But ya, nationalreview and redstate don't belong on the list. They're hyper partisan and often publish emotionally charged propaganda, but they aren't fake news.
That being said, I don't think nationalreview and redstate are being shared by the Trump support demographic. I think that's more so the other groups of conservatives.
Trump supporters undoubtedly share the most fake news out of any other demographic though but I'm not sure why we'd need a paper.
One simply has to look at the facebook traffic during the final weeks of the election.
Of the 20 top-performing false election stories identified in the analysis, all but three were overtly pro-Donald Trump or anti-Hillary Clinton. Two of the biggest false hits were a story claiming Clinton sold weapons to ISIS and a hoax claiming the pope endorsed Trump, which the site removed after publication of this article. The only viral false stories during the final three months that were arguably against Trump's interests were a false quote from Mike Pence about Michelle Obama, a false report that Ireland was accepting American "refugees" fleeing Trump, and a hoax claiming RuPaul said he was groped by Trump.
Some Drumpf voters being low IQ retards and sharing fake news more often that other supporters =/= most media consumed by Drumpf voters being fake news
Most websites I recognise didn't deserve to be there. There's also like 3 liberal sites vs 50 Conservative ones. Now, you could argue that this is just the case that Conservatives being more likely to skew facts or w/e, but their basis for "junk news" appears to be "solidly partisan" in which case I think we can agree that there are plenty of liberal websites who would rightfully fall under this banner to make it relatively even
Of the 20 top-performing false election stories identified in the analysis, all but three were overtly pro-Donald Trump or anti-Hillary Clinton.
This is less Drumpf voters being retards tbh cause we know that Russians were basically for anyone who wasn't Clinton
Most websites I recognise didn't deserve to be there.
the vast majority of the websites on that list belonged there. From what I saw, only redstate and nationalreview were out of place.
here's also like 3 liberal sites vs 50 Conservative ones. Now, you could argue that this is just the case that Conservatives being more likely to skew facts or w/e
I mean, this makes perfect sense. Most fake-news websites are right-wing in nature. It isn't necessarily because conservatives are more likely to skew the facts, it's that there's a bigger audience than there is for left-wing fake news.
This is because the GOP, and conservative media in general, since at least the 1960s has been attacking the media, or any credible source of information that conflicts with their own agenda.
There's actually a conservative raido host that sums this up:
When I say the American right has gone off the deep end, I'm not saying it because I dislike them. These people are literally in an echo chamber that makes Salon look neutral.
There is no baseline of facts, everything that conflicts with something they believe is fake. Science is rigged against them, math is rigged against them, reality is rigged against them.
They aren't like this because liberals are inherently smarter, or more educated. They come from the same gene pool liberals do. They live in the same country liberals do, they're no different than liberals.
The problem is liberals didn't build an identity around resisting the mainstream. They hammer a siege mentality into their base for 40 years. This problem exists because the GOP created it.
Yeah awesome spiel but this doesn't change the fact that this Oxford University paper is retarded
From what I saw, only redstate and nationalreview were out of place.
Then you're even more retarded than I thought
When I say the American right has gone off the deep end, I'm not saying it because I dislike them. These people are literally in an echo chamber that makes Salon look neutral.
Evidence literally shows that this is both sides though. And there's more evidence towards the left being more likely to create their own echo chamber but w/e
This is because the GOP, and conservative media in general, since at least the 1960s has been attacking the media
This is true
There is no baseline of facts, everything that conflicts with something they believe is fake. Science is rigged against them, math is rigged against them, reality is rigged against them.
This isn't a thing lmao
The problem is liberals didn't build an identity around resisting the mainstream.
Science is rigged against them, math is rigged against them, reality is rigged against them.
No; to the extent that you're describing any real phenomenon here, the underlying premise is that people are biased against them. That scientists aren't doing honest science, mathematicians aren't doing honest math, reality-documenters (i.e. journalists) aren't accurately documenting reality. And that the world is big and complicated enough now that they can get away with it, because the common folk don't have the resources to check.
The problem is liberals didn't build an identity around resisting the mainstream. They didn't hammer a siege mentality into their base for 40 years. This problem exists because the GOP created it.
contra OP's reply, "liberals" != the Democratic party. "Liberals" can't "build an identity around resisting the mainstream" because liberalism is the original basis for that mainstream. You better believe the other side of the GOP's culture war also "builds an identity around resisting the mainstream", though (BLM, antifa etc.). After all, they're the ones that tried to make "fake news" a meme (in the classical sense of the term) in the first place. Realizing that would get turned against them would have required rather more self-awareness.
I don't give a shit about Trump or Hillary (other than the tasty drama) but I do remember reading an interview with one of I think Latvian kids that was building fake sites solely for ad revenue and he was asked why he was doing conservative rather than liberal and he said he tested both and conservatives had a much higher click through rate and made him way more money.
Some Drumpf voters being low IQ retards and sharing fake news more often that other supporters =/= most media consumed by Drumpf voters being fake news
I agree with what you said. Has National Review fallen greatly in quality recently? I have been surprised at Newsweek and a few others that used to be credible.
We demonstrate that (1) on Twitter, a network of Trump supporters shares the widest range of known junk news sources and circulates more junk news than all the other groups put together
Its pretty obvious if you hang out on the conspiracy boards, all the dumbest conspiracies are shit trump supporters cook up to explain his sundowning tweets etc.
I remember the first time I learned people were retarded chimpanzees.. I started reading a book when I was 11 called the tipping point by malcom gladwell.. good book, some anecdotes on psychology, some interesting sociological stats. I was reading In math class, because who needs simple algebra when you can do quantum physics and college level computing when you're 12. A girl asked me what I was reading, so I showed her and her knee jerk reaction was that "oh there's a number in that book with a percent, I can't read it. I went home and did some IQ research and found out that my iq was over 400, and I did the standard deviation math and realized that if the average human's processing power is 93 in this country, and a cockroaches processing power is 25ish, that the average human has a lot more in common with a cockroach than they do with me.
28 comments
1 belizehouse 2018-02-26
Why is National Review on that list?
1 PM_ME_FREE_FOOD 2018-02-26
Because the people who wrote this ""study"" are fucking retarded
1 eva_unit_hung 2018-02-26
oh good, you realized.
I was gonna call you a (((kike))) and shit
1 pizzashill 2018-02-26
They listed left-wing websites as well tbh.
But ya, nationalreview and redstate don't belong on the list. They're hyper partisan and often publish emotionally charged propaganda, but they aren't fake news.
That being said, I don't think nationalreview and redstate are being shared by the Trump support demographic. I think that's more so the other groups of conservatives.
Trump supporters undoubtedly share the most fake news out of any other demographic though but I'm not sure why we'd need a paper.
One simply has to look at the facebook traffic during the final weeks of the election.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/viral-fake-election-news-outperformed-real-news-on-facebook?utm_term=.hgMAaZ4oNw#.du8vmpBVA6
1 PM_ME_FREE_FOOD 2018-02-26
Some Drumpf voters being low IQ retards and sharing fake news more often that other supporters =/= most media consumed by Drumpf voters being fake news
Most websites I recognise didn't deserve to be there. There's also like 3 liberal sites vs 50 Conservative ones. Now, you could argue that this is just the case that Conservatives being more likely to skew facts or w/e, but their basis for "junk news" appears to be "solidly partisan" in which case I think we can agree that there are plenty of liberal websites who would rightfully fall under this banner to make it relatively even
This is less Drumpf voters being retards tbh cause we know that Russians were basically for anyone who wasn't Clinton
1 pizzashill 2018-02-26
the vast majority of the websites on that list belonged there. From what I saw, only redstate and nationalreview were out of place.
I mean, this makes perfect sense. Most fake-news websites are right-wing in nature. It isn't necessarily because conservatives are more likely to skew the facts, it's that there's a bigger audience than there is for left-wing fake news.
This is because the GOP, and conservative media in general, since at least the 1960s has been attacking the media, or any credible source of information that conflicts with their own agenda.
There's actually a conservative raido host that sums this up:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cp2BSvnXYAA84Ch.jpg:large
When I say the American right has gone off the deep end, I'm not saying it because I dislike them. These people are literally in an echo chamber that makes Salon look neutral.
There is no baseline of facts, everything that conflicts with something they believe is fake. Science is rigged against them, math is rigged against them, reality is rigged against them.
They aren't like this because liberals are inherently smarter, or more educated. They come from the same gene pool liberals do. They live in the same country liberals do, they're no different than liberals.
The problem is liberals didn't build an identity around resisting the mainstream. They hammer a siege mentality into their base for 40 years. This problem exists because the GOP created it.
1 PM_ME_FREE_FOOD 2018-02-26
Yeah awesome spiel but this doesn't change the fact that this Oxford University paper is retarded
Then you're even more retarded than I thought
Evidence literally shows that this is both sides though. And there's more evidence towards the left being more likely to create their own echo chamber but w/e
This is true
This isn't a thing lmao
Lmfao you're even more delusional than I though
1 thebuscompany 2018-02-26
The point is that the researchers took a list of right wing sites and acted surprised that the right was more likely to share them.
1 zahlman 2018-02-26
No; to the extent that you're describing any real phenomenon here, the underlying premise is that people are biased against them. That scientists aren't doing honest science, mathematicians aren't doing honest math, reality-documenters (i.e. journalists) aren't accurately documenting reality. And that the world is big and complicated enough now that they can get away with it, because the common folk don't have the resources to check.
contra OP's reply, "liberals" != the Democratic party. "Liberals" can't "build an identity around resisting the mainstream" because liberalism is the original basis for that mainstream. You better believe the other side of the GOP's culture war also "builds an identity around resisting the mainstream", though (BLM, antifa etc.). After all, they're the ones that tried to make "fake news" a meme (in the classical sense of the term) in the first place. Realizing that would get turned against them would have required rather more self-awareness.
1 wtfuxlolwut 2018-02-26
I don't give a shit about Trump or Hillary (other than the tasty drama) but I do remember reading an interview with one of I think Latvian kids that was building fake sites solely for ad revenue and he was asked why he was doing conservative rather than liberal and he said he tested both and conservatives had a much higher click through rate and made him way more money.
1 zahlman 2018-02-26
And even that study was dumb.
1 Namenamenamenamena 2018-02-26
The question answers itself.
1 zahlman 2018-02-26
My point was, I'm not sure I actually believe that.
1 belizehouse 2018-02-26
I agree with what you said. Has National Review fallen greatly in quality recently? I have been surprised at Newsweek and a few others that used to be credible.
1 PM_ME_FREE_FOOD 2018-02-26
No this list just sucks fucking ass
1 cheeZetoastee 2018-02-26
They pay Ben Shapiro, but no other noticeable dips in quality. Goldberg is getting better as he ages.
1 Username234983 2018-02-26
Study: All these study's that show one political side is more stupid than the other are fake news. Both sides are retarded as fuck.
1 zahlman 2018-02-26
south park neutrality reeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
1 Username234983 2018-02-26
Whatever you were going for here, failed.
1 niczar 2018-02-26
It's undoubtedly true. They just forgot mention that might be just as true of the other side, but that's ok.
1 nanonan 2018-02-26
Imagine believing any study of Fake News. Is this the one where right-wing = junk and left-wing = mainstream?
1 eva_unit_hung 2018-02-26
swish
1 wqwlad 2018-02-26
TOP. MINDS.
1 allendrio 2018-02-26
Its pretty obvious if you hang out on the conspiracy boards, all the dumbest conspiracies are shit trump supporters cook up to explain his sundowning tweets etc.
1 oshnyve 2018-02-26
I remember the first time I learned people were retarded chimpanzees.. I started reading a book when I was 11 called the tipping point by malcom gladwell.. good book, some anecdotes on psychology, some interesting sociological stats. I was reading In math class, because who needs simple algebra when you can do quantum physics and college level computing when you're 12. A girl asked me what I was reading, so I showed her and her knee jerk reaction was that "oh there's a number in that book with a percent, I can't read it. I went home and did some IQ research and found out that my iq was over 400, and I did the standard deviation math and realized that if the average human's processing power is 93 in this country, and a cockroaches processing power is 25ish, that the average human has a lot more in common with a cockroach than they do with me.
1 drunk_child 2018-02-26
A G E N D A P O S T A N
1 VultureV1 2018-02-26
I don't know about them but I get all my news from r/drama but spending time here which lets me formulate educated opinions on important matters.
1 Mariokartfever 2018-02-26
heya OP https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3svW8PM_jc&t=0m17s
fukn commies