Learn Before
Prevalence of Misinformation
Guess et al. (2018): approximately 27% of Americans had consumed at least one fake news article over the five weeks before the U.S. presidential election in 2016. Fourney et al. (2016): ca. 0.34% of Microsoft Explorer users (who agreed to anonymously share their internet usage) visited a fake news domain in a day. Grinberg et al. (2019): on twitter, ca. 5% of political content originates from fake news sources in 2016. Guess et al. (2018): 0.01 % of tweets contained fake news during the French presidential election in 2017.
Even thought these statistics have their limitations and are difficult to interpret, one can say that only a small amount of social media content is fake news and only a small amount of social media users is responsible for the huge dissemination of fake news.
0
1
Tags
Psychology
Social Science
Empirical Science
Science
Related
Reasons Misinformation Spreads
Examples of Misinformation
Fact Checking
Possible solutions to Misinformation
Effective forewarning against misinformation
Reasons Why It Is Difficult to Empirically Evaluate Disagreements Over the Prevalence and Importance of Misinformation
Distinction between Misinformation and Disinformation
Production of Misinformation
Supply of Misinformation
Prevalence of Misinformation
Scientific Racism
Correcting Misinformation
Types of Misinformation
Truth Discernment
Identifying Misinformation through Visualization
References for Who falls for fake news? Psychological and clinical profiling evidence of fake news consumers
Exposure to social engagement metrics increases vulnerability to misinformation
References for Exposure to social engagement metrics increases vulnerability to misinformation
Misinformation Effect Paradigm