Data shows who was reading “fake news” before 2016 US election
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
I just wanted to mention some things on the whole Canada Proud thing.
First, I don't think it's fair to paint it as a broad "Canadian conservatives" thing. It's been pretty heavily focused on the provincial conservative parties, and particularly the ones that the federal conservatives have been increasingly distancing themselves from. It actually started with Ontario Proud being set up to get the Ford government into office and keep him there, and Ford's conservatives are such a massive embarrassment to the federal party that it's seen as significantly contributing to their last election loss.
That whole propaganda network (the "Proud" groups, their Post Millennial media outlet, and so on) pretty typically doesn't have a positive view of the current federal conservatives and will sometimes openly attack its leadership and frontrunners. Their support base in particular really doesn't like the current frontrunner in the federal conservative leadership race for some reason. They just tend to get quieter with their criticisms around election time, because the PPC (ie. the fascist party) can't win seats and they'd prefer a Progressive Conservative government over a Liberal one.
First, I don't think it's fair to paint it as a broad "Canadian conservatives" thing. It's been pretty heavily focused on the provincial conservative parties, and particularly the ones that the federal conservatives have been increasingly distancing themselves from. It actually started with Ontario Proud being set up to get the Ford government into office and keep him there, and Ford's conservatives are such a massive embarrassment to the federal party that it's seen as significantly contributing to their last election loss.
That whole propaganda network (the "Proud" groups, their Post Millennial media outlet, and so on) pretty typically doesn't have a positive view of the current federal conservatives and will sometimes openly attack its leadership and frontrunners. Their support base in particular really doesn't like the current frontrunner in the federal conservative leadership race for some reason. They just tend to get quieter with their criticisms around election time, because the PPC (ie. the fascist party) can't win seats and they'd prefer a Progressive Conservative government over a Liberal one.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
Surprised that a discussion about research and it's conclusions doesn't get scrutinized more heavily in the same manner that most other research articles on this site get treated. We know that there were players in the elections directly attempting to manipulate the click outcomes yet the research supports Ars' view on conservatives so we're good with the research's conclusions and methods.
Article mentions nothing about how the researchers attempted to correct for this in their study. Again, I'll assert that there's nothing to be gained from this research if you cannot control for the outside actor present in the statistics. It's very likely this same research would show liberals clicking on more fake news articles had Cambridge Analytica been hired by Hillary. Cambridge Analytica skews all the results and did it so effectively and completely that any research on patterns from clicks and voting in 2016 is and always will be tainted.
If there's anything to take from the research its that any research into the same in 2020 has to both find the new CA and account for it in its methods.
Article mentions nothing about how the researchers attempted to correct for this in their study. Again, I'll assert that there's nothing to be gained from this research if you cannot control for the outside actor present in the statistics. It's very likely this same research would show liberals clicking on more fake news articles had Cambridge Analytica been hired by Hillary. Cambridge Analytica skews all the results and did it so effectively and completely that any research on patterns from clicks and voting in 2016 is and always will be tainted.
If there's anything to take from the research its that any research into the same in 2020 has to both find the new CA and account for it in its methods.
Upvote
-3
(4
/
-7)
I think a course on logic, argument, reasoning and philosophy should be mandatory in middle and high school. There's such a distinct lack of critical thinking in the country. Whether by design of the government, media or just bad luck or unfortunate consequence, it needs to change. Most people can't seem to identify opinions from facts and objective observations. People think news is entertainment and it's been whipped up into teams, a sport if you will. News is supposed to be boring, it's not entertaining, it's simply reporting what happened. Fox News, CNN, any of the 24 hours news networks really, have devolved into nothing but current events based entertainment. Their primary objective is to capture as many eyeballs as possible to sell ads, not inform and investigate. The best way to lock viewers in is to create a false sense of tribalism. Once you've got them hooked they'll never stray, and you can keep ratcheting up the ad revenue.
Upvote
12
(12
/
0)
Media sources should be independently audited on a number of scales by multiple fact checking services with the results contributing to pro-sociability scores.
For example, it might be that Fox News is 95% accurate on independently verifiable, factual news but full-moon-crazy during opinion segments. My fact checker browser app would display a corresponding badge.
For example, it might be that Fox News is 95% accurate on independently verifiable, factual news but full-moon-crazy during opinion segments. My fact checker browser app would display a corresponding badge.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Upvote
5
(11
/
-6)
You are aware that Russia isn't the Soviet Union, right? Russia hasn't been "Marxist" for what, 30 years? They tried to become capitalist, but ended up an autocracy because the old system was ripe for takeover by oligarchs.
Russia today is extremely conservative.
Upvote
20
(22
/
-2)
Currently, how do you decide which shows are "news" and which are "opinion?" Does Fox label them?
Who would you like to decide for you which is which?
Upvote
6
(7
/
-1)
More fake news from the fake news crier. Next time he will take a sharpie and write 1% over the 3.4% data.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... lse-number
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... lse-number
Upvote
4
(8
/
-4)
So a cohort that is self-selected against paranoid people... I feel unrepresented!
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
What profile are you using? Running down the list of stuff I generally look for in science articles:
- The title's an accurate summary of the article's subject matter.
- The study covered by the article was published in a well-respected peer-reviewed scientific journal.
- It provides numerous sources that aren't just other articles on the same website.
- It accurately describes the contents and results of the study itself.
- It provides a direct citation, with DOI link, to the study itself.
- It contains a relatively minimal amount of editorializing.
So what have I missed, exactly? Or is it just that you're upset with the results?
Upvote
22
(22
/
0)
No. Fake news is information that pretends to be news, but is actually not related to reality. That's it.
All your nonsensical blabbering about "opinions" or "dislike" or "conservative" has nothing to do with anything.
Upvote
17
(20
/
-3)
It's a sad reflection on the universe but this comment thread and your post in particularly are the embodiment of Poe's Law.
Despite the article linked to having an audio recording of Trump saying exactly what the Guardian says he said I still can't tell if you're being serious or not.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Upvote
15
(15
/
0)
I did put that article because the fake news is coming from the POTUS, with a number-data that he did pull out of a fat gas.
Upvote
8
(9
/
-1)
You can find it listed or linked in the supplementary material for that study I linked: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/ ... erg_SM.pdf
There are lists labeled black, orange, and red that were used for this study. Orange and red are listed out in the doc, and there's a link to files where you could (less conveniently) dig out the black.
Upvote
12
(12
/
0)
I know that I, for one, will on occasion visit a site of dubious (or even *shudder* very dubious) factuality in order to understand the types of talking points I am likely to encounter. Take for instance a particular bill is passed or Supreme Court decision released, I find it useful to understand how that is being viewed in the lense of the more extreme wings (what I'll call extreme conservative and extreme liberal though it is obviously more nuanced than that) and then be prepared to discuss things in that lens. Not that I would ever convince any of the true believers, but I know a number of people who see things going viral and it is important to me to place things in context for them. Often with facts that straight counter the points of the more extreme dubious sites. I wish those people would be more rigorous in their own investigations of information, but as these people are typically involved in my life I think we could all take some time to help those who might not be able to devote as much time as ourselves to be informed. Some people are genuinely busy surviving (and others are just lazy/willfully ignorant).
I wonder how many in the study do something similar. I'd assume few...
I wonder how many in the study do something similar. I'd assume few...
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
I did learn, by the hard way, going at Breitbart, that it didn´t matter the thoughts and reasons why socialism and comunism were not the same as social democracy or a social democratic system , and neither the basic distinction between an economic productive model with policies with a social focus, for those people it is the same things, and they will not listen otherwise even going by the definitions of the terms.
So I have learned, in addition with my personal experience in real life in my country (Venezuela), that it doesn´t matter how much you try to look into how other people view things and explain those things to them that there is a lot of people that don´t want to hear reasons-facts that debunks their wrong believes.
And that is why they love Trump so much, because he is like that, among other things.
Upvote
13
(14
/
-1)
So - if I happen to go to a "misinformation" site - and create a said data point - who is to say what the purpose of that site visit was? To say that I use said site for information - is pretty a superficial simplistic statement if you can not attach some sort of logic to that activity.
I thought, perhaps wrongly, that the more queries one makes and then provides some type of thoughtful testing mechanism is what journalism used to be.
My lame contribution but hopefully uniquely different slant on a troubling topic - I mean any given government, any political party has at one time or another put out fake info. And history shows that too much time passes to hold those responsible accountable. I was hoping the internet might help change that - but hey Easter Bunnies and Santa clause forever
I thought, perhaps wrongly, that the more queries one makes and then provides some type of thoughtful testing mechanism is what journalism used to be.
My lame contribution but hopefully uniquely different slant on a troubling topic - I mean any given government, any political party has at one time or another put out fake info. And history shows that too much time passes to hold those responsible accountable. I was hoping the internet might help change that - but hey Easter Bunnies and Santa clause forever
Upvote
2
(5
/
-3)
Upvote
2
(3
/
-1)
I know it shouldn't be the things about your posts I find most annoying, but the fact you keep putting your replies above the person you're quoting and the fact you misspelt 'grenade' are driving me up the wall.
Probably because I'm a liberal snowflake.
Upvote
15
(16
/
-1)
OFFS. Mr. Know-it-all. with 5 total posts here, wants everyone to take his/her word for the death of truth, beauty, and the American Dream. Or some other bullshit. So now the idea of "conspiracy therories" is a conspiracy theory. Well, of course it is.
Please go away.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
Upvote
-13
(0
/
-13)
"I think a course on logic, argument, reasoning and philosophy should be mandatory in middle and high school. There's such a distinct lack of critical thinking in the country."
That's downright seditious! A dangerous idea. The whole damned system of capitalist American dumbocracy would fall if people became proficient critical thinkers. Stop spreading these dangerous ideas. What we really need are consumers. Consumption, consumption, consumption.
Upvote
8
(9
/
-1)
You can't really be suggesting that charges of "fake news" aren't, more often than not, just plain partisan disagreement?
Upvote
-6
(1
/
-7)
Actually, the big pre-2016 flood of "fake news" that I remember (and the one that helped mainstream Breitbart and made Milo Yiannopoulos a major figure) was mostly aimed at gamers and mostly centered around targeting women and "SJWs" in that industry. I'm also pretty sure a lot of the younger alt-right supporters were drawn into that whole movement specifically by that too.who was reading “fake news” before 2016 US election ?
Snowflakes
Not that it's unfair to call the people who bought into that stuff "snowflakes", but I'm willing to bet you had a different group in mind.
Upvote
13
(14
/
-1)
Good lord this trope of “free stuff” is so old and nonsensical. If the government pays for my education and I pay taxes the rest of my life, it isn’t “free”. If I pay taxes and the government covers my health care it isn’t “free”.
Providing these basic services, which are considered rights in other developed and developing countries, won’t “bankrupt” the country. Just like it hasn’t other countries. But plenty of people have been bankrupted by our for profit healthcare system, and saddled with long term debt, depressing earning potential, for most who attended college in the last 30 years.
Upvote
23
(23
/
0)
Degree of influence, actual outcomes, and grey areas are not strong suits of conservatives in this country. They can somehow look at Obama’s centrist solutions and still call him a leftist or a socialist without a hint of irony.
Upvote
11
(12
/
-1)
I don't know what you mean with "partisan", but reality doesn't care what is charged, only what is.
Upvote
2
(3
/
-1)
I mean that hearing an article is fake news is almost as meaningful as hearing its author is a nazi.
Upvote
-1
(1
/
-2)
Living in the midwest, I can tell you with 100% certainty that it is not just Russian trolls.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Aptly aided by fascist propaganda generator The Daily Caller.
Facebook can't be trusted to do anything properly, and even when it purports to be doing something useful it finds a way to do it disastrously wrong. It really needs to be dissolved.
Upvote
5
(6
/
-1)
Agreed, I tell people all the time that there are very few true news outlets left and for that matter real news reporters. Most of the major outlets lean so hard one way or another by lying either via omission of all the facts or adding personal bias of the anchors. News should report facts, all of the facts with no biased personal opinions of the anchors or owners of the outlets then allow the viewers to take those facts, check them and make their own informed decisions but alas those days are long gone.
Upvote
-7
(1
/
-8)
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)