Slashdot Mirror
People Older Than 65 Share the Most Fake News, Study Finds (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Older Americans are disproportionately more likely to share fake news on Facebook, according to a new analysis by researchers at New York and Princeton Universities. Older users shared more fake news than younger ones regardless of education, sex, race, income, or how many links they shared. In fact, age predicted their behavior better than any other characteristic -- including party affiliation. Today's study, published in Science Advances, examined user behavior in the months before and after the 2016 U.S. presidential election. In early 2016, the academics started working with research firm YouGov to assemble a panel of 3,500 people, which included both Facebook users and non-users. On November 16th, just after the election, they asked Facebook users on the panel to install an application that allowed them to share data including public profile fields, religious and political views, posts to their own timelines, and the pages that they followed. Users could opt in or out of sharing individual categories of data, and researchers did not have access to the News Feeds or data about their friends.
About 49 percent of study participants who used Facebook agreed to share their profile data. Researchers then checked links posted to their timelines against a list of web domains that have historically shared fake news, as compiled by BuzzFeed reporter Craig Silverman. Later, they checked the links against four other lists of fake news stories and domains to see whether the results would be consistent. Across all age categories, sharing fake news was a relatively rare category. Only 8.5 percent of users in the study shared at least one link from a fake news site. Users who identified as conservative were more likely than users who identified as liberal to share fake news: 18 percent of Republicans shared links to fake news sites, compared to less than 4 percent of Democrats. The researchers attributed this finding largely to studies showing that in 2016, fake news overwhelmingly served to promote Trump's candidacy. But older users skewed the findings: 11 percent of users older than 65 shared a hoax, while just 3 percent of users 18 to 29 did. Facebook users ages 65 and older shared more than twice as many fake news articles than the next-oldest age group of 45 to 65, and nearly seven times as many fake news articles as the youngest age group (18 to 29). As for why, researchers believe older people lack the digital literacy skills of their younger counterparts. They also say that people experience cognitive decline as they age, making them likelier to fall for hoaxes.
About 49 percent of study participants who used Facebook agreed to share their profile data. Researchers then checked links posted to their timelines against a list of web domains that have historically shared fake news, as compiled by BuzzFeed reporter Craig Silverman. Later, they checked the links against four other lists of fake news stories and domains to see whether the results would be consistent. Across all age categories, sharing fake news was a relatively rare category. Only 8.5 percent of users in the study shared at least one link from a fake news site. Users who identified as conservative were more likely than users who identified as liberal to share fake news: 18 percent of Republicans shared links to fake news sites, compared to less than 4 percent of Democrats. The researchers attributed this finding largely to studies showing that in 2016, fake news overwhelmingly served to promote Trump's candidacy. But older users skewed the findings: 11 percent of users older than 65 shared a hoax, while just 3 percent of users 18 to 29 did. Facebook users ages 65 and older shared more than twice as many fake news articles than the next-oldest age group of 45 to 65, and nearly seven times as many fake news articles as the youngest age group (18 to 29). As for why, researchers believe older people lack the digital literacy skills of their younger counterparts. They also say that people experience cognitive decline as they age, making them likelier to fall for hoaxes.
Print and later TV used to be the gatekeepers of information. What made it into mass media tended to be true. Now there are no gatekeepers, for better and for worse.
I know one old man who's been sharing a lot.
That seems to correlate with the age of the Fox News audience.
All the young people need to start trolling old people on Facebook until they either quit Facebook or have a heart attack. Problem solved! ;)
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Do older people just share more news? Do they share a larger percentage of fake news? Also as you get older you see so many real cases of your government killing a half a million here (Syria) or 4.5 million (Vietnam) that you get to the point that you can believe almost anything. Yes Hillary is a progressive excetera.
The big thing that TFA seems to miss is that I find that older people don't tend to understand that basically anybody can put together a professional looking website with articles that seem to be written by journalists. For most of their lives, they've only had three TV networks, major newspapers and other media outlets that have been invested in the copy and its presentation.
It's hard for them NOT to believe stories like "Hillary and Oprah had an affair in the 1970s" when they can find it on http://abcnews.go.corp/ - which is a an actual article I got forwarded from an elderly family member during the 2016 election and we had to explain to her that the URL wasn't actually ABC News even though it had the actual ABC logo which means the story wasn't true.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
I can see both the inexperience of youth and the calcification of the opinions of the elderly.
I know very well what the first is like, and sadly can see myself headed straight for the second. There is much wisdom there, but it really does depend on what kind of life you have had. Opinions that took a lifetime to form, very rarely change by themselves. Old people do what they do and so do the young. The troubling thing is that most are addicted to the social network, not that sometimes bad ideas proliferate on it.
-
I think digital skills are a factor, but I think a bigger factor might be cultural alienation.
Realistically western culture is dominated by white males between 25 and 55, diversity is rising... but that demographic still rules.
Nevertheless this group is becoming a lot more progressive than previous generations of white males, the 65+ group of white males, and that previous group is becoming alienated from modern culture and acting accordingly.
And how do you explain being out of step with modern culture and morality? Well you justify it with a different set of facts, ie, fake news! The fake news isn't there to trick people, it's there to give them an excuse to trick themselves!!
I stole this Sig
"No need for a communist like yourself to be wanting and wishing for state ran media." - are you ironically ignoring the fact that Fox News is essentially Trump's campaign management and advisory board in one?
Literally. https://www.thedailybeast.com/sean-hannity-in-trouble-with-fox-after-participating-in-trump-ad
There was the WWII propaganda, but you could excuse that with the war. The lost a bit of control with Vietnam, but look at the coverage of the Iraq war. I'm too out of it to go dig up more/better examples, but go find Norm Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent for a comprehensive look at it.
Our media has served corporate masters for decades, probably centuries.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Age related cognitive decline is a thing and we're all susceptible to it. It worries me that there might come a day when I morph into a Trump supporter out of fear and confusion. e.g. there'll come a time when I can't tell a crook from an honest man because my critical thinking facilities are toast.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Perhaps "fake news" is any news article that's likely to displease inbred twits from the boss class?
That's not true. You better look at those numbers again. Democrats have had 5-8 point larger share since at least 2004. That's why in every national election since that time the Democratic candidates have gotten a majority of the votes. If it hadn't been for gerrymandering, both houses of Congress would have been in Democratic control for the past 15 years.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1...
You are welcome on my lawn.
Vox, Gawker, AND politico!?
I'm sold! How could it NOT be real?!
Not just gerrymandering. For senate, each state gets 2 senators regardless of population. But I don't mind if the house and senate are from different parties, since that requires them to actually learn to cooperate and compromise to get stuff done.
This study is fake news in that the list of "real news"cited is almost entirely opinion pieces from the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Huffington Post.
Story Publication
Trump’s history of corruption is mind-boggling. So why is Clinton supposedly the corrupt one? Washington Post
Stop Pretending You Don't Know Why People Hate Hillary Clinton Huffington Post
Melania Trump’s girl-on-girl photos from racy shoot revealed New York Post
I Ran the C.I.A. Now I’m Endorsing Hillary Clinton. New York times
Ford fact checks Trump: We will be here forever CNN
‘Pantsuit Power’ flashmob video for Hillary Clinton: Two women, 170 dancers and no police Washington Post
The Press Buries Hillary Clinton’s Sins Wall Street Journal
More Than 160 Republican Leaders Don’t Support Donald Trump. Here’s When They Reached Their Breaking Point New York Times
New Kasich ad: If Trump becomes president, ‘you better hope there’s someone left to help you’ Washington Post
The real Clinton email scandal is that a bullshit story has dominated the campaign Vox
He fought in World War II. He died in 2014. And he just registered to vote in Va Washington Post
Donald Trump Is Going To Be Elected Huffington Post
Why Donald Trump Should Not Be President New York times
Hillary Clinton for President New York times
Max Lucado: My prediction for November 9 FOX News
Donald and Billy on the Bus New York times
Trump campaign manager: There'd be no rape if women were stronger New Yor Daily News
A Week of Whoppers From Donald Trump New York Times
Donald Trump Voters, Just Hear Me Out New York Times
FBI Completes Review of Newly Revealed Hillary Clinton Emails, Finds No Evidence of Criminality NBC News
the elderly will also do whatever the post tells them to do.
it's a trust thing. because some older associate of them did the same. if it includes something like "a friend lawyer told me to copy paste this" to make some authority. but it's not a friend lawyer of the guy who copy pasted it, but the other elderly seeing that text will think it is, thus it has to be legit because here's this straight up guy they have known 30 years posting that his lawyer told him to share this.
and they will not google/research/apply critical thinking at all. just get outraged and copypaste the thing.
like a typical elderly share includes a "copy to your wall, do not use share".. so it's not the same original fake story, it's copypasted text of the original so it's not so easy for fb to mark them as fake news either with a link to the claimed source explaining how channel 13 never ran this story and how it's all a hoax.
like the "copy this to your wall or facebook will publish all your private data due to privacy change!" thing has been making rounds _again_ just this week.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
...oh wait.
This is your daily reminder that a "page 10" correction to the previous day's "Front page bombshell" is one of the many issues of the "Fake news" paradigm.
When the initial story gets widespread dissemination and the correction is all but ignored because it's no longer "News of the day", then the initial story is what people remember, and often quote later even after a correction has been issued.
Fake news is not just deliberate lies. It's many things. You'll be quite surprised to know that Fake news can also be rooted 100% in truth, if you simply omit key facts or context that are unfavorable to the narrative you're attempting to spin.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
Look, you asked how the Senate could have a Republican majority without sub-state level gerrymandering. When I showed you the math, you flipped into the standard "There's only States! No US population!" mode. Well, why did you ask your goddamned question if you already knew the answer?
However you try to spin it, you cannot deny the simple fact that the party in control of the Senate represents the will of a not-even-close minority of US voters. That outcome is indistinguishable from gerrymandering, intentional or not.
Yes, congratulations, you've identified a classic case of Republican gerrymandering. The IL-4 boundaries were drawn by Republicans during Dennis Hastert's lawsuit: "The Court rejected challenges to the Republican map..." Source: https://www.senate.mn/departme...
How exactly does this mythical gerrymandering affect Senate results... when they are based on state-wide votes?
Most recently in 2018, we saw the Democrats win the body would could be gerrymandered, and lose ground in the one which cannot.
Are you suggesting *gasp* Democrats gerrymandered themselves into power in 2019?
I can handle this one for you...
* The fact that the house maps are gerrymandered is not a consideration when talking about flipping seats since they were also gerrymandered in the previous election.
* The minority party can always be expected to gain ground in the house in the absence of a "wave" (this is coin flipping 101)
* In 2018, 19 blue senate seats and 7 red senate seats were in play, which made it hard to not lose ground there, despite the blue wave.
* In 2020, More red senate seats will be in play which means the Dems are likely to take both houses while losing house seats.
It isn't just the same effect as gerrymandering -- it absolutely is gerrymandering. It is gerrymandering in favour of rural populations and against urban populations, rather than geographical gerrymandering, but it is nonetheless a deliberate gaming of the vote.
I'm thankful that most people I'm close to who are in the 65 and over age group don't post to Facebook; but the number and extremity of falsehoods in e-mails some of them forward is astounding. Right-leaning organizations are far better (or less morally inhibited) than left-leaning organizations when it comes to targeting elderly people with fearmongering falsehoods. I've seen some pretty out-there anti-Trump stuff too, but that mostly comes across as overly hopeful instead of being filled with blatant lies designed to inspire fear and distrust of large groups of people.
In looking at the study, there are really only a handful of "news" sources that are the worst offenders of supplying fake news, making this a rather finite problem. Instead of targeting/making fun of the victims in a study, is there a reason they did not focus efforts on eradicating the fucking problem instead?
The solution for Facebook is rather simple, assuming they actually give a shit about the problem in the first place. Every news source who wishes to advertise on Facebook starts out in good standing with a 100 credibility rating. When fake news is reported and verified to be fake, you reduce the sources credibility score. If it falls below a certain threshold, they are banned from Facebook advertising. You can make that a temporary ban initially with repeat offenders getting a more permanent ban.
This problem is not hard. The real problem is convincing Facebook to step away from the money and focus on quality content.
As for why, researchers believe older people lack the digital literacy skills of their younger counterparts.
When snopes.com has been around since the days of dial-up internet, I find this excuse rather lame. It's not hard to teach someone to use something like Snopes. Perhaps we should start with teaching that young employee hired to validate Facebook articles, preferably before they are made public on the platform. You know, instead of wasting time on No-Shit-Sherlock grade studies that essentially provide the public with a precisely targeted punching bag group of people to make fun of. (and here I thought the anti-bullying mentality was actually popular).
They also say that people experience cognitive decline as they age, making them likelier to fall for hoaxes.
Kids need to remember this fact. This isn't just "stupid old people who can't use a computer". This will be you in your golden years.
I bet you're old.
And here we see part of the problem. No, bad reporting is not part of fake news. Is the corrections being downplayed a problem? Yes, absolutely. Are they part of the fake news problem? No. There is a world of difference between someone making a mistake and someone intentionally writing false information in an article. Sure, mistakes are a problem. Yes, biased reporting is a problem. But they are not a part of fake news or even on par with it. Part of the issue is that posts like this cause people to distrust the public media, so they see no difference between someone's blog and the mainstream media because "it's all the same". Bias and mistakes are not the same as fake news.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
The problem is rather complex.
A natural aspect of Ageing, is that people feel more comfortable around similar people, and become more distrustful of the others. As when our biology gets past the finding a mate with good genes, to having and raising children. We get to a point on Human lives were they are protective of their clans, and normally try to keep unity within it. So from ages 0-13 Learn about culture, 14-25 find a mate, 26-60 have children and raise them to adulthood, 60+ teach culture, and lessons learned.
This is rather good set of instincts for small communities and clans. However we are adapting to a much wider world. Back in the old days before we had wide literacy, word of mouth from predominate figures (mayors, preachers, teachers) was considered to be truthful, while the gossip was considered questionable info.
Then we started to get news papers, who will fact check and put predominate figures in place. The kids who are reading papers, know the BS the predominate figures are stating, but the older generation, will still cling to the fact the guy said it, that guy is important, so it must be the truth. As news papers grew, many of them started posting deceiving content, where radio/television came across. Because Broadcasting was expensive the were more likely to report on factual information and less on misleading people, besides stories where their competitors are wrong brought in more money. Then came the Internet, this gave us links to a lot more sources and allowed us to dig further then ever. That 5 minute blurb on the TV wasn't accurate or complete, plus it was full of their own bias. So people found the internet to be more trustworthy then TV news. The that leads us to today. Where we need to figure out the truth of the content we read, we know what is BS wording and what is important. But the older generation isn't properly exposed to it. So they fall for the tricks more easily.
Especially if the news holds on to their world view, and doesn't try to challenge them further. To the older generation this is good news, that they can share as part of their biological need to teach culture to the youth.
My Parents who are in their 70's will often post these stories on Facebook. Look at these laws, see how the Communist used these laws to hurt people. Or take a private comment and twist it to a full conspiracy. They honestly feel that they need to spread the word, to make sure we don't do the stupid stuff that has happened in the past. However they put too much trust in the sources, and over simply a complex issue.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
When snopes.com has been around since the days of dial-up internet, I find this excuse rather lame. It's not hard to teach someone to use something like Snopes. Perhaps we should start with teaching that young employee hired to validate Facebook articles, preferably before they are made public on the platform. You know, instead of wasting time on No-Shit-Sherlock grade studies that essentially provide the public with a precisely targeted punching bag group of people to make fun of. (and here I thought the anti-bullying mentality was actually popular).
I guess you don't know this, but at least since 2016 (I remember that year because of the US presidential election) American right wingers have been saying that Snopes itself isn't trustworthy and is a liberal front for the Democratic Party whose goal is to knock down conservatives and the Republican Party.
I grew up in a small town where lots of people i went to school with are now very conservative Republicans. I've seen them blast Snopes as being unreliable when someone, usually on the left, usually Snopes to point out that some article they shared on Facebook is false. This seems to be based on one story that was some kind of joke that Snopes fell for and called a hoax when it was actually just a joke and pretty obvious to everybody not at Snopes that it was just a joke. So some devious conservatives realized that the best way to fight Snopes is to accuse them of lying and being Democratic shills because conservatives will believe it. There's a lot more dishonesty in the US right now from the right than the left, so a large part of what Snopes debunks is lies from the right and conservatives just use that as "proof" that Snopes is a front for the Democratic Party and can't be trusted either.
The other alternative is that they truly do not care about job security.
I think there are many factors, including simply having more time and not as much to spend it on - hanging out with the remaining friends and family on Facebook and sharing fairly indiscriminately as a way of "keeping in touch" might be more prevalent.
And probably growing up at a time when news came from newspapers which had actual journalists that verified the news, and a desk with editors that approved publishing. Post-Murdoch, news just isn't what it was.
The other tidbit, that republicans are far more likely to share fake news than democrats, I don't think is entirely due to fake news being Trump-friendly. i have a feeling that if adjusting for that, republicans would still be ahead. If nothing else because of a correlation between political affinity and accepting outrageous claims and long-living memes like the Jewish carpenter story. I.e. a propensity for believing over questioning.
There might be something to your comment. My step mom is very quick to get spun up and share likely fake news on facebook. She is over 65, retired, remarried to my dad and moved about 5 years ago, and for many days at a time the only thing she contributes is making dinner. I get the feel she lacks self worth and her friends who were across the street are now a 30 min drive
and got stuck with Clinton because the ruling class shoved her down my throat.
Say what you will about Clinton but she's a classic "Goldwater Girl" (look it up). As pure conservative as there every was. And I mean a _real_ conservative. She'd have kept everything the same, resisting change every step along the way. Trump's the radical, it just so happens he's a radical for mega corporations instead of working class Americans.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/