MEDIA Tagging fake news on Facebook doesn't work, study says

[unbound]

A Yale survey of 7,500 people shows little benefit, and possible detriments, to fact-check programs.



Thoughts? Anyone think we need a bit more of 'who watches the watchers'?

The problem is that most people aren't critical thinkers, but simply rationalize information. Most look to the leaders of their tribe to tell them what the truth is. This is why places like David Wolfe, Natural News, Addicting Info, The Daily Caller, Infowars, and Breitbart manage to have many, many followers. If they ever tell the truth, it is more likely accidental than intentional...but idiots on the left will believe any tripe coming from the first three, and idiots on the right will believe any tripe coming from the second three.

We don't need more of "who watches the watchers". We need a lot more people asking, "What is the truth?" as opposed to "I wonder if my biased sources say this is the truth?". We need a lot more people understanding that truth is not conveyed in a few sentences, but takes many, many paragraphs and continual learning. We need a lot more people seeking to understand why "2 + 2 = 4" instead of seeking to prove why "2 + 2 = 8" or "2 + 2 = 1". We need a lot more people to understand that what you learned in the past may very well be wrong.

[Delaios]

"The researchers also found that, for some groups—particularly, Trump supporters and adults under 26—flagging bogus stories could actually end up increasing the likelihood that users will believe fake news."

So basically the takeaway is:

Only Trump supporters, like the OP, are stupid enough to accept simply the lack or existence of 3rd party fact-checking on any information whatsoever as proof said information is fact.

But as for Clinton supporters or actual Independents(not faux "Independents" that are actually just Trump supporters' low level concern trolling), even if 3rd party fact-checkers don't parse every specific snippet of information they come across, they are still mentally capable of figuring out the facts for themselves.

Conclusion? Trump supporters have no mind of their own, but everyone else does.

You just wrote a bunch of drivel.

Without any flags the results are virtually the same and both groups believe fake news at the same rates
fake real
Trump 18.5 58.3
Clinton 18.5 60

With flags it changes to
fake real backfire
Trump 15.6 59.5 1.2
Clinton 14.2 62.3 negligible

The results hardly change at all. Yet you draw the conclusion that Trump supporters are stupid and that Clinton supporters are all so smart that they can figure out facts. You also mention "actual independents" but they aren't even mentioned in the article. You are pretty much a prime example of jumping to conclusions if they comply with your views and then exaggerate those conclusions on top of it.

The article itself even mentions that the discrepancies can at least partially be explained by a difference in attitude towards media in general. The article also states that the backfire effect is even larger for young adults. Yet you don't make claims that they are stupid.

[Daelak]

The whole "fake news" thing is a non-problem. The vast majority of people "influenced" by it on either side of the political spectrum aren't really being influenced at all as they're really indulging in their own personal confirmation bias. Donald Trump wasn't elected because of fake news on a particular topic. He was elected because Hillary Clinton is an uncharismatic reptile who didn't feel the need to campaign in Ohio, Michigain, or Wisconsin.

You exist in the same communication environment as the trolls and conspiracy theorists. Make your arguments using evidence, logic and your personal charisma and communication skills. Out compete them. If you take the lazy authoritarian route and try to regulate them out of existence, you're allowing them to characterise themselves as victims and playing into their argument. Furthermore it won't work, so stop trying. You'd spend half the effort and achieve greater success just bothering to win the argument, instead of trying to shut it down.

False, as was recorded in the public testimony to the senate and house intelligence hearings, our IC saw an unprecedented amount of disinformation being disseminated to a very specific population of people in 3 states via social media platforms (fake profiles, massive coordinated clicking slave computers to drive up trending topics, exponential sharing events), fake profiles on commentary platforms (disqus, kinja, etc.), and the dissemination of fake news via blogs and other conspiracy websites. This created a bubble of misinformation around this population that was already primed by conservative talk radio, which was already a seasoned purveyor of disseminating Killary Klinton Konspiracies. Couple these two campaigns together, and it is well within reason to see why a person who was undecided or leaning Clinton because of Trump's narcissistic and disgusting behavior and demeanor, held their nose and voted Trump because they read that Clinton orchestrated over 30 murders before she called for the "stand down" in Benghazi, or that she was the ring leader of a child prostitution ring with Hollywood Liberals that was kept under wraps by the Obama DoJ, or that she was secretly diagnosed with a terminal disease that would render her incapacitated.

[Independent voter]

You know what the most trusted news is?

The local newspaper. Here's ours: http://sparkstrib.com/

I read this somewhere and I think it's true.