It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Science Advances: Conservatives and elderly 7 times more likely to post fake information

page: 1
13
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 04:35 PM
link   
I'm at work so I did not have time to read through the entire science paper, I only got down halfway through the Discussion section, so I will have to finish after work and re-join the debate. The paper is too interesting not to post though and I am putting it in the science forum as the link is a scientific paper and we should discuss it as such and not allow mud pit language and lower emotions in here.

Science Advances

Basically, the study shows that only about 8.5% of all people shared fake news on Facebook in 2016, so it is a very low number overall. I was expecting that to be much higher, considering the amount of fake stuff we've all seen flying around. It also discusses that the elderly, those over 65, and the ultra-conservatives were 7 times more likely to post or re-post fake news or fake information than the younger people, the moderates or the liberals did, including the ultra-liberals.

7 times more likely. That's a pretty heavy distinction.



Abstract

So-called “fake news” has renewed concerns about the prevalence and effects of misinformation in political campaigns. Given the potential for widespread dissemination of this material, we examine the individual-level characteristics associated with sharing false articles during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign. To do so, we uniquely link an original survey with respondents’ sharing activity as recorded in Facebook profile data. First and foremost, we find that sharing this content was a relatively rare activity. Conservatives were more likely to share articles from fake news domains, which in 2016 were largely pro-Trump in orientation, than liberals or moderates. We also find a strong age effect, which persists after controlling for partisanship and ideology: On average, users over 65 shared nearly seven times as many articles from fake news domains as the youngest age group.


Those elderly also happen to be ultra-conservative a lot of the time.

The paper is full of numbers and charts, click on charts for high res images, download a pdf, do whatever you like. And before you start asking questions without reading anything, all the data is contained within, all the methods and models are explained and everything talked about is referenced and has a link at the bottom of the paper. Everything you need is inside and all you have to do is read.




posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Mahogany

I'm not sure about elderly sharing fake news, but one thing they LOVE, and I mean LOVE to share are those
posts about family members looking for their long lost / siblings/ mom / dad/ uncle / grandfather / iguana / teddy bear from 1987/ And they share them well after the fact that the relatives found each other five years prior to the post and already hate each other!


+8 more 
posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 04:39 PM
link   


It also discusses that the elderly, those over 65, and the ultra-conservatives were 7 times more likely to post or re-post fake news or fake information than the younger people, the moderates or the liberals did, including the ultra-liberals.


Bull and crap.

Politics in general is ALL Fake news.

It's entire reason for being is playing the masses for fools in to getting you to believe one side is better than the other.



posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: JAGStorm

The elderly are not to be blamed in all this. They come from another time where honor and integrity meant something. Someone saying something meant that was their word so they just take it at face value. They are not used to checking for facts or for truth, so they got duped the most in 2016 and continue to be.

The crappy thing is most of them are elderly Republicans and fall for all the foreign propaganda and fake news posted all over our social media.



edit on 9-1-2019 by Mahogany because: add reply to



posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96



It also discusses that the elderly, those over 65, and the ultra-conservatives were 7 times more likely to post or re-post fake news or fake information than the younger people, the moderates or the liberals did, including the ultra-liberals.


Bull and crap.

Politics in general is ALL Fake news.

It's entire reason for being is playing the masses for fools in to getting you to believe one side is better than the other.



And this is a great example of a post that will not help us much in discussion.

Not agreeing with the paper is 100% alright, but maybe a better retort than 'bull and crap' would be in order. I mean, there is a metric ton of information and charts in that article.

At least reference one thing you find wrong and can contradict with facts and numbers. Just one.

Otherwise, thank you for your opinion, neo. I'll see you in another thread where we both have something to add.


+14 more 
posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Mahogany

The study all hinges on the definition of what is fake news

It claims it used a list made by journalists and academics

Which we know both lean heavily left

Often times msm journalists themselves publish fake news

So I actually don’t know how we can take the claims in the article as factual until we know exactly who the academics and journalists were that defined fake news sites, what those sites were, and how that compares to other sharing fake news stories from sites that weren’t on that list



posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler




So I actually don’t know how we can take the claims in the article as factual....


Easy.

All they do is throw the word 'science' in front of whatever propaganda they're spewing,and it's automatically supposed to be believed.

Of course any real scientist knows politics is bullsnip, and doesn't deal in absolutes.



posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 04:57 PM
link   
I think a lot of the reason that the elderly are bought into this is because as a whole they understand technology less. They are not used to fact checking. They don't understand as JAGStorm mentioned earlier that they are sharing things sometimes years old.

I think as a whole they are used to believe what they hear. 1. Because they grew up with much more honor than this generation. 2. The didn't have other resources growing up. The had the paper and their friends. Many people have like minded beliefs as their friends and family because they literally did not know any different.



posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 05:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mahogany
I'm at work so I did not have time to read through the entire science paper, I only got down halfway through the Discussion section, so I will have to finish after work and re-join the debate. The paper is too interesting not to post though and I am putting it in the science forum as the link is a scientific paper and we should discuss it as such and not allow mud pit language and lower emotions in here.

Science Advances

Basically, the study shows that only about 8.5% of all people shared fake news on Facebook in 2016, so it is a very low number overall. I was expecting that to be much higher, considering the amount of fake stuff we've all seen flying around. It also discusses that the elderly, those over 65, and the ultra-conservatives were 7 times more likely to post or re-post fake news or fake information than the younger people, the moderates or the liberals did, including the ultra-liberals.

7 times more likely. That's a pretty heavy distinction.



Abstract

So-called “fake news” has renewed concerns about the prevalence and effects of misinformation in political campaigns. Given the potential for widespread dissemination of this material, we examine the individual-level characteristics associated with sharing false articles during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign. To do so, we uniquely link an original survey with respondents’ sharing activity as recorded in Facebook profile data. First and foremost, we find that sharing this content was a relatively rare activity. Conservatives were more likely to share articles from fake news domains, which in 2016 were largely pro-Trump in orientation, than liberals or moderates. We also find a strong age effect, which persists after controlling for partisanship and ideology: On average, users over 65 shared nearly seven times as many articles from fake news domains as the youngest age group.


Those elderly also happen to be ultra-conservative a lot of the time.

The paper is full of numbers and charts, click on charts for high res images, download a pdf, do whatever you like. And before you start asking questions without reading anything, all the data is contained within, all the methods and models are explained and everything talked about is referenced and has a link at the bottom of the paper. Everything you need is inside and all you have to do is read.



SoOo... facebook (entirely nonpartisan) shares data with nonpartisan scientists, a nonpartisan fact-checker (let's say Snopes) tells them what news is fake snd what isn't (like 97% of scientists say climate change is real!!) and then they write a op-ed that appeals to their conformation bias.

Leftist author reads it.

It appeals to his conformation bias as well so he wants to share the fake news with others.

An OP is born.

Was there something to discuss about this?

Or just another attempt to point out that conservatives are stupid and gullible to the left?

Oh well, as long as it makes you feel like you are the better person.




posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Mahogany

Uranium One! Been investigated, nothing criminal was found! Tell that to a conservative, and see what they say.
edit on 9-1-2019 by iplay1up2 because: Add



posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Mahogany

You do know this is bogus right?

The whole study is based on # of people who shared stories from "these" links.

(1) usanewsflash.com

(2) abcnews.com.co

(3) denverguardian.com

(4) rickwells.us

(5) truepundit.com

(6) redstatewatcher.com

(7) worldpoliticus.com

(8) subjectpolitics.com

(9) conservativestate.com

(10) conservativedailypost.com

(11) libertywritersnews.com

(12) worldnewsdailyreport.com

(13) endingthefed.com

(14) donaldtrumpnews.co.

(15) yesimright.com

(16) burrardstreetjournal.com

(17) bizstandardnews.com

(18) everynewshere.com

(19) departed.co.

(20) americanmilitarynews.com

(21) tmzhiphop.com


Are a single one of those links leftest fake news like Salon or HuffPo? Maybe, I am not going to check every one but is there a fair sampling... are half of those identified as leftest fake news?


So, Conservatives are 7 times more likely to share more links from right leaning sites than Democrats.... Go figure.


This is the equivalent of 7 times more conservatives view Drudge Report instead of Salon
edit on 9-1-2019 by infolurker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 05:04 PM
link   
I do see things that conservative friends of mine share that when i research them turn out to be fake.
They likely dont know it when they share it, they take it at face value and pass it along.

Im mostly conservative, with a few liberal leanings and i just cant stand the fake facebook stuff.
I use facebook less and less, been thinking about deleting it entirely, but there are a few friends and family members that i keep up with on there.

I have a few liberal friends, but had to unfollow because all they do is bash every breath trump takes and frankly it just got old, so i dont have any anecdotal evidence on them.



posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Mahogany
I'm at work so I did not have time to read through the entire science paper, I only got down halfway through the Discussion section, so I will have to finish after work and re-join the debate. The paper is too interesting not to post though and I am putting it in the science forum as the link is a scientific paper and we should discuss it as such and not allow mud pit language and lower emotions in here.

Science Advances

Basically, the study shows that only about 8.5% of all people shared fake news on Facebook in 2016, so it is a very low number overall. I was expecting that to be much higher, considering the amount of fake stuff we've all seen flying around. It also discusses that the elderly, those over 65, and the ultra-conservatives were 7 times more likely to post or re-post fake news or fake information than the younger people, the moderates or the liberals did, including the ultra-liberals.

7 times more likely. That's a pretty heavy distinction.



Abstract

So-called “fake news” has renewed concerns about the prevalence and effects of misinformation in political campaigns. Given the potential for widespread dissemination of this material, we examine the individual-level characteristics associated with sharing false articles during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign. To do so, we uniquely link an original survey with respondents’ sharing activity as recorded in Facebook profile data. First and foremost, we find that sharing this content was a relatively rare activity. Conservatives were more likely to share articles from fake news domains, which in 2016 were largely pro-Trump in orientation, than liberals or moderates. We also find a strong age effect, which persists after controlling for partisanship and ideology: On average, users over 65 shared nearly seven times as many articles from fake news domains as the youngest age group.


Those elderly also happen to be ultra-conservative a lot of the time.

The paper is full of numbers and charts, click on charts for high res images, download a pdf, do whatever you like. And before you start asking questions without reading anything, all the data is contained within, all the methods and models are explained and everything talked about is referenced and has a link at the bottom of the paper. Everything you need is inside and all you have to do is read.



SoOo... facebook (entirely nonpartisan) shares data with nonpartisan scientists, a nonpartisan fact-checker (let's say Snopes) tells them what news is fake snd what isn't (like 97% of scientists say climate change is real!!) and then they write a op-ed that appeals to their conformation bias.

Leftist author reads it.

It appeals to his conformation bias as well so he wants to share the fake news with others.

An OP is born.

Was there something to discuss about this?

Or just another attempt to point out that conservatives are stupid and gullible to the left?

Oh well, as long as it makes you feel like you are the better person.



All you have to do is listen to Rush Limbaugh for one example, if you get a chance to listen to one of his broadcasts, you'll see that it's full of inuendo and propaganda and insulting anyone who leans left. Most of his demographic are over 50. They take everything he says as hard truth. They then repeat on Facebook and there you go.



posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Grambler




So I actually don’t know how we can take the claims in the article as factual....


Easy.

All they do is throw the word 'science' in front of whatever propaganda they're spewing,and it's automatically supposed to be believed.

Of course any real scientist knows politics is bullsnip, and doesn't deal in absolutes.


And any real scientist knows that consensus is not science either.



posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 05:39 PM
link   
So there are a number of issues with this "science paper". First is the fact that only a very small number of people actually linked or shared "fake news". It listed 38 republicans and 17 democrats out of nearly a thousand people. So, the true sample is arguably only 55 people. Not terribly large.

Also troubling is the chart (A) listing registered voters by party affiliation from among those who linked the "fake news". Its show affliation between republicans and democrats as being nearly equal, yet chart (C) termed "ideological self-placement" showing a sliding scale from very liberal to very conservative shows that the vast majority are conservative to very conservative. How does one reconcile that unless we have a lot of very conservative democrats?

Then there is the definition of "fake news". They attempt to define it, but ultimately decided to relay on Buzzfeed to decide which links lead to "fake news". Of course if you read the list of the 21 sites you will quickly note that nearly all of them are conservative sites. Not suprising considering that Buzzfeednews is largely a left leaning site. Concerns of bias is a factor in considering the authenticity of this "science paper" particularly due to the fact that what defines "fake news" is the crux of this "science paper". Since fake news seems to be largely from conservative sources (per a liberal source in the same business) It stands to reason that most of the people who would find these articles are conservative by that fact alone.


In light of the above, this "science paper" isn't really all that credible.





edit on 9-1-2019 by timequake because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-1-2019 by timequake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 05:48 PM
link   
It's FaceBook. That's a special group to itself when there. like...like...like...like...



posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 05:55 PM
link   

This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!


All rules for polite political debate will be enforced.
Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!



posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Honestly, so what? The biggest fake news out there is that fake news is a major issue. It's not. Not one rational individual has ever read something ridiculous online and went, "Wow, you know what? I completely change my mind. I was going to vote for Hillary, but it turns out that she actually is the spawn of Satan. Imagine that. Guess I'll go vote for Trump now." That's not how it works. It's just conformation bias. Nothing more, nothing less.

The real issue is the manipulation and/or the suppression of information. If you're new, manipulation of information or news isn't an outright lie, but rather a version of the truth but not the whole truth. It is how the pros have been doing it for decades and it is far more effective and deleterious than so-called fake news. The whole fake news hysteria is just a distraction from that to get you suckered into trusting their "real news" as sacrosanct.

A good rule of thumb is to just be wary of everything you're being told. We used to know this simple rule as a people, but somehow we've lost it in the information age.



posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 06:25 PM
link   
So the target audience did what they hoped they would do??




posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Mahogany

I don’t know if i would fall into the conservative category, but i do listen to a lot of conservative youtube channels. One thing i have noticed is that now, youtube suggests a lot of other conservative channels, and sometimes, i’ll listen to them. it never fails that the most conspiratorial youtubers will start calling everybody they don’t like, satan worshipers, evil, monsters, satan, satan, satan.

It just seems odd to me that this is where a large number of them tend to lay the blame.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join