,
4 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
New paper: Fake news on Twitter during the 2016 U.S. presidential election science.sciencemag.org/content/363/64…
"Fake news accounted for nearly 6% of all news consumption, but it was heavily concentrated—only 1% of users were exposed to 80% of fake news"
"Fake news accounted for nearly 6% of all news consumption, but it was heavily concentrated—only 1% of users were exposed to 80% of fake news"
There was a large & significant discrepancy between left vs right wrt average proportion of fake news sources in an individual’s feed. People who had 5% or more of their political exposures from fake news sources constituted 2.5% of individuals on the left vs. 16.3% on the right.
"Although 6% of people who shared URLs with political content shared content from fake news sources, the vast majority of fake news shares and exposures were attributable to tiny fractions of the population."
And here's how they determined what's "fake news"
And here's how they determined what's "fake news"
If I’m reading correctly, it suggests “fake news” was less influential than previously assumed but (1) I wonder how a similar study would hold up on FB & (2) I’m not sure if they calculated hashtagged content in how they measured exposures which seems key to the twitter platform.
