Fake News and Bots May Be Worrisome, but Their Political Power Is Overblown

"Fake News and Bots May Be Worrisome, but Their Political Power Is Overblown" It depends on whether you are talking about past, present, or future. And frankly I disagree. I am not convinced they were able to accurately *measure* what really occurs or has occurred. Someone sees a story on social media posted to their feed specifically to interest them--that is one view (measurable); but then that person reposts it on someone else's feed (and not necessarily by hitting the "share" button), or sends it by email or text or talks about it with family or friends. They measured people going to fake news websites (active behavior) not just seeing an ad on Facebook (more passive behavior for regular account holders). Also, you are only talking here about persuading someone to *change* their vote. Apparently, a big effort was made in the 2016 election to get (certain) people in certain critical areas (in MI, PA & WI) disgusted enough so they wouldn't vote at all. I found this article much more convincing: https://medium.com/startup-grind/how-the-trump-campaign-built-an-identit.... When you game the system, you only have to get the right number of votes in key places, not win the majority. Each election has it's own nuances. 2018 will be different again, and increasingly technology will definitely be a factor.

BECAUSE SCIENCE!!! Honestly, can I speak with your nihilist editor about this one? Are you honestly arguing that no one can change anyone's minds so fake news isn't a problem? Why should we have any discussions at all? Why does your paper exist? I've heard this argument before and it's dumb. Discussion matters. Published articles matter. Fake and real news matter. You're not nihilists. You're reporters. Sentence one and sentence two of this article posit that because of a growing number of scientific evidence, we have no reason to believe that anything Russian bots do or say can sway people politically---or their influence is at least minimal. Why wouldn't you extend that to the New York Times, FOX, MSNCB, CNN, etc? Does anything that Fox News says matter? How about talking 1-on-1 with your peers? How can it possibly be true that nothing changes peoples minds politically? That nothing in the political field matters? And who exactly is reporting here, the New York Times or the folks who did those studies? DOES THIS ARTICLE CHANGE PEOPLE'S MINDS? If nothing convinces anyone that we should change our minds about anything, then shut it all down. Stop buying political ads. Stop writing articles. Stop watching or making the news. Nothing matters. That's the argument you're making. It's stupid. The idea that misinformation isn't important and that lies aren't important is an odd position for a reporter. Here's the optimist's version of what you said: words matter.

"Fake News and Bots May Be Worrisome, but Their Political Power Is Overblown" If this were true, then Secretary Clinton is actually President of the United States and what the Country has been going though has been a replay of that Dallas show where we all have been having the very same bad dream and tomorrow we will wake up and this will all be over. The writer of this article must think we are all just as clueless as the Trump supporters.

Overblown? Clueless argument when elections are being decided by the thinest of margins.

Pretending that fake news has no effect is FAKE NEWS.

It is absurd to argue that the massive flood of fake news had no effect in 2016. Fake news increases polarization and solidifies resentments and assumptions, however inaccurate. It plays upon existing biases and pushes half truths. It energizes or de-energizes groups of voters, which affects turnout, which affects outcomes. One of the most effective strategies in 2016 was to alienate Bernie supporters by painting him as a victim of a rigged process. While the Bernie supporters didn't become Republicans, many stayed home, which had a HUGE effect on the final outcome.

I don't see how you could possibly know. It seems that a large fraction of Americans' voting patterns are fairly fickle and based on superficial understanding of issues or personal biases - why else would we swing wildly from Obama to Trump? It certainly isn't based on policy or political outlook.

Perhaps look at it from this point of view: Instead of considering how fake news and bots change a person's perspective, consider how it solidifies and exacerbates their current position. In other words, how many people who disagreed, respectfully, about Ms. Clinton as a president became raging anti-Hillary zealots do the sensationalized fabrications? Consider too how fake news affects the other side. How many liberals now say "all repubs are idiots" due to the Pizzagate scandal? In my mind, the point of fake news has never been to persuade, but always to expand the divide and disseminate confusion.

Thanks for this. Another (related?) concern I’ve rarely seen addressed is the spread of “fake news” by e mail “forwards.” My 70-something parents are not on FB or Twitter — but for years they were driving my sister and me batty by forwarding us absurd e mail exposes. We both respect our parents’ voting as they please, but we got frustrated and upset at the lies they were credulously passing on. We had way too many phone calls where my sister and I had to repeat, “Mom, Dad, Barack Obama is NOT Muslim. And yes, he was born in the U.S. Why do you believe this nonsense on the internet? Go to reputable sites.” I do feel that my parents views were eventually influenced by e mail “forwards.” They are unlikely to ever be on other Social Media.

This perspective misses the greatest specific threat that "fake news" and other forms of control or propaganda influence have on our most powerful ability to attempt at maintaining our survival: Our potential--or not--for our real experience of connection and social discourse. We long ago began to decide that throwing the "after effects" of our economy on our streets was, indeed, trashing our world, and so we began to have trash receptacles, and mothers and fathers saying "no, don' t do that." Now we need a different kind of response and ability to manage this phenomenon of negative social evolution which is trashing our minds and our social discourse. We either need the established media to step up and maintain a steady message--one that is not "trashed" by the daily need to always have something "new" in our news--or we need to evolve and move beyond our current established media, which appears to often give too much time to selling us the trash. Please come to a discourse and a decision about this as soon as possible: the trash is piling up.

This article and view completely misses the point of the Russian interference. It is intended to promote a line of thought that democracy is not a workable system and that strong authoritarian government is better. It is not to promote one candidate over the other.

The truth always find his way in the mind of the people. In a documentary about the history of the former USSR, a veteran of the civil war (1917-1921) was interview. Despite the fact that Trotsky the leader of the Red Army have been erased of the official history or if his name appeared, called a criminal guilty of treason during the Civil War and after, that veteran was telling how Trotsky was a great leader who lead the Red Army to victory. And he was saying that after he has been through sixty years of anti-trotkyste propaganda or "fake news" . Donald Trump can say every lies and propagates every fake news at the end the truth will win.

The researchers missed a point (particularly about partisan readers). A single fake news article or site is endlessly repeated and reposted by partisans, multiple times and under varying names and varying disguises. It is most often used to inflame or divert discussion and lob verbal hand grenades at the other side, forcing them to allocate resources to rebut such foolishness. That is the problem and is more worrisome than an individual's unwillingness to change their mind.

The author of this piece assumes the effects of political advertising are the same as those of "fake news." The studies cited in the hyperlinks ALL have to do with advertising, not "fake news." The really deadly fake news is the lazy journalism of glossing the summary of some social science papers, aggregating what others say about them and then hyperlinking those papers for that authoritative touch.

I'm still concerned by Mercer family Cambridge Analytics working with Russia to influence both our Election and Brexit.

I would suggest that changing minds is not the primary aim of Russian meddling in our elections. This year, the likely goal will be energizing the Trump base to mitigate expected downturn in voting and sowing dissension among Democratic voters. Immediately you can see how much easier it is to stoke outrage among Trump fans, to split the fragile Democratic coalition with (again) outrage. Watch for Sanders voters to be pealed away by amplified stories of moderate Dem perfidy.