Mich würden die Quellen für die beiden Aussagen interessieren, dass Fake-News den Wahlausgang nicht…
Robert Kneschke

Fake News und die US-Wahl

Fake News haben nur geringe Auswirkungen gehabt (really, Russland ist die wahre Story, das sollte mittlerweile klar sein), was mittlerweile auch von Studien belegt wurde. Ein Grund: Sie ‘überzeugen’ vor allem nur Leute, die bereits in ihren Ansichten festgefahren sind. New York Times berichtet über eine Studie:

That’s a strong indication about what is going on with consumers of fake news. It may be less that false information from dubious news sources is shaping their view of the world. Rather, some people (about 8 percent of the adult population, if we take the survey data at face value) are willing to believe anything that sounds plausible and fits their preconceptions about the heroes and villains in politics.

Studie findet man hier. (PDF)

Studien zur Blogosphäre aus den Nuller Jahren finde ich jetzt nur mit mehr Aufwand (für den ich keine Zeit habe), deshalb hier ein Zitat aus Benklers Wealth of Networks, das sich auf eine solche Studie bezieht:

A potential counterargument, however, was created by the most extensive recent study of the political blogosphere. In that study, Adamic and Glance showed that only about 10 percent of the links on any randomly selected political blog linked to a site across the ideological divide. The number increased for the “A-list” political blogs, which linked across the political divide about 15 percent of the time. The picture that emerges is one of distinct “liberal” and “conservative” spheres of conversation, with very dense links within, and more sparse links between them. On one interpretation, then, although there are salient sites that provide a common subject matter for discourse, actual conversations occur in distinct and separate spheres — exactly the kind of setting that Sun-stein argued would lead to polarization. Two of the study’s findings, however, suggest a different interpretation. The first was that there was still a substantial amount of cross-divide linking. One out of every six or seven links in the top sites on each side of the divide linked to the other side in roughly equal proportions (although conservatives tended to link slightly more over-all — both internally and across the divide). The second was, that in an effort to see whether the more closely interlinked conservative sites therefore showed greater convergence “on message,” Adamic and Glance found that greater interlinking did not correlate with less diversity in external (outside of the blogosphere) reference points. 31 Together, these findings suggest a different interpretation. Each cluster of more or less like-minded blogs tended to read each other and quote each other much more than they did the other side. This operated not so much as an echo chamber as a forum for working out of observations and interpretations internally, among like-minded people. Many of these initial statements or inquiries die because the community finds them uninteresting or fruitless. Some reach greater salience, and are distributed through the high-visibility sites throughout the community of interest. Issues that in this form reached political salience became topics of conversation and commentary across the divide.

Benklers Buch kann man als PDF hier herunterladen.

Like what you read? Give Marcel Weiß a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.