New study finds internet users over 65 share the most fake news

captaincranky

TechSpot Addict
but you did believe his fake news then :p
Most Americans, (at least not this one), don't vote "for" a candidate, they vote against him or her.

We don't enjoy or necessarily like our presidents, we "endure them".

Donald Trump is a power mad madman, an enormously greedy piece of crap, a pathological liar, and an egomaniac. (*), and I knew that beforehand. In spite of that, for whatever my sadistic or misogynistic motivations might have been, it gave me more pleasure to try and deprive Hillary Clinton of the job.

Besides, now I have at least 2 more years to try and fathom why Trump uses his lips in such a bizarre way to articulate his speech. Does he think it gives him power? Does it force us to believe he is powerful?

(*) FWIW, I avoid reality TV like the plague, Trump's show included. I think it's stupid, vulgar, and a massive waste of time.So his show, has little to no effect on my opinion of him. His failed University and bankruptcy however, were news items that I retained over the years.

One thing I'm certain of however, is that this country couldn't have withstood the liberal slide Mrs. Clinton would have put this us on, for as many as eight more years.
 
Last edited:

Linoleum77

TS Enthusiast
"Most of the news shared was legitimate, but the study found that 18% of Republicans shared fake news and less than 4% of Democrats did."

And exactly who is determining which news is fake? Politico? NBC? LOL, all meaningless statistics when 99% of the media has chosen sides politically.
Just read the damn article instead of "crying fake news"... Under "Data and method", you will find all the information need... Spoiler: no, this ain't fake and has rigor.
 

cliffordcooley

TS Redneck
Donald Trump is a power mad madman, an enormously greedy piece of crap, a pathological liar, and an egomaniac. (*), and I knew that beforehand. In spite of that, for whatever my sadistic or misogynistic motivations might have been, it gave me more pleasure to try and deprive Hillary Clinton of the job.
I might not believe all of that, but it summarizes my point of view as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Charles Olson
S

senketsu

"The study began back in 2016 before the election and consisted of 3,500 people."
not enough people to be representative of the 380 million Americans IMHO
you should take a course on sampling theory before you make a dumb statement like that.
a random sample of 3,500 is more than enough. you don't gain anymore info by expanding the sample size. hell most opinion polls sample less than 1,000 people with a margin of error of less than 3%.
I actually do have some experience with 'sampling' except it is in analytical chemistry. Before you think that's just lab work, the entire process starts with obtaining a representative sample. If you fail here, the rest is misleading to flat out wrong. Imagine you are testing ore for copper to determine if a mine is viable. What, how, where, how much ore you gather all affect this. Your result has real world consequences. Again IMHO, this study fails. From the researchers;
"the participants agreed to share their profile data with the researchers. Their post history was then compared with a list of known fake news domains."
who determined the fake news, there is more to 'fake news; than posts, if you don't have certain social media, but are on the internet were you excluded? How did they recruit these people, are the people representative of the groups (age, political leaning etc) they are using?
If pollsters consider what they do enough doesn't interest me. What happens if time reveals an opinion poll was wrong? Nothing, life moves on.
Ironically, without further examination, the conclusions this study itself reaches may be 'fake news'
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arne Saknussemm

richalone442

TS Enthusiast
but you did believe his fake news then :p
Most Americans, (at least not this one), don't vote "for" a candidate, they vote against him or her.

We don't enjoy or necessarily like our presidents, we "endure them".

Donald Trump is a power mad madman, an enormously greedy piece of crap, a pathological liar, and an egomaniac. (*), and I knew that beforehand. In spite of that, for whatever my sadistic or misogynistic motivations might have been, it gave me more pleasure to try and deprive Hillary Clinton of the job.

Besides, now I have at least 2 more years to try and fathom why Trump uses his lips in such a bizarre way to articulate his speech. Does he think it gives him power? Does it force us to believe he is powerful?

(*) FWIW, I avoid reality TV like the plague, Trump's show included. I think it's stupid, vulgar, and a massive waste of time.So his show, has little to no effect on my opinion of him. His failed University and bankruptcy however, were news items that I retained over the years.

One thing I'm certain of however, is that this country couldn't have withstood the liberal slide Mrs. Clinton would have put this us on, for as many as eight more years.
Yes at least 2 more years, I think you will have to endure Trump for 6 more years, I still shutter to think what our country would be like under the Hillerybeast.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cliffordcooley

wiyosaya

TS Evangelist
One thing I'm certain of however, is that this country couldn't have withstood the liberal slide Mrs. Clinton would have put this us on, for as many as eight more years.
OMG! This is so true! If Hillary had gotten in, she would be selling pizzas and child sex slaves out of the White House.

Trump has been so effective. In two years with his party in control of both the house and the senate, he got that funding for his border wall!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Charles Olson

captaincranky

TechSpot Addict
OMG! This is so true! If Hillary had gotten in, she would be selling pizzas and child sex slaves out of the White House.
No Hillary couldn't have possibly had accomplished the wild promises she started to make at the end of her campaign.

"A free college education for those who want one". Dream on. She would have run smack into both the scholastic business and banking community's hostile objections. And enough money into the ghettos already. The residents are getting free federal housing, while still having drug gangs operating out of their houses. If you want a better life, breed less and work harder.

Trump has been so effective. In two years with his party in control of both the house and the senate, he got that funding for his border wall!
In reality, I'm viewing this as an extended comic version of his reality show. We haven't had impeachment proceedings since Clinton's. I think Trump's impeachment would be top notch entertainment, and you wouldn't need cable to get the drift of it.

EDIT: And BTW, I'm sincerely hoping that the federal employees lawsuit against this looney tune gains some serious traction.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Capaill

wiyosaya

TS Evangelist
No Hillary couldn't have possibly had accomplished the wild promises she started to make at the end of her campaign.

"A free college education for those who want one". Dream on. She would have run smack into both the scholastic business and banking community's hostile objections. And enough money into the ghettos already. The residents are getting free federal housing, while still having drug gangs operating out of their houses. If you want a better life, breed less and work harder.
Honestly, with the other party in power and her in office, literally nothing would have gotten done by now, and we would likely have a seven member supreme court.

With Trump, we now have more CO2 emissions, Flint Michigan water and dirtier air legal for all! Go Trump!

Oh, did I forget to mention being an accused rapist as a prerequisite for SCOTUS? At least something has gotten done during Trump's first two years, and all for the benefit of humanity!

Come on, Captain! We now have a highly-regarded cone of silence in the interior secretary's office and new furniture for the office of the secretary of housing and urban development. I mean, really, come on! If Ben Carson can have it, why not the rest of the drug dealers?

Either way, the systemic problems would have/are rearing their heads. It's broken, IMO, whatever side of the political spectrum is viewing it.

In reality, I'm viewing this as an extended comic version of his reality show. We haven't had impeachment proceedings since Clinton's. I think Trump's impeachment would be top notch entertainment, and you wouldn't need cable to get the drift of it.

EDIT: And BTW, I'm sincerely hoping that the federal employees lawsuit against this looney tune gains some serious traction.
I am sure the world leaders agree with you especially since they laughed at Trump's speech at the UN. But wait, are they not all laughing at him now?

And why would you want an impeachment proceeding to gain traction? Didn't Trump, himself, say he was a stable genius? It will ruin Trump's chances of being employed at a stable after he is out of office. Stable owners will not at all be happy with him any more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Charles Olson

pcnthuziast

TS Evangelist
Journalism is dead, period. If something is important to you, fact check it against as many credible sources as you can and never trust anything outright. With the exception of a few outliers like Fox, the majority of the mainstream media is essentially a Democrat ally at the very least. Trump's a dangerous buffoon for sure, but leftists are legit insane.
 
  • Like
Reactions: senketsu

JamesSWD

TS Maniac
This study is pure biased BS. As a business owner for the last 20+ years, I've interacted with hundreds of people, across several demographics.

1) Without question, the most ignorant & emotionally unstable are liberals. They have no idea what's going on, believe all the lies their Dem & MSM masters tell them, need safe spaces from words, believe they're all oppressed victims, don't even know who Hitler was (or what a Nazi is) but are quick to call you one if you disagree with them, believe anyone not agreeing with them is a racist/fascist/whatever, and think nothing of violating Constitutional rights of others...

...ah, you know the drill with these losses. There's a reason they're called NPC's. Now watch them have an emotional tantrum and flame the post.

2) I've found that conservatives, both young & older generations, are much more educated about history, have common sense, believe in personal responsibility and law & order, and know what's going on in the world. The common myth that conservatives are uneducated, racist, toothless hicks is BS. Go deep into the bushes of any state and you'll find both left & right fitting this description.

As for sharing fake news the most...just turn on CNN or MSNBC, then watch the groupthink NPC's all bobble-head along the rest of the day, as they quickly share whatever they're fed.
 

wiyosaya

TS Evangelist
"Most of the news shared was legitimate, but the study found that 18% of Republicans shared fake news and less than 4% of Democrats did."

And exactly who is determining which news is fake? Politico? NBC? LOL, all meaningless statistics when 99% of the media has chosen sides politically.
As referenced in the paper - https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/viral-fake-election-news-outperformed-real-news-on-facebook

This study is pure biased BS. As a business owner for the last 20+ years, I've interacted with hundreds of people, across several demographics.

1) Without question, the most ignorant & emotionally unstable are liberals. They have no idea what's going on, believe all the lies their Dem & MSM masters tell them, need safe spaces from words, believe they're all oppressed victims, don't even know who Hitler was (or what a Nazi is) but are quick to call you one if you disagree with them, believe anyone not agreeing with them is a racist/fascist/whatever, and think nothing of violating Constitutional rights of others...

...ah, you know the drill with these losses. There's a reason they're called NPC's. Now watch them have an emotional tantrum and flame the post.

2) I've found that conservatives, both young & older generations, are much more educated about history, have common sense, believe in personal responsibility and law & order, and know what's going on in the world. The common myth that conservatives are uneducated, racist, toothless hicks is BS. Go deep into the bushes of any state and you'll find both left & right fitting this description.

As for sharing fake news the most...just turn on CNN or MSNBC, then watch the groupthink NPC's all bobble-head along the rest of the day, as they quickly share whatever they're fed.
I am sure everyone believes your non-partisan expertise. As you know, you are entitled to your opinion. My humble apologies if everything and everyone does not fit your preferred narrative.

[SIZE=6]Persuasive words, Logical fallacies and Intent signals[/SIZE]
[SIZE=4]Authority[/SIZE]
A speaker may claim in many ways to be an authority; sometimes external checking of this is called for.
[SIZE=4]Us vs. Them[/SIZE]
Does the speaker see two "sides," with the other side being in some way inferior or denigrated? This happens all the time in environmental discourse, and often tends to cloud the real issues, and impede useful analysis. Many techniques of propaganda employ this technique: name calling, touting how great it is to "belong," using one-sided testimonials of famous people, simplifying issues for slogans, emphasizing being on the right side of the competition.
[SIZE=4]Absolute certainty[/SIZE]
Science doesn't provide it; scholarly research doesn't. Mathematics has it, but only within its self-defined deductive systems. When someone asserts they know something with absolute certainty, it can really only be based on self-evidence, faith, or mythology.
[SIZE=4]Emotional words[/SIZE]
Advertisers are especially keen about the emotional qualities of certain words, and the sway they can give a speaker, just by their associations. Consider the possible power of: winner, loser, infantile, powerful, lovely, courage, freedom, radical. How are these kinds of words employed to generate a certain response in the listener? What purposes are served?
[SIZE=4]Jumping to a conclusion[/SIZE]
What's wrong with concluding something about all Western students on the basis of interviewing only 10? (It has to do with sampling.) Other variations have to do with generalizing to a wider set of claims that the evidence offered supports. Pesticide residues may be a cause of cancer, but they are probably not the cause.
 

Bubbajim

TechSpot Staff
Staff member
1) Without question, the most ignorant & emotionally unstable are liberals. They have no idea what's going on,
uhh...

2) I've found that conservatives, both young & older generations, are much more educated about history, have common sense, believe in personal responsibility and law & order, and know what's going on in the world.
riiight..?

Go deep into the bushes of any state and you'll find both left & right fitting this description.
Aaaaand point undermined.

"My opponents are dumb and unstable, but my side is smart and good. But both sides have some bad people!"

So in conclusion @JamesSWD, what were you trying to say?

@wiyosaya I think you might have to repost that list of fallacies about 6 times a day on here lol
 

captaincranky

TechSpot Addict
Oh, did I forget to mention being an accused rapist as a prerequisite for SCOTUS? At least something has gotten done during Trump's first two years, and all for the benefit of humanity!
Well, we have to a certain degree, an accused rapist as POTUS, so why not? Now all we need is an accused rapist for Senate majority leader, for the hat trick
 
  • Like
Reactions: wiyosaya

wiyosaya

TS Evangelist
Well, we have to a certain degree, an accused rapist as POTUS, so why not? Now all we need is an accused rapist for Senate majority leader, for the hat trick
Once again, Captain, your logic is impeccable. :laughing: For the life of me, I do not know why I did not think of that, and it would not at all surprise me if it were to happen. ;)

Someone should start a new reality television show - "Days of our Government". :laughing:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Charles Olson
S

senketsu

@wiyosaya sorry, I couldn't quickly figure out how to quote part of the logical fallacies post, but this sure caught my eye;
"Absolute certainty
Science doesn't provide it; scholarly research doesn't."
I've maintained this for years, yet some on this site will form a lynch mob if I say it. Doesn't mean I think the Earth is flat etc, just that science is a tool with which we can do amazing stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wiyosaya

wiyosaya

TS Evangelist
@Bubbajim An interesting thing to me was that on following the link that I posted and reading it, it specifically states that all mainstream news sources were eliminated from consideration.
@wiyosaya sorry, I couldn't quickly figure out how to quote part of the logical fallacies post, but this sure caught my eye;
"Absolute certainty
Science doesn't provide it; scholarly research doesn't."
I've maintained this for years, yet some on this site will form a lynch mob if I say it. Doesn't mean I think the Earth is flat etc, just that science is a tool with which we can do amazing stuff.
No need to apologize!

Science is certainly not an absolute. It is built over time and is always open to new developments. With any luck, it closely parallels the progress of humanity.

Sounds like you have encountered some "Flat Earthers" on TS? :laughing:

I've modified my approach over the years. Now, when that happens to me, I do my best to provide an understanding what was presented.
 

captaincranky

TechSpot Addict
BOTTOM LINE:

The list of fake news sites that this "piece of journalism" is based on comes from BUZZFEED

Which itself is total Fake News

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-01-18/skeptics-shred-buzzfeed-over-trump-tower-scoop-journo-admits-he-hasnt-seen-evidence

QED
Everything in every news story ever published is subject to interpretation by the individuals reporting it.

Additionally, unless you are or were personally involved with the people, places, things, and the backstage events and interpersonal relationships involved leading up to and creating any given incident. you personally can't know whether it's fake or not.

Accordingly, news fake or true, has to be considered in the same terms as does beauty. And as the saying goes, "beauty, is in the eye of the beholder".
 
A

Arne Saknussemm

Just read the damn article instead of "crying fake news"... Under "Data and method", you will find all the information need... Spoiler: no, this ain't fake and has rigor.
Nope...citing buzzfeed is not rigor...it's not science...it's propaganda.
 
A

Arne Saknussemm

Everything in every news story ever published is subject to interpretation by the individuals reporting it.

Additionally, unless you are or were personally involved with the people, places, things, and the backstage events and interpersonal relationships involved leading up to and creating any given incident. you personally can't know whether it's fake or not.

Accordingly, news fake or true, has to be considered in the same terms as does beauty. And as the saying goes, "beauty, is in the eye of the beholder".
A typical attempt to obfuscate any fact based argument with meaningless doublespeak.
 

captaincranky

TechSpot Addict
A typical attempt to obfuscate any fact based argument with meaningless doublespeak.
Oo, "obfusciate" that's a pretty darn big word there noob. Are you sure that what I said simply isn't within the capability of your understanding?

The simple fact of the matter is, any news can be slanted, any slanted or fake news story, can be interspersed with factual information, opinion, POV, and what have you. It's called "spin". Someone who can put "obfuscate" into a sentence, ought to be able to. "wrap your head around that". (As the children say).

BOTTOM LINE:

The list of fake news sites that this "piece of journalism" is based on comes from BUZZFEED

Which itself is total Fake News...[ ]...
In your opinion.
 
A

Arne Saknussemm

Oo, "obfusciate" that's a pretty darn big word there noob. Are you sure that what I said simply isn't within the capability of your understanding?

The simple fact of the matter is, any news can be slanted, any slanted or fake news story, can be interspersed with factual information, opinion, POV, and what have you. It's called "spin". Someone who can put "obfuscate" into a sentence, ought to be able to. "wrap your head around that". (As the children say).

In your opinion.
And then straight to the ad hominem...yawn...as a "noob" my opinion counts for less LOL
 
S

senketsu

BOTTOM LINE:

The list of fake news sites that this "piece of journalism" is based on comes from BUZZFEED

Which itself is total Fake News

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-01-18/skeptics-shred-buzzfeed-over-trump-tower-scoop-journo-admits-he-hasnt-seen-evidence

QED
I am guessing you are a fan of Jules Verne's Journey to the Centre of the Earth.
I have only tried watching the movie, which is pretty hard because it isn't great. A shame as Jules Verne had some good writing and ideas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arne Saknussemm