.
                ...and USA.gov murdered civilians by the millions in that.

                ...and we could go all the way back to "the shores of Tripoli" (the Mediterranean coast of Libya, 1803) or "the halls of Montezuma" (Mexico City, 1845).

                -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @06:47AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @06:47AM (#635423)

                  You can't help the brainwashed, those events are too far removed for them. If nothing else they wave them away with "all countries do the same shit" and therefore they might as well look out for their own.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:40PM (2 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:40PM (#635105) Journal

          People in Europe

          Is it really that big a deal that people in Europe have a different viewpoint than people in the US, particularly, when part of the difference probably comes from people migrating from Europe to the US? For example, a lot of religious conservatives left Europe for the US in the 17th through to 19th Centuries, basically a good portion of the more extreme Protestant faiths of the time (such as Lutherans, Puritans, Quakers, Calvinists, and Anabaptists); a good portion of the people fleeing the law, tyrannical states, or personal relationships; and a heaping helping of ambitious opportunists of all stripes. That probably by itself explains the different attitudes in the US concerning religion, crime, firearm ownership, and business.

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday February 08 2018, @11:17PM (1 child)

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @11:17PM (#635276) Homepage Journal

            It is something of a deal that European are constantly reminding us that we have no "left". But, I think they err, at least to some degree. Our left is unlike their left, but our left DOES cater to the welfare masses, or at least they try hard to give that appearance. And, our right caters to the law and order crowd, or at least tries hard to appear to do so. Our left and right are quite different from the Euro left and right, but they share a lot of similarities. Immigration? Tax the rich? Benefits for the poor? There are a lot of similarities, that many Euros want to dismiss.

            --
            Let's go Brandon!
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @01:08AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @01:08AM (#635329)

              Hmm, welfare masses you say? You mean all the poor conservatives that hog the majority of welfare budgets?

              Riiiight. Guess I'd better what out for those scurrry welfare queens that flaunt their degeneracy as they jaywalk in front of your car.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 11 2018, @03:55AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 11 2018, @03:55AM (#636254)

          We in America decided that Dems are more liberal than Reps.

          Yeah... An look what it got ya! How is it that the party of Richard Daley and George Wallace is in anyway "liberal" compared to the party that actually sent in the army to desegregate the schools and had to help vote in the voting/civil rights acts?? Who was the guy that signed the EPA and OSHA into existence? Somewhere you all got your wires crossed. You can compare republicans to democrats only in the same way you can compare virus to bacteria. One is not necessarily worse than the other, only different. I mean, like, which venereal disease would you rather have? Sorry, people who vote republican or democrat don't know fake from real, or they are looking for a piece of the action, and I sure don't sympathize with that bunch!

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by TheRaven on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:14PM (5 children)

      by TheRaven (270) on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:14PM (#634876) Journal

      That doesn't preclude the likelihood that some liberals at Oxford got together, and decided that "fake news is conservative".

      First, they're not saying that "fake news is conservative", they saying that when fake news is released conservatives are more likely to repeat it.

      --
      sudo mod me up
      • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by khallow on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:35PM (4 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:35PM (#634900) Journal

        First, they're not saying that "fake news is conservative", they saying that when fake news is released conservatives are more likely to repeat it.

        Which if it were true, would be an interesting bit of weaseling since the majority of "fake news" outlets that they list are alt-right. From what I've read, it doesn't appear that they actually make that claim.

        • (Score: 4, Informative) by FatPhil on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:48PM (1 child)

          by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:48PM (#635005) Homepage
          It appears you've not read the article. Or even its abstract. The whole thing is framed in terms of the *sharing*:
            "we find that the distribution of such content is unevenly spread",
            "... shares the widest range"
            "... circulates more"
            "... share the widest range"
            "... circulate more"
            "... share a wider range"
          And that's just the one-paragraph abstract.

          The "..." aren't important to refute your bizarre claim, but in case you're interested in the content of the study at all, rather than just spouting off from a position of ignorance, the Conservatives are the ones distribute the(ir) fake news more widely and more often.
          --
          I know I'm God, because every time I pray to him, I find I'm talking to myself.
          • (Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:53PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:53PM (#635117)

            I think he's kind of showing himself to be the poster child for what the paper is about.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @07:17PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @07:17PM (#635133)

          Which if it were true, would be an interesting bit of weaseling since the majority of "fake news" outlets that they list are alt-right.

          Wow! Amazing! Why is that, do you think? Researchers go looking for "fake news", and they find it in Brietbarf and the Washington (Moonie) Times? And so they list all these far right news sources because they contain false news and right-wing nut-jobs share this false news from the false news source to other right-wing nut-jobs? Shocking! Thanks for pointing this out, khallow! I will share this with all my peeps on Gab!

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:20PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:20PM (#635239)

            And this... [gop.com] this too [theintercept.com]

  • (Score: 4, Funny) by cubancigar11 on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:26PM (8 children)

    by cubancigar11 (330) on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:26PM (#634889) Homepage Journal

    Someone asked me to do this research around 4 months before the USA election. I asked them why? As conservatives are by definition are trying to 'conserve', which means they are by definition under attack because they asked to make changes in themselves, which means they will be more driven by emotion, will have less 'tact', more... so to say... desperate. Lo and behold, 2 years later the study points to the same direction.

    It is a leftist fantasy that conservatives are holding all the power. The power is and has always been held by non-conservatives. In fact, the conservative values are by large driven by community and have historically been a domain of the poor.

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 08 2018, @05:24PM (5 children)

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday February 08 2018, @05:24PM (#635044) Journal

      It is a leftist fantasy that conservatives are holding all the power.

      Most of us leftists realize that the Republicans are reactionaries, not conservatives. But, they do hold all the power right now.

      • (Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Thursday February 08 2018, @07:44PM (4 children)

        by cubancigar11 (330) on Thursday February 08 2018, @07:44PM (#635152) Homepage Journal

        Conservatives don't hold any power. The billionaires and their bitches do.

        • (Score: 3, Touché) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday February 08 2018, @08:39PM (2 children)

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday February 08 2018, @08:39PM (#635184) Journal

          Thing is, Kyuubey, most people who hear "conservative" in this milieu then think of what is properly called reactionary. This may not have been intentionally set up, but it sure seems to be a convenient little kink in reality that stops *actual* lower-case-C-conservatives from noticing that their supposed fellow-travelers actually aren't anything like them.

          Conservative-with-a-lowercase-C values are actually showing up more in the Democrats than the Republicans. Take everyone's favorite political football, "family values." Which party is advocating policies that allow for families to stay together, make enough money to subsist on, and thereby raise well-adjusted children and by extension keep society running smoothly? I'll give you a hint: neither of the *really* are, but it's the Republican party that seems hellbent on creating a massive underclass of dysfunctional poverty-stricken single mothers and stunted, malnourished, lead-poisoned (see Flint, MI) children.

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @11:57PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @11:57PM (#635291)

            the Republican party that seems hellbent on creating a massive underclass of dysfunctional poverty-stricken single mothers

            Not [politifact.com] true [realclearpolitics.com]

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @01:17AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @01:17AM (#635333)

              Worst supporting articles I've seen in a long time. I would also like to call your attention to Azuma's statement that neither Ds or Rs really do much as they are both quite corrupt and out to make the rich richer. Republicans do nothing to support real family values, however they sure do push religious bullshit that causes divisions in society and they actively try to reduce social safety nets.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @06:08AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @06:08AM (#635407)

          As Azauma has noted, it's the (Neoliberal) [soylentnews.org] Democrats who resemble Conservatives these days.

          The Republican agenda is RADICAL, which is the OPPOSITE of "Conservative".
          Azauma also correctly identified GOP's position as REACTIONARY (wanting to have the status quo ante, i.e. returning to the condition of an earlier era: no women voting; only land owners voting; no empowered "middle class"; etc.).

          Now, as to your assertion, go ahead and link to a Lamestream Media outlet that has had someone on in, oh, let's say the last 40 years who expressed a Socialist (Leftist) viewpoint e.g. empowering The Working Class via ownership.

          It doesn't happen.
          On his weekly radio program, Ralph Nader asks his -Progressive- (not even Leftist) guests if they have been allowed on any national outlet [google.com] addressing what they are discussing with Ralph.
          The answer is always NO.
          That ended for sure with the killing of The Fairness Doctrine by Reagan/Mark Fowler in 1987.

          Anyone who wants to get a Non-Conservative/Non-Reactionary viewpoint, has to go to Non-Lamestream media.
          Your conception of what power is is quaint (as is your conception of "Conservative").

          -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @07:22PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @07:22PM (#635136)

      Wow, cubancigarette, that is some first-class fake news right there! Keep up the great work!

    • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Thursday February 08 2018, @09:05PM

      by meustrus (4961) on Thursday February 08 2018, @09:05PM (#635199)

      conservative values are by large driven by community and have historically been a domain of the poor.

      That depends on whether you are talking about social conservatism or economic conservatism.

      On the social side, you would have a good argument; the kind of "traditional family values" that Republicans use to motivate their base are not values that the wealthy have ever shared. As such, I would challenge you to name any politician that actually lives out those conservative values, right or left. But regardless of who is promoting it, the argument can definitely be made that social conservatism is defined by that majority of people that are not wealthy or powerful enough to elevate themselves above their community - those whom you have labelled "poor", but whom I would simply call "normal".

      Economic conservatism, however, is anything but a domain of the poor. It is, ultimately, the un-American notion that those people who currently have wealth and power ought to be able to keep their wealth and power for eternity. The economic status quo always leads to aristocracy, something which is forbidden by name in the Constitution.

      The promise made to the poor by economic conservatives is and has always been that:

      1. The wealthy and powerful, by virtue of having become wealthy and powerful, are better equipped than you are to manage the economy for your benefit;
      2. If you are deemed worthy by Adam Smith's invisible hand, you too can join the club of the wealthy and powerful.

      Some people may continue to fall for this promise year after year, but that doesn't mean it was "driven by community", nor that it was ever "a domain of the poor".

      --
      If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @02:03PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @02:03PM (#634918)

    Some may know, some may recall

  • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Thursday February 08 2018, @05:06PM (7 children)

    by bzipitidoo (4388) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @05:06PM (#635023) Journal

    This research is great and all, but I can't help feeling it's not telling us anything we don't already know. At worst, it's a way to delude ourselves that we're doing something about propaganda when all it is, is another confirmation that the right wing is more susceptible to propaganda.

    The danger is that these right wingnut bozos frog march the nation into doing really stupid stuff. It's been happening, with the worst outbreak so far the 2003 Iraq War. But even more I wonder about the kinds of cunning fools who have brains enough to manipulate the susceptible people with propaganda, but not brains enough to understand why they should not do so. Why the neo-cons could have possibly thought the damage to America's reputation caused by lying about the Weapons of Mass Destruction was worth it, or more like simply didn't put any value to that, naively thought they could rush in on white horses and, presto, magically make Iraq into a stable, democratic ally, turning a blind eye to the very blatant corruption within their ranks-- they were very stupid and cynical.

    There is worse to come: Global Warming. CO2 pollution. The folly of Big Oil in burying this issue is breathtaking. The leaders of the oil companies are highly educated and intelligent people, yet they thought too small, choosing to play the game of capitalism instead of the game of human survival. What the heck is the matter with them? They aren't starving and desperate, they are the 0.1%, the super rich. They think they can just shit in the nest, and the rest of us and nature will just magically clean up after them. Big Oil is not exceptional. Big Tobacco does the same thing. Big Finance keeps reaching for fraudulent tools. How many of them, I wonder, are still tempted to run a Ponzi scheme, despite the still fresh disaster of Madoff's? I hope there are some sectors that aren't run by greedy fools. Guess they don't make the news.

    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Thexalon on Thursday February 08 2018, @05:53PM (4 children)

      by Thexalon (636) on Thursday February 08 2018, @05:53PM (#635065)

      The one connection between conservatism and susceptibility to propaganda that I can think of: An essential idea of conservative ideology is that people who are in charge got that way because they are somehow smarter, more moral, harder-working, or more capable than those who are not in charge. By contrast, an essential idea of liberal ideology is that people who are in charge got that way because they are luckier, more privileged, and more criminal than those who are not in charge.

      Why does that matter?
      1. The people who are currently powerful do better if people think they're in charge because they're better at running things. So that makes them on average more likely to fund conservative propaganda than liberal propaganda.

      2. If you show a conservative a wealthy privileged person in a nice suit saying something on the TV, the conservative reaction is along the lines of "Hmm, that obviously smart and successful person said something, so it must be true." By contrast, the liberal reaction is something along the lines of "That rich guy said something, it must be malarkey trying to trick us into making him richer or more powerful." That drives what sort of outlets get created and who gets listened to: Conservative propaganda outlets typically use glitz and glamour, liberal propaganda outlets use low-budget productions with dirt and people in everyday outfits.

      3. Conservative propaganda outlets also have an easier time maintaining themselves as organizations, because liberal propaganda outlets become less credible as they get better funding and name recognition. Again, because liberals start becoming suspicious of people with "privilege", and somebody like, say, HuffPo, steadily loses attention and credibility as it becomes richer and more powerful, whereas for something like InfoWars the opposite is true.

      --
      The inverse of "I told you so" is "Nobody could have predicted"
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:25PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:25PM (#635090)

        Dude that is messed up

        i vote for people that seem to demonstrate they are not being dicks, understand local politics as necessary and big issue concerns, and that do not vote the party line because someone else somewhere else said they had to do something or they won't get funding. at least that's how i try to discern who's a dick or not, and i might not always get it right.

        just because you see illinois or something being a state with a big city that seems to be led by a current generation of gangsters does not a political party make. i am not even sure what other criminal states you are talking about. new jersy would work except isn't that disappointed guy working for trump the governor there?

        that doesnt matter because there are plenty of completely ineffective democrats elsewhere that couldn't get themselves out of a parking ticket and didn't get their position via being a crook. we have nixon to thank for scaring most of them away from that.

        your list is written as if it's a conservative perspective of how things work.

        i dont vote based on how rich or good looking someone is--i vote based on what they say, like "we believe we can create jobs by increasing pollution so that the janitors can be outsourced to another company to control costs and contribute to the gig economy by allowing a just-in-time cleanup effort by assigning people to clean coal smoke out of the air without resorting to job killing regulations. people can welcome the opportunity to drink bottled water available at a walmart in bulk packages thanks to our new monolopy distribution program of single sourced vendors. *water is bottled at the source, 'Coal Springs', after first being run through for treatment at the power plant; extra minerals included for free!"

            If they say that, I won't vote for them -- whether they are republican or democrat

        you seem to think its a popularity contest of the richest person with the best propaganda. no, people vote pretty much based on their jobs, their health, and their fears.

        can you explain to me how intelligent people vote?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @01:23AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @01:23AM (#635335)

          As with all generalizations they fail to apply to every group. In general most conservatives will not think past the bullshit the guy in a suit spews. More jobs? We'll get more money? Done.

          No politician points out the horrible shit their policies will result in, so you must have a clue to weed them out. Good for you if you truly do see through the bullshit and only vote for decent politicians.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @07:08AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @07:08AM (#635429)

            In general most conservatives will not think

            That is enough.

      • (Score: 2) by digitalaudiorock on Thursday February 08 2018, @09:43PM

        by digitalaudiorock (688) on Thursday February 08 2018, @09:43PM (#635222)

        The one connection between conservatism and susceptibility to propaganda that I can think of: An essential idea of conservative ideology is that people who are in charge got that way because they are somehow smarter, more moral, harder-working, or more capable than those who are not in charge.

        Exactly. The other night I was watching a new PBS American Experience about the Gilded Age. It was hard not to notice how many people these days buy into the exact same social Darwinist ideologies as did Andrew Carnegie back then...despite the fact that the list of richest Americans is full of people who've done nothing beyond having the right parents! Insane.

    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @08:38PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @08:38PM (#635183)

      There is worse to come: Global Warming. CO2 pollution.

      Mwahahahahaha.
      Wake us IF these boogiethings get a chance to damage any territory BEYOND ones already infested by "religion of peace". Till then, do shut up.
      No one sane should lift a finger to assist one's sworn mortal enemies.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @05:00AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @05:00AM (#635386)

        Your screed doesn't even make sense. Try again.

  • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:09PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:09PM (#635075)

    As expected, this is a partisan hit piece. There are two problems.

    1. The list contains legit news sources.

    2. I couldn't find a single leftist fake news site.

    Essentially, it's just a list of conservative web sites.

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:56PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:56PM (#635119)

      You might have checked the list, but you clearly didn't read the article or get its point.

      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @09:46PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @09:46PM (#635223)

        You might have checked the list, but you clearly didn't read the article or get its point.

        You clearly don't understand what constitutes a bias sample or that "junk news" includes the likes the WSJ and CNN.

  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @07:05PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @07:05PM (#635125)

    The people who track the Russian Twitter bots monitor this kind of stuff. The bots target the right wingers [politico.com] because they are so easily duped.

    Is it really any surprise seeing who they voted for that they fall for this stuff?

    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @08:00PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @08:00PM (#635163)

      The bots target the right wingers because they are so easily duped.

      Islam is a religion of peace, there are 3 quadrillion genders and socialism is great. Those pesky right wingers will never appreciate our glorious utopia comrade!

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @09:09PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @09:09PM (#635200)

        release the memo!

  • (Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:40PM (7 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:40PM (#635258) Journal
    There are serious flaws from the very beginning. First one is in the title. They refer to "junk news". In addition, they asserted in the abstract:

    Drawing on a list of sources that consistently publish political news and information that is

    There are more connotatively neutral ways to describe this phenomena. They chose not to do that from the very beginning. Strong connotation in the research itself is a sign of propaganda. Let us also keep in mind that they describe themselves [soylentnews.org] as having this sort of bias and they are funded by the EU (which has interest in both protecting the rationalization for "hate speech" laws and in marginalizing and suppressing separatist groups, which happen to be mostly far right).

    Second is the "12 angry men", a group of "trained coders". That is a highly subjective methodology for evaluation and it has been abused [wattsupwiththat.com] in research before. From criticism of the John Cook "97%" paper I just linked:

    Each abstract was categorized by two independent, anonymized raters. The study participants were all members of the same Skeptical Science group, were often friends and they were actively talking to one another about how to categorize papers. There may be some semantic parsing which would make the claim these raters were “independent” true, but Cook and his colleagues must have known there’s no way anyone reading their paper would have guessed the “independent” raters were talking to one another about how to rate things: Similarly, while it may be true the raters were only presented certain information as part of the rating system, Cook and his colleagues intentionally left out the fact the raters cheated and looked up additional information.

    It's worth noting here that there's no mention in either the research paper or the online supplement of what, if anything, the researchers of the present work did to avoid this sort of collusion between coders.

    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, label ed sources of news and information based on a grounded typology. The Krippendorff’s alpha value for inter-coder reliability among three executive coders, who develop ed 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).

    Notice both the vague assurances of academic rigor ("rigorously iterative coding process" and "trained coders") and continued use of negative connotation terms.

    This methodology is quite relevant because it is the way they distinguish between "junk news" and not. Do you really think the conclusions of the paper would remain the same, if this judging process were executed by heavily biased US Republican or UK National Front operatives, for example?

    Next we have the choice of time span and lack of ability to distinguish between genuine tweet accounts and fake news accounts. The Russian efforts to distribute fake news (a variation of junk news) would be underway at this time (with apparently no one else operating on that scale). That would result in a large number of promiscuous Twitter users who propagate the fake news of the day. Has any attempt been made to filter those accounts out? Of course not. It has been alleged [soylentnews.org] that the key research finding is that certain alt-right or conservative user groups are more likely to distribute junk news. But how much of that promiscuity is due to real, live humans? It's real convenient that the authors didn't bother to quantify this obvious issue.

    Moving on, there's the usual silliness of demanding all criticism redo the research that costs significant money, time, and resources (and would still suffer from the same potential for bias). If it costs the original group two million pounds to do the work, I don't see myself effectively criticizing it for free. It's a variation of the argument from authority fallacy.

    A research group using dubious research practices confirms the biases of some SN posters and the extremely expensive onus is on me to show that there is a problem? Screw that.

    • (Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Thursday February 08 2018, @11:08PM (5 children)

      by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Thursday February 08 2018, @11:08PM (#635271)

      Get a Facebook account and see what "news" is shared continually. Sure there's some leftist fake news, but the vast majority shared is spread by right wingers who obviously make zero effort to fact check their "news". Most is obviously fake to anyone with a scrap of judgement, but it got Donald Trump elected.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @11:21PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @11:21PM (#635280)

        Get a Facebook account

        What??? What the fuck you say?

        Facebook is a self selecting sample of people with low IQ and poor self esteem but the paper does not say "stupid people share fake news". To prove political leaning, you must first prove Democrat voters on Facebook were not too busy drooling out of the corner of their mouths [imgur.com] to interact with the website. This is highly unlikely.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @07:11AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @07:11AM (#635431)

          but the paper does not say "stupid people share fake news".

          Um, actually? It does.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday February 08 2018, @11:41PM (2 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @11:41PM (#635285) Journal

        Get a Facebook account and see what "news" is shared continually.

        I'm not touching Facebook.

        • (Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Monday February 12 2018, @10:40PM (1 child)

          by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Monday February 12 2018, @10:40PM (#636857)

          Yet you feel compelled to comment on a topic based on social media posts.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 13 2018, @01:52AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 13 2018, @01:52AM (#636929) Journal

            Yet you feel compelled to comment on a topic based on social media posts.

            What is that supposed to mean? Are you insinuating that somehow I'm unqualified to speak about social media because I'm not on Facebook?

            Let me remind you that we have plenty of news about Facebook and Twitter. I can and have surfed over to webpages which display communications from these communities. I know what I'm missing, and I don't mind missing that at all. And yes, I realize there is a lot of right-wing crap on Facebook. I don't need to be on Facebook to figure that out.

            Second, the research of this story is just the latest in a long line of official rationalizations that attempt to portray "alt-right" behavior and speech as crazy or deviant behavior. I think it is unwise to ignore both the unscientific nature of this study as well as the ulterior motives behind it.

    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @11:09PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @11:09PM (#635273)

      Clinton will win and Trump / Brexit will destroy the economy are all examples of fake news. The authors definition of "junk news" contains nebulous references to professionalism that are lacking within mainstream journalism as comparable to academic rigour lacking in politicised papers like the one under discussion.

      I suggest further defences of this shitshow by our leftist friends be done during a featured guest spot on the Gorilla Channel? [avclub.com]

1 (2)