People older than 65 share the most fake news, a new study finds

Post by asdff » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 5:40 PM UTC

sanmon3186 wrote: post #137

My hypothesis is that they grew with a notion that "if it is on a newspaper, magazine or a book, it must be true", which was indeed the case when compared to digital content in today's world. It took me a long discussion to convince my Indian uncle that image of certificate (signed by director general of UNESCO) that he forwarded on WhatsApp, declaring Indian national anthem as the best national anthem in the world,…

Post by asdff » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 5:42 PM UTC

burtonator wrote: post #66

I've been thinking of building a 'fake news' app to embarrass people like this who share fake news. The idea is to have a legitimate looking site. The link would be something like 'thebostonreporter.com' where it looks like a real news URL and the content ALSO looks like a legitimate news site. The site would create news stories that confirm the bias of people who tend to share fake news. For example, "Hillary Clinto…

Post by nabla9 » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 5:43 PM UTC

mbostleman wrote: post #162

nabla9 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Media distortion and truthfulness are not the same thing. People and media will always have a viewpoint that distorts their objectivity. That is just fact of live and not necessarily bad thing as long as it's honest belief. Media used to be more reliable and truthful in the past with the normal distortions that people had. Mainstream media is still like this. Their problem is the lack of money and time that lowers th…

>>Fox News is the only major mainstream media source that has completely turned news into dishonest influencing operation.>> To me, it's ideas like this that perpetuate the problem. It clings to the idea that journalists and journalism - at least that which is sold via mainstream media channels - are capable of some kind of pristine objectivity. They aren't. It is much healthier in my opinion to understand that news…

Post by deadmetheny » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 5:44 PM UTC

kaffeemitsahne wrote: post #89

magduf wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure this is fair to all people over 65. It sounds like maybe your relatives are much like mine, and I agree, my relatives shouldn't be voting either. If we're going to put up a discriminatory barrier to voting, I think it'd be more effective if it was education-based. People with no education make poor voting choices, as we've seen in recent elections.

It's quite frightening to see how popular this education barrier to voting idea is. Another one I've heard is that everyone should make a test before being allowed to vote.

Post by octernion » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 5:47 PM UTC

asabjorn wrote: post #207

soundwave106 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the above news article, there is a direct link to the magazine with the study. The direct link to the study is here: http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/1/eaau4586 The study appeared to correlate two sources to determine the nature of fake news: A) The primary source was a list of fake news sites compiled by Buzzfeed Media: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/viral-fa... B) The study was cross…

Thanks! Buzfeed believes in far-left progressive views and is not known for objective reporting, so using this as a primary source for classifications of fake news would predetermine this outcome. With this in mind I think we can't trust the studys conclusion.