DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Trump supporters far more likely to read and share ‘fake news’ on social media: study

Trump supporters far more likely to read and share ‘fake news’ on social media: study

SARAH K. BURRIS
02 JAN 2018 AT 06:58 ET

President Donald Trump famously complains about “fake news” — but a new study shows his followers are far more likely to read and share phony stories online.

Brendan Nyhan of Dartmouth College, Andrew Guess of Princeton University and Jason Reifler of the University of Exeter embarked on a study analyzing internet traffic gathered from 2,525 Americans.

Behavior scientists have been researching the spread of fake news and what people actually remember about what they read from fake news sites However, according to the New York Times, this new study is the first example of hard data on those who view fake news and spread it.

Their first major data point was that fake news sites have an extremely limited reach. At least one in four Americans has seen at least one news story that is false, but conservatives and supporters of President Donald Trump are the largest consumers. “On 289 such sites, about 80 percent of bogus articles supported Trump,” the Times quoted the study. In fact, the far-right (approximately 10 percent of the sample) made up roughly 65 percent of visits to sites that published more than two stories that were false. Trump supporters were three times more likely to read such sites over supporters of Hillary Clinton.

However, those Trump supporters only read on average five false stories over the course of five weeks. Clinton supporters read just one false story over five weeks.

They’re still measuring the degree to which fake news impacted the 2016 election, however, this study only measured how often stories were read, not whether they were believed or spread. Many of the false stories were outright absurd claims such as claiming Clinton moved $1.8 billion to a Qatar Central Bank or an article headlined “Video Showing Bill Clinton With a 13-Year-Old Plunges Race Into Chaos.”

“For all the hype about fake news, it’s important to recognize that it reached only a subset of Americans, and most of the ones it was reaching already were intense partisans,” Nyhan said. However, he said that they were also consumers of actual news. The ratio of false information to factual information yielded higher reads for true information, which makes sense given the amount of available information from accurate news sites over false news sites.

The organic reach of real news sites on social media also lends itself to reaching more people. Given false news sites don’t have access to the audience that sites like the New York Times or Washington Post have, false news would require paid advertising to reach an equal audience. One Russian agency spent only $46,000 in Facebook ads.

Those over 60 years old were much more likely to visit a fake news site than younger Americans, the study found. Moderately left-leading people viewed more false news than pro-Clinton fake news sites. Dr. Rand noted an interpretation of that finding was that those particularly susceptible to false information were less educated voters who switched from supporting President Barack Obama to 2012 to supporting Trump in 2016. Such voters made up huge subsets of Trump’s supporters in states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

“You can see where this might have had an impact in some of those close swing states, like Wisconsin,” Rand said. However, such a hypothesis would require interviews with those voters to confirm.

Facebook was the platform that overwhelmingly linked people to false news sites. Facebook has claimed that they have taken major steps to curb the spread of fake news. One thing they’ve implemented is hiring researchers and journalists to sort through fake news stories being flagged by users. Those staffers then create a report that is sent to Facebook staff. However, the journalists have complained that they have no idea whether those reports actually do anything at all.

In an interview with NPR, a reporter compiling such reports explained they have no way of knowing how many people saw the fake news report compared to the article debunking the fake news.

“Once we submit it to Facebook, they do whatever they do with our material,” Eugene Kiely told NPR.

Facebook never tells fact checkers whether their work reaches users. It could be that one to two people see the fact check over the fake news, or it could be one to 100,000. Facebook says it’s proprietary information, even to the partners doing fact checking.

Kiely said that it’s better than nothing.

https://www.dawgtalkers.net/ubbthreads.php/ubb/newpost/Board/78

Now 40 and company will call this Fake News... lol smh

Lord forgive them. They know not what they do.

pizzagate

trump supporters were on the jade helm BS too

Confirmation is one hell of a drug.

In fairness (and while fake in this specific instance) this is really not that absurd of a claim, knowing what we know about the Clinton Foundation...


... and we have a poster on this very board who today made a similar claim about our current President. Of course no evidence has ever been provided, because it didn't happen.

Trump is an admitted sexual predator who once bragged about watching underage girls change clothes, has been accused of rape and sexual assault on dozens of occasions, and is good friends with a known pedophile.

No evidence?

Or the video of him talking about the 10 year old on the escalator saying he would be dating her in 10 years.


Proof:

This is not evidence of what you claimed. It is a character smear, a bunch of ad hominems. Here is what you wrote in the other thread:
This is a blatant lie. If you are going to accuse a man of raping women in front of their children, then let's see the evidence. Maybe it is you that got duped by fake news but you are so blinded by your hate for our President that you can't see it.

Rape, White supremacy, Throes of dementia. Somebody make a bot that just posts those and a few other phrases at random and PDF won't even have to bother posting anymore.

This coming from a man that did nothing for a co-worker who confided about being abused, as well as admitted voted for a war criminal....your character is well...questionable.

1st the part you quoted was about that war criminal who killed himself who 40 had a wet dream about. I know Trump seems like a war criminal, but just remember, he hasn't had time yet. He might be too incompetent to even be a war criminal.

2nd you're one of the worst liars on this forum. Remember two years ago when you couldn't stop mentioning how Hillary was having seizures, a drinking problem and was physically unfit to be President? If anyone could be described as Fake News on this forum, it'd be 40, but you're not too far off. Your love for the Dilbert guy has made you swallow fake news by the ton. Remember when you convinced yourself that everything Trump said was just a negotiation tactic and he never meant anything he said? Those were fun times of personal delusion for all of us.

Now I'm confused and don't know who you are talking about. I thought the quote was about Trump, who PDF has a bizarre obsession with. If that quote was about someone else then I apologize. I should have asked for clarification first.


I did mention Hillary's seizures, her fainting at the 9/11 memorial, and some of her health issues. I thought (and still think) these are reasonable issues to bring up before a possible 4 or 8 year run in one of the most demanding and important jobs in the world. No apologies for this.

I hardly even read that blog anymore. It was more interesting during the political season though I still think Adams is a sharp guy. Thanks for kind words btw-- I can think of few better compliments than being called a liar by a self-proclaimed communist.

40 posted a video like three weeks ago about some Croatian General killing himself after his appeal failed. Of course the dude raped Muslim women so 40 couldn't help himself from fantasizing about his big strong hands against 40's supple waist. You can find it in the archives. Just search for the livelink hotlink.


I did mention Hillary's seizures, her fainting at the 9/11 memorial, and some of her health issues. I thought (and still think) these are reasonable issues to bring up before a possible 4 or 8 year run in one of the most demanding and important jobs in the world. No apologies for this.[/quote]
But it's unreasonable to think Trump has dementia because his inability to speak, his limited language skills and his penchant to repeat the same things over and over again in a limited time frame? You still claim HRC had a seizure, which hasn't been verified by a Doctor or even a medical professional. And you want people to prove that Trump has dementia or quit talking about it? Even your hypocrisy must strike you here.



I also like to stop believing in fake news after it's proven to be fake. Also, weren't you against character smears just a minute ago?

I would love to continue this conversation but unfortunately have plans. I have to start planning better so I can stick around for when these discussions get good.

Is it really productive to go back in time for the (apparent) seizures, passing out, coughing fits, rumors of heavy drinking, the concussion(s), and all that? It doesn't really matter at this point-- I mention it only to jog people's memory in my own defense.

Note: I am not a doctor. I only play one on DawgTalkers.

And therein lies the problem.

It may be a better tactic to actually check your sources and facts before you post things than to just spew things out until they're proven not to be true.

Cart before the horse?

I'm not sure the timeline goes like that. Or the evidence. So why are you being so dismissive of the circumstantial evidence that Trump has dementia? They both have equal evidence, if I'm being kind.

It most certainly isn't a blatant lie.

Here is 40 fawning over a war criminal who engaged in genocide and raped imprisoned women in front of their families:



https://www.dawgtalkers.net/ubbthreads.ph...oom#Post1361553

It wasn't a co-worker, it was a friend. She tearfully confided to me what happened, long after the incident, and asked me not to tell anyone. Later, she found the courage to tell her story to others.

Frankly, it's disgusting that you're trying to use a traumatic event in a woman's life to try and smear someone else. It's called "victim blaming", and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Also, it's kind of hard to get on a moral high horse about casting votes considering that you openly support a racist sexual predator.

Not to mention that it's been a rather open secret and known internet rumor since at least 2008. They also don't understand most things in life, so it's unsurprising that they think people can be arrested for a crime where the victim does not press charges. Cons are going to con.

It's pretty disturbing how callous and flippant they are about these issues, but then again it's not surprising given that they seem to have no problem supporting a man who bragged on tape about sexually assaulting women in an attempt to impress Billy Bush.

Nah, what's really weird is you didn't report a sexual assault, AND you voted for a lady that, in your own words, "made 'you' want to shower afterwards", AND you supported a lady whose husband is ALSO a know sexual predator and rapist.

Yet, you try to preach? yeah, that's weird.

Ah the guy who voted for the Rapist and child predator is getting on his high horse. Fun times on DT.

Tell me something arch -

When my friend tearfully told me about a years old incident where a man jacked off in front of her while blocking the door, and begged me not to tell anyone about it, I should have done, what, exactly?

What would be the correct course of action there?

You guys should all be ashamed of yourselves for this nonsense. It's disgusting, and while it's par for the course for some of these creeps, you should know better.

And as for my vote - did you vote for Trump, and if so, do you feel shame about it?

I believe I've answered your question earlier. I get it, why you didn't report it. I get it.

But, some others on here are trying to equate things that I, and most others do not support, but trying to equate us with pedophile supporters, etc.

If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander, right?

For someone to even insinuate that I supported Moore is just stupid. Yet, someone did. Ignorance is bliss I guess.

For someone to insinuate that I am in favor of sexual exploitation because I voted for trump is, simply, idiotic. Yet, there are a few on here that attempt to do that.

Or even racism - you know, that evil word that comes out when some have nothing else to say? Hell, toss out the racism argument, right?

Sorry man, I'm tired of being accused of things I'm not, simply because I voted for someone. But, that's the way the game, on here anyway, is played. Pathetic, really. And I've stooped to the idiots level and shown the fallacy of anyone that thinks they have the high road.

And they can't handle it. Thus, "bigot", racist, endorser of sexual predator, etc.

It's always easy to toss out bull crap labels. That's what the libs on here do now.

Yes, I also hate when I vote for people to represent me and they actually represent me.

Typical cons, they can't accept personal responsibility and blame their bad actions on the libs. One victims, always victims. It's just the mentality.

I've never accused you of supporting a pedophile, or being callous to sexual assault, or being a racist. You know that.

I get that others have, but let's be fair here. You and I have our spats quite often, but I've never said stuff like that about you. I think you're a decent guy and a good family man. I've never lumped you in with that crowd of creeps.

I asked if you felt shame or remorse for voting for Trump. He is undeniably a racist, and a sexual predator. And voting for him doesn't mean you are fine with those things - I voted for Clinton and I've long been a detractor of both her and her husband. From day one, I've been very open that I felt shame and remorse walking into the voting booth that day.

That's why I asked whether you felt shame or remorse in voting for him. Several other board members have come out and said that while they understand that Trump is a disgraceful and horrible person, they felt that he was a better option than Hillary Clinton. I don't agree with that, but I understand it.

My issue is when people either pretend or are oblivious to the fact that Trump is an awful human being. I'm more than willing to admit that I voted for an awful human being, because the other option was even worse. Hillary Clinton is pretty racist, too. But I don't think it would be fair to tar me by association. Unless I was actively trying to argue she wasn't.

It does not take a doctor to have a vague understanding that somebody who passes out at an important memorial and who regularly goes on coughing fits that last several minutes may not be in the best of health. This is not necessarily true though. It could be that they are actually in excellent health, and we coincidentally see them at their worst. In any case, I feel that for such a demanding, stressful, and important 4-8 year job, it was a fair and appropriate thing to discuss. If you feel differently then I understand. Health can be a sensitive topic.

But a moron with the mind of a child who is quite obviously in the throes of dementia is fit for the job?

I actually don't disagree with you regarding Clinton, but it's kind of hard to make that argument straight-faced while supporting Trump.

I don't think it's obvious he is 'in the throes of dementia' at all. In fact, it's likely that he isn't.

If you actually think this and have legitimate reason to believe it is true, then of course it would be reasonable thing to discuss. I just don't see it-- call me crazy, but he sounds pretty much like he has for the last 2+ years. I get that you don't like him, maybe for good reason. But dementia? That's probably not accurate. Maybe in time it will come out that he actually did have dementia all along. Sometimes the line between political drama and reality is dangerously thin.

Watch any video of him from the 80's or early 90's. While he was still dumb as a rock back then, it's quite obvious that he's far more lucid and less prone to rambling nonsense.

I posted this in another thread, but this is Trump this morning. Does this sound like a coherent person with all of their faculties to you?

Do you have to get your shot in at the President in every single post you make?

I actually miss Clem's approach to this whole thing. Maybe he's still doing it-- I haven't been around here much recently until these last couple days. For him, there's a certain targetedness to the whole thing that I respect. He'd say what he wanted to say about Trump, let his feelings be known, and just when it would sound like Clem was going off the deep end, he would back off (and probably make a very sensible and thoughtful post elsewhere.) He wouldn't unload on Trump supporters or conservatives in general, and certainly wouldn't call them the true evil in the world. But I digress.

You just asked me why I thought he was suffering from dementia. I gave a brief explanation, and copied and pasted his demented rantings from this morning. And now you're deflecting, because frankly there's no defense for a senile moron ranting that he's "like, really smart".

And, yes, I believe that actively supporting an awful human being who is undeniably racist and desires to be the second coming of Mussolini qualifies as being an active evil in the world.

And while Clem is my favorite poster here, I'm not Clem.

My thoughts on the tweets:

- He makes a good point about the Russiagate conspiracy theory. This has been a waste of all of our time. A year (and a half) later and what do you have? Some procedural stuff, and junior taking a meeting that he shouldn't have?

- I'm not very fond of the self-congratulating, but the guy is pretty smart, I'll give him that. You don't go from being a successful businessman, to TV star, to POTUS without having a pretty good idea of how things work.

The investigation is ongoing, and yet we have 27 charges, 4 indictments, and 2 guilty pleas.

Keep lying to yourself that this is a waste of time. I’m sure the Nixon zealots said the same thing.

1) The Russia investigation is most certainly not a waste of time. While I think the "changed the outcome of the election" stuff is nonsense, it's incredibly worrying how flat out dumb Trump and his associates were in this process. I don't see why we shouldn't be investigating their outright stupidity and deceit.

2) Trump isn't a successful businessman. He burned through his inheritance, burned through loans on his sibling's inheritance until they cut him off, and burned through bank loans to the point where they forced him to adhere to a monitored allowance. He's now at the point where no bank in the world will loan him money, and was forced to resort to pennyante schemes once his job as a game show host petered out. This is the result of his inability to negotiate, getting duped into overpaying on just about every deal he's ever struck.

Someone who has to resort to stealing money from charities of war veterans isn't a person I consider "successful"

What, to you, seems like a success there? How is a trust fund kid who blew through his trust fund successful?

3) I absolutely do not have to "give" that a man who doesn't understand what health insurance is and sounds like someone hit in the head with a hammer every time he opens his mouth is "smart"

I can't possibly imagine hearing a senile old man that thinks health insurance costs $12 a year crowing "I'm a genius, and a very stable genius at that!" and thinking 'well, he's smart, you gotta give him that'

A similar response I often had after hearing you say that the story was going to burst wide open any day, for about a year.

Of course you did. I would expect nothing less from your side.

The Mueller investigation didn't start until May of 2017. It hasn't even been close to a year yet and there have been criminal charges pressed and guilty pleas in that short time.

Your version of a waste of time seems a little one sided.