Research note: The scale of Facebook’s problem depends upon how ‘fake news’ is classified

R. Rogers
{"title":"Research note: The scale of Facebook’s problem depends upon how ‘fake news’ is classified","authors":"R. Rogers","doi":"10.37016/mr-2020-43","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Ushering in the contemporary ‘fake news’ crisis, Craig Silverman of Buzzfeed News reported that it outperformed mainstream news on Facebook in the three months prior to the 2016 US presidential elections. Here the report’s methods and findings are revisited for 2020. Examining Facebook user engagement of election-related stories, and applying Silverman’s classification of fake news, it was found that the problem has worsened, implying that the measures undertaken to date have not remedied the issue. If, however, one were to classify ‘fake news’ in a stricter fashion, as Facebook as well as certain media organizations do with the notion of ‘false news’, the scale of the problem shrinks. A smaller scale problem could imply a greater role for fact-checkers (rather than deferring to mass-scale content moderation), while a larger one could lead to the further politicisation of source adjudication, where labelling particular sources broadly as ‘fake’, ‘problematic’ and/or ‘junk’ results in backlash.","PeriodicalId":93289,"journal":{"name":"Harvard Kennedy School misinformation review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Harvard Kennedy School misinformation review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-43","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

Ushering in the contemporary ‘fake news’ crisis, Craig Silverman of Buzzfeed News reported that it outperformed mainstream news on Facebook in the three months prior to the 2016 US presidential elections. Here the report’s methods and findings are revisited for 2020. Examining Facebook user engagement of election-related stories, and applying Silverman’s classification of fake news, it was found that the problem has worsened, implying that the measures undertaken to date have not remedied the issue. If, however, one were to classify ‘fake news’ in a stricter fashion, as Facebook as well as certain media organizations do with the notion of ‘false news’, the scale of the problem shrinks. A smaller scale problem could imply a greater role for fact-checkers (rather than deferring to mass-scale content moderation), while a larger one could lead to the further politicisation of source adjudication, where labelling particular sources broadly as ‘fake’, ‘problematic’ and/or ‘junk’ results in backlash.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
研究说明:Facebook问题的严重程度取决于如何对“假新闻”进行分类
Buzzfeed新闻的克雷格·西尔弗曼(Craig Silverman)在谈到当代“假新闻”危机时报道称,在2016年美国总统大选前的三个月里,它的表现优于脸书上的主流新闻。在这里,报告的方法和调查结果将在2020年重新审视。通过研究脸书用户对选举相关报道的参与度,并应用西尔弗曼对假新闻的分类,发现问题已经恶化,这意味着迄今为止采取的措施并没有解决这个问题。然而,如果像脸书和某些媒体机构对“虚假新闻”的概念所做的那样,以更严格的方式对“假新闻”进行分类,问题的规模就会缩小。规模较小的问题可能意味着事实核查人员要发挥更大的作用(而不是服从大规模内容审核),而规模较大的问题可能会导致来源裁决的进一步政治化,将特定来源广泛标记为“虚假”、“有问题”和/或“垃圾”会导致反弹。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
20.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
Taking the power back: How diaspora community organizations are fighting misinformation spread on encrypted messaging apps Who reports witnessing and performing corrections on social media in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and France? The spread of synthetic media on X #SaveTheChildren: A pilot study of a social media movement co-opted by conspiracy theorists US-skepticism and transnational conspiracy in the 2024 Taiwanese presidential election
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1