4 ms·
This is something some colleagues in my research team (Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, part of the University of Oxford) are studying. The evide
by pmyteh 10y ago
This is something some colleagues in my research team (Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, part of the University of Oxford) are studying.
The evidence doesn't seem to show an effect: while there's definitely partisan selective exposure as a result of Facebook's algorithm, our longitudinal audience data suggests that before Facebook people mostly only read or watched a single news source. So even the attenuated diversity you get through a selective feed still seems to result in wider incidental exposure than the pre-social media world.
No paper to link, as the research is still ongoing. I understand they look like pretty robust results, though - it's certainly changed the way we look at things.
- Tanegashima 10y agoFacebook doesn't show up posts based on the source. They do it at individual levels. So even if you read the "Unbiased Times", you can get a biased selection of articles because of the algorithm.
- pmyteh 10y agoQuite true. Analogous things happen in print, though: people often read only the sections of papers which interest them (and, at the extreme, consciously skip those op-ed columnists which raise their blood pressure).
- Tanegashima 10y agoExactly, and even if they read, they will reject it and forget it. However, in the old days, you could get away with fake news, and today, you can get away with fake news (even break the law, because it's the internet, and you can write in English and have .com or .us domain in whichever country you want), and it's even lucrative to do so!
- thenomad 10y agoThat is fascinating to hear, and thank you for posting it on Hacker News. (Also rather reassuring, and interesting in terms of narrowing down the causes of the hyper-partisan trends that seem to be developing in politics.) Please do post the paper on HN when it comes out!