SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
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]
(Score: 4, Funny) by cubancigar11 on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:26PM (8 children)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Not [politifact.com] true [realclearpolitics.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @01:17AM
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
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
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
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:
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?