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.
Fox isnt on the list of fake news sites that they considered. Also missing is MSNBC and CNN, and these are clearly the top 3 fake news outlets.
They did include CNN in the real news set. Hah.
This story is clearly also fake news due to these facts.
"His name was James Damore."
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
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/
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.
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.
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.
CNN makes mistakes. Fox is just trying to bullshit you.
Actually these days Fox seems to be trying to beam messages directly into the President's head.
How much time do you spend watching/reading Fox News?
Personally, I've been trying to read them regularly, specifically because I want to understand that side of the coverage, though I still use the NY Times as my primary news source. What I see is that it's not nearly as bad as I had been led to believe. Outside of a handful of opinion commentators who tend to go off the rails on occasion, the factual level of their coverage is pretty good. They often cover things that I'd have thought they would prefer to ignore, and do it fairly. Their headlines tend to have an obvious slant to them -- though not be actually incorrect -- but the articles tend to be accurate.
I mention this only because I think there are lots of left-leaning and moderate people around who have a very inaccurate perception of Fox News, which derives from their own online echo chambers. I think that's just as unhealthy as if Fox really were what so many believe them to be.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.