DiscussMormonism.com

The Grim Conclusions of the Largest-Ever Study of Fake News

As I read this, all I could think was, "This doesn't surprise me one bit." It's one of those studies where you think to yourself "Did they really need to analyze the data to come to this conclusion?"

Damn science. Always wanting suspicions confirmed...

So back to the OP:

I saw this pop up yesterday, thanks for sharing it here. I think a lot of the findings are pretty telling, if not all that surprising. That the fake news stories went wide is not all that interesting but I find the fact that there is deep penetration of social circles to be more fascinating. It isn't all that hard to get every single follower to retweet something, but getting through multiple layers of followers is pretty interesting.

The Atlantic wrote:Here’s the thing: Fake news dominates according to both metrics. It consistently reaches a larger audience, and it tunnels much deeper into social networks than real news does. The authors found that accurate news wasn’t able to chain together more than 10 retweets. Fake news could put together a retweet chain 19 links long—and do it 10 times as fast as accurate news put together its measly 10 retweets.

I haven't made it through the entire study over at Science but there is one question I have not seen the answer to. How did they control for those that share fake news articles in an ironic manner? I know that probably doesn't make up most of the retweeting but several of the people I follow will retweet a story with a "check out this garbage" kind of line.

Xenophon wrote:So back to the OP:

I saw this pop up yesterday, thanks for sharing it here. I think a lot of the findings are pretty telling, if not all that surprising. That the fake news stories went wide is not all that interesting but I find the fact that there is deep penetration of social circles to be more fascinating. It isn't all that hard to get every single follower to retweet something, but getting through multiple layers of followers is pretty interesting.

The Atlantic wrote:Here’s the thing: Fake news dominates according to both metrics. It consistently reaches a larger audience, and it tunnels much deeper into social networks than real news does. The authors found that accurate news wasn’t able to chain together more than 10 retweets. Fake news could put together a retweet chain 19 links long—and do it 10 times as fast as accurate news put together its measly 10 retweets.

I haven't made it through the entire study over at Science but there is one question I have not seen the answer to. How did they control for those that share fake news articles in an ironic manner? I know that probably doesn't make up most of the retweeting but several of the people I follow will retweet a story with a "check out this garbage" kind of line.

Good point but I don't know that they necessarily would need to control for it unless it was verified that ironic shares on a retweet chain were followed only by further ironic shares. It seems more likely that no matter how ironically you retweet, someone will take you seriously, thus restoring the non-ironic chain of fake news. Is there a Twitter version of Poe's Law for irony?

Xenophon wrote:I saw this pop up yesterday, thanks for sharing it here. I think a lot of the findings are pretty telling, if not all that surprising. That the fake news stories went wide is not all that interesting but I find the fact that there is deep penetration of social circles to be more fascinating. It isn't all that hard to get every single follower to retweet something, but getting through multiple layers of followers is pretty interesting.

They say that truth is stranger than fiction, but is it as interesting?

I thought the article was a good read, and I'd like to see the study too. But it occurs to me that we can always tailor a story to get people aroused and upset. If you aren't bound by facts, of course you can concoct something that will resonate with people in visceral ways. Speaking to people's fears is the golden ticket.

Xenophon wrote:I haven't made it through the entire study over at Science but there is one question I have not seen the answer to. How did they control for those that share fake news articles in an ironic manner? I know that probably doesn't make up most of the retweeting but several of the people I follow will retweet a story with a "check out this garbage" kind of line.

That's a great question.

Lemmie wrote:Good point but I don't know that they necessarily would need to control for it unless it was verified that ironic shares on a retweet chain were followed only by further ironic shares. It seems more likely that no matter how ironically you retweet, someone will take you seriously, thus restoring the non-ironic chain of fake news.

Heh.

This is also a great point. Makes me wonder if ironic tweets don't really make that much of a difference to the question of the article's impact - if someone is retweeting ironically, the article still got that person's attention (enough to bother sending it to someone else).

It is worrying, however, with respect to people believing false articles, since an ironic retweet is potentially just as damaging.

Some Schmo wrote:

Lemmie wrote:Good point but I don't know that they necessarily would need to control for it unless it was verified that ironic shares on a retweet chain were followed only by further ironic shares. It seems more likely that no matter how ironically you retweet, someone will take you seriously, thus restoring the non-ironic chain of fake news.

Heh.

This is also a great point. Makes me wonder if ironic tweets don't really make that much of a difference to the question of the article's impact - if someone is retweeting ironically, the article still got that person's attention (enough to bother sending it to someone else).

It is worrying, however, with respect to people believing false articles, since an ironic retweet is potentially just as damaging.

Lemmie does raise a good counter question to mine. I think it is hard to determine, although I've seen plenty of non-ironic shares of Onion articles and they are about as upfront in the satire as it gets so I'm sure it probably doesn't matter why we share, just that we do.

For me it is all about thinking about where I heard/read something. Just having a little more thoughtful nature from us could go a long way. Is this a story carried by multiple outlets? Is the source reputable? Can you find lots of information about the source on their website? Is the language use purposefully deceptive? If you can answer all those questions correctly you're probably going to be all right.

I mean just the other day I had to call out a poster on this very board for sharing some fake news about a Muslim judge inflicting Sharia law on us all. Had that poster taken absolutely any time at all to do some background work, they would have spotted their error.

Xenophon - Part of the problem, especially with right wing misinformation, is that there is a whole networked cottage industry of misleading narratives that are self-reinforcing. So some of the heuristics people use (is this carried by multiple sources I trust, does this sound plausible given what else is reported, etc ) end up failing them.

Combating single instances of fake news and networked propaganda are two different kinds of battles.

I saw this story on my local TV newscast the other day and my first thought was:

"Wait, people actually consider Twitter a "news" source?"

God, no wonder Trumpy got elected.

EAllusion wrote:Xenophon - Part of the problem, especially with right wing misinformation, is that there is a whole networked cottage industry of misleading narratives that are self-reinforcing. So some of the heuristics people use (is this carried by multiple sources I trust, does this sound plausible given what else is reported, etc ) end up failing them.

Combating single instances of fake news and networked propaganda are two different kinds of battles.

Point well taken. So how do we get any result other than an eventual Idiocracy? Do we trust that Facebook and Twitter will crack down on the fake news, actually removing it instead of just labeling it "trustworthy" (not likely)? Does there actually need to be some regulation about fake news (that sounds like it could turn scary & fast)? I know the media could help if they would stop with the silly idea that to be fair they have to present both sides of a story, even if that opposing view is the Flat Earth Society (again, not likely). I'm just uncertain there is any real solution other than personal responsibility and even though I'd like to be optimistic about that idea, the research presented doesn't bode well for it.

Fence Sitter wrote:I saw this story on my local TV newscast the other day and my first thought was:

"Wait, people actually consider Twitter a "news" source?"

God, no wonder Trumpy got elected.

I thought the same thing. I thought something similar when I found out how many news stories are shared on Facebook. It's been a while since I was a Facebook user (if you could ever really call me that).