CharonY Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 In Science Vosoughi et al published a paper showing that fake news on social media spread faster and wider than real news. This difference was not driven by bots, but by actual users. The spread of false news is also driven by network structure, but rather simply by the fact that most users seem to favour fake news. Quote We investigated the differential diffusion of all of the verified true and false news stories distributed on Twitter from 2006 to 2017. The data comprise ~126,000 stories tweeted by ~3 million people more than 4.5 million times. We classified news as true or false using information from six independent fact-checking organizations that exhibited 95 to 98% agreement on the classifications. Falsehood diffused significantly farther, faster, deeper, and more broadly than the truth in all categories of information, and the effects were more pronounced for false political news than for false news about terrorism, natural disasters, science, urban legends, or financial information. We found that false news was more novel than true news, which suggests that people were more likely to share novel information. Whereas false stories inspired fear, disgust, and surprise in replies, true stories inspired anticipation, sadness, joy, and trust. Contrary to conventional wisdom, robots accelerated the spread of true and false news at the same rate, implying that false news spreads more than the truth because humans, not robots, are more likely to spread it. These findings, together with decreasing trust to mainstream media (Gallup: from 1998-2016, %great deal of trust: 59-> 51 democrats; 53->30 independents; 52->14 republicans), especially in the younger segment, highlight that it may become more difficult for folks to decide on what is fact or fiction. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 11 minutes ago, CharonY said: In Science Vosoughi et al published a paper showing that fake news on social media spread faster and wider than real news. This difference was not driven by bots, but by actual users. The spread of false news is also driven by network structure, but rather simply by the fact that most users seem to favour fake news. These findings, together with decreasing trust to mainstream media (Gallup: from 1998-2016, %great deal of trust: 59-> 51 democrats; 53->30 independents; 52->14 republicans), especially in the younger segment, highlight that it may become more difficult for folks to decide on what is fact or fiction. The reason it is hard to discern is because It enters into a state of superposition called 'faction'. People will tend to be attracted to and disseminate information that supports their own worldview and convictions, most likely investing little or no time in checking the veracity of the information. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koti Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 17 minutes ago, CharonY said: In Science Vosoughi et al published a paper showing that fake news on social media spread faster and wider than real news. This difference was not driven by bots, but by actual users. The spread of false news is also driven by network structure, but rather simply by the fact that most users seem to favour fake news. These findings, together with decreasing trust to mainstream media (Gallup: from 1998-2016, %great deal of trust: 59-> 51 democrats; 53->30 independents; 52->14 republicans), especially in the younger segment, highlight that it may become more difficult for folks to decide on what is fact or fiction. The network structure itself may not be a contributor but the sheer vastness of information available to anyone with a network enabled device I think is. I am pedantic about filtering out fake information but was fooled more than once myself. I remember everybody including myself being excited about the promise of the „Internet Global Village” in the early and mid 90’s. It seems now that the chase for clicks which generate revenue drives the fake information phenomena and leaves us with a void of fake information which is getting harder and harder to navigate. Its not only social media, everybody does. Facebook is „free” for its users but their market cap in May 2017 was 407 billion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted March 8, 2018 Author Share Posted March 8, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, koti said: The network structure itself may not be a contributor but the sheer vastness of information available to anyone with a network enabled device I think is. I am pedantic about filtering out fake information but was fooled more than once myself. That is not a major driver, otherwise one would expect at best a similar dissemination of fake and real news. Rather, the authors argue that among other things, fake news provide novelty and thereby increase interest. I.e. there seems to be non-random selection of fake news. Edited March 8, 2018 by CharonY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koti Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 1 minute ago, CharonY said: That is not a major driver, otherwise one would expect at best a similar dissemination of fake and real news. Rather, the authors argue that among other things, fake news provide novelty and thereby increase interest. I think we are going to see a shift from this in the next few years though. A lot of young people, especially kids start to show interest in checking validity of information and express reluctance to anything suspicious. I can’t give any data backed up by research on this, I am speaking about my own observations and I’m seeing a big shift in the last 2 years. I hope I’m right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NortonH Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 1 minute ago, koti said: I can’t give any data backed up by research on this, I am speaking about my own observations and I’m seeing a big shift in the last 2 years. I hope I’m right. That is called 'anecdotal evidence', I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koti Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 1 minute ago, NortonH said: That is called 'anecdotal evidence', I believe. I wasn’t presenting any evidence, just a personal opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted March 9, 2018 Author Share Posted March 9, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, koti said: I think we are going to see a shift from this in the next few years though. A lot of young people, especially kids start to show interest in checking validity of information and express reluctance to anything suspicious. I can’t give any data backed up by research on this, I am speaking about my own observations and I’m seeing a big shift in the last 2 years. I hope I’m right. Well, one can only hope. However, current studies (2016 or newer) so far suggest that the opposite is the case. There was a prominent study which showed that students all the way from middle school to college had problems distinguishing ads from actual news, and were very uncritical regarding social media. So, perhaps folks are critical where you are (though that it is only one part, the other is validation of facts) or perhaps your social circle. The second worrisome aspect is that according to surveys there seems to be a trend that folks overestimate their ability to spot fake news. That being said, after the news of Russian propaganda, there has been an increasing awareness of the manipulative use social media platforms, which may be responsible to the potential shift you are seeing. It will be interesting to see where the discourse goes. Also, there are efforts to teach media literacy in North America as well as Europe, which may improve things. At the same time, there are current political movements that want to actively undermine it. Edited March 9, 2018 by CharonY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koti Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 42 minutes ago, CharonY said: Well, one can only hope. However, current studies (2016 or newer) so far suggest that the opposite is the case. There was a prominent study which showed that students all the way from middle school to college had problems distinguishing ads from actual news, and were very uncritical regarding social media. So, perhaps folks are critical where you are (though that it is only one part, the other is validation of facts) or perhaps your social circle. The second worrisome aspect is that according to surveys there seems to be a trend that folks overestimate their ability to spot fake news. That being said, after the news of Russian propaganda, there has been an increasing awareness of the manipulative use social media platforms, which may be responsible to the potential shift you are seeing. It will be interesting to see where the discourse goes. Also, there are efforts to teach media literacy in North America as well as Europe, which may improve things. At the same time, there are current political movements that want to actively undermine it. You’re right, I’m probably in a bubble which I created for myself and I’m not seeing the big picture. I’m glad you haven’t posted the study you mentioned, less torment. As for the russian propaganda it is also present here, there are various strings connecting our local political events to russian tampering. The evidence is always indirect and circumstantial but when following the money trail its very unlikely theres zero connection. It is fairly plausible that our current government got indirect, subtle but very relevant „help” 3 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted March 9, 2018 Author Share Posted March 9, 2018 (edited) 23 minutes ago, koti said: As for the russian propaganda it is also present here, there are various strings connecting our local political events to russian tampering. The evidence is always indirect and circumstantial but when following the money trail its very unlikely theres zero connection. It is fairly plausible that our current government got indirect, subtle but very relevant „help” 3 years ago. It is getting off-topic, but I find the direct and indirect connections in recent political shifts in Europe to Rusia very eerie. Germany had a strenuous relationship with Russia at best, especially after the turn (back?) to a more autocratic system. Yet the new far-right party is surprisingly Putin-friendly, despite the fact that the right traditionally was not (to the contrary, in fact). Conversely, Russia-run media were also surprisingly chummy with them. Edit: oh and the study was from Stanford, IIRC and therefore was based on US students. So there could be differences across the ocean (though I am not utterly convinced about that, tbh). Edited March 9, 2018 by CharonY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwb Posted March 10, 2018 Share Posted March 10, 2018 On 08/03/2018 at 6:30 PM, koti said: I can’t give any data backed up by research on this, I am speaking about my own observations and I’m seeing a big shift in the last 2 years. I hope I’m right. https://theconversation.com/the-myth-of-the-echo-chamber-92544 this article on the conversation contends that people are getting their information from multiple sources. apparently, the research is part of Quello Search Project. it seems people are developing media habits that helping them check their information so they are not mindlessly recycling bad information. Most people have media habits that help them avoid echo chambers - last paragraph in the article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOS2000 Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 Most people tend to believe in the news, real or fake, that coincides with their beliefs. This leads to fake news being spread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted March 20, 2018 Author Share Posted March 20, 2018 On 3/9/2018 at 7:06 PM, gwb said: https://theconversation.com/the-myth-of-the-echo-chamber-92544 this article on the conversation contends that people are getting their information from multiple sources. apparently, the research is part of Quello Search Project. it seems people are developing media habits that helping them check their information so they are not mindlessly recycling bad information. Most people have media habits that help them avoid echo chambers - last paragraph in the article There are a few caveats I'd like to add, some of which are entirely based on my personal ignorance. First, the study is based on a British cohort. I have no real insight into the British media landscape, but I believe having a strong public broadcasting system mitigates some of the issues. I am also not sure whether there are regulations in terms of journalistic integrity. As a whole, though, I found that in parts in Europe there were more calls to mitigate fake reporting. The second part is that the study is based on self-reporting with indications of validation e.g. using offline sources. While difficult to compare the rate seems way higher than other questionnaires that look at media use habits where in certain age groups offline sources where only a small proportion of the media diet. Also, the did not mention the media sources so I am not entirely sure whether they could really draw diversity out of it. But maybe I just missed it by skimming over the paper and would have to re-read it a later time. But for now I tentatively treat it as good news... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sci-Fy2 Posted March 21, 2018 Share Posted March 21, 2018 There's a lot of "fake news" you'll find in social media too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted March 21, 2018 Author Share Posted March 21, 2018 That is part of my point. If e.g. the various sources happened to be social media it would do little to improve things. Also it appears that they are an increasing source of news for folks younger than 24. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts