3 ms·

I'm reading all the time about how fake news on Facebook supposedly influenced the elections, but I haven't heard of any factual confirmation of that. Did it re

by smsm42 8y ago

I'm reading all the time about how fake news on Facebook supposedly influenced the elections, but I haven't heard of any factual confirmation of that. Did it really happen? Did somebody research that? How much influence did they find? I have seen research that says convincing people campaigning is pretty much hopeless - they'd nod to ads they agree with and ignore ones they disagree with, but won't change their minds : https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3042867 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3042867 Maybe this research is wrong - but I'd like to see any research if Facebook fake news did really have any influence at all.

avn2109 8y ago
The waters are further muddied by the fact that nobody can agree on a definition of "fake news." It's meaningless, sensational claims all the way down.
- smsm42 8y ago
  I suspect if we had a workable definition finding any evidence it has had any influence would become even harder.
- kelnos 8y ago
  Sure we do: fake news is the dissemination of incorrect information purporting to be the truth (and not someone's opinion).
  - smsm42 8y ago
    That's "lying" (if intentional) or "being mistaken" (if sincere). People do it all the time since speech was invented (and probably before that too - I've read about some animals being capable of lying).
nrb 8y ago
It’s not about changing minds, it’s about making sure people get out the vote by appealing to people’s emotions through misleading statements or outright lies (they are taking away your guns, they are prdophiles!)
- smsm42 8y ago
  Wait, I though getting people to vote is a good thing? I am seeing a wave of propaganda to vote each time elections are near, registration drives, celebrity appeals, etc. Everybody is talking about how voting is good, not voting is bad and "suppressing" somebody's vote (including convincing them not to vote) is plain awful. There's a case where judge threatened a person with jail unless they vote: https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/investigator-judge-ordered-defendants-to-vote-or-face-jail-time/95-462893339 https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/investigator-judge-ordered... (clearly unlawful but the judge wouldn't do it unless they thought voting is great). So if fake news drive people to vote it should be a good thing, at least in the minds of people that think voting is always good?
  - kelnos 8y ago
    So if fake news drive people to vote it should be a good thing Absolutely not. I would rather people not vote at all than vote based on incorrect information.
    - smsm42 8y ago
      But you must know tons of people are voting based on incorrect information already. Just read any public politics forum, you'll encounter thousands of them. Nobody says "please vote only if you are sure you have correct information". Everybody says "please vote" without any qualifications. Nobody says "we'd make a voter registration drive, but before registering every voter we'd double check they have correct information with this easy 20-minute exam". It's always unconditional "voting is good, no matter what". So, is it one or the other? Is it always good or only good if you have "correct information"? And who's gonna decide that information is correct, given how wildly different information providers disagree even about basic questions of the policy? Even if we look at the same person position in 5 years, they may be saying something diametrically opposite to what they said 5 years ago - so which information is correct? Should we discourage people that we think have incorrect information from voting, and if it's a good thing, why is nobody doing it?
    - 51lver 8y ago

by smsm42 8y ago

avn2109 8y ago

The waters are further muddied by the fact that nobody can agree on a definition of "fake news." It's meaningless, sensational claims all the way down.

smsm42 8y ago
I suspect if we had a workable definition finding any evidence it has had any influence would become even harder.
kelnos 8y ago
Sure we do: fake news is the dissemination of incorrect information purporting to be the truth (and not someone's opinion).
- smsm42 8y ago
  That's "lying" (if intentional) or "being mistaken" (if sincere). People do it all the time since speech was invented (and probably before that too - I've read about some animals being capable of lying).

nrb 8y ago

It’s not about changing minds, it’s about making sure people get out the vote by appealing to people’s emotions through misleading statements or outright lies (they are taking away your guns, they are prdophiles!)

smsm42 8y ago
Wait, I though getting people to vote is a good thing? I am seeing a wave of propaganda to vote each time elections are near, registration drives, celebrity appeals, etc. Everybody is talking about how voting is good, not voting is bad and "suppressing" somebody's vote (including convincing them not to vote) is plain awful. There's a case where judge threatened a person with jail unless they vote: https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/investigator-judge-ordered-defendants-to-vote-or-face-jail-time/95-462893339 https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/investigator-judge-ordered... (clearly unlawful but the judge wouldn't do it unless they thought voting is great). So if fake news drive people to vote it should be a good thing, at least in the minds of people that think voting is always good?
- kelnos 8y ago
  So if fake news drive people to vote it should be a good thing Absolutely not. I would rather people not vote at all than vote based on incorrect information.
  - smsm42 8y ago
    But you must know tons of people are voting based on incorrect information already. Just read any public politics forum, you'll encounter thousands of them. Nobody says "please vote only if you are sure you have correct information". Everybody says "please vote" without any qualifications. Nobody says "we'd make a voter registration drive, but before registering every voter we'd double check they have correct information with this easy 20-minute exam". It's always unconditional "voting is good, no matter what". So, is it one or the other? Is it always good or only good if you have "correct information"? And who's gonna decide that information is correct, given how wildly different information providers disagree even about basic questions of the policy? Even if we look at the same person position in 5 years, they may be saying something diametrically opposite to what they said 5 years ago - so which information is correct? Should we discourage people that we think have incorrect information from voting, and if it's a good thing, why is nobody doing it?
  - 51lver 8y ago