Multi-platform exposure could mean daily fake news contact for average voters

Evidence

What concerns me even more is that people’s media diet is of course not restricted to Twitter. We also receive news content from Facebook, WhatsApp, TikTok, Reddit, and so on. So, what if the actual rate is more like 25 per cent? Using Lazer’s data, it means that, on average, an individual would have been exposed to fifty fake news articles in the last month of the election (instead of ten), which translates to about twelve to thirteen articles a week or at least one a day. That could be influential. At minimum, I think we need to be cognizant of the fact that these estimates are only as good as the assumptions that go into the model. — Sander van der Linden, Foolproof, 526

Categorization

• QUESTION: A scalable back-of-envelope sensitivity analysis the author only partially runs — varying the view-conversion assumption across platforms could be quantified further.
• XREF: connects to: Average US adult saw only about three fake news pages during the 2016 election — Sander van der Linden, Foolproof: Why Misinformation Infects…, 517; Fake news exposure in 2016 probably could not swing election results — Sander van der Linden, Foolproof: Why Misinformation Infects…, 520; Fake news outperformed reputable news in social media engagement in 2016 — Cailin O’Connor and James Owen Weatherall, The Misinformation Age: How False…, 18 (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• Fake news outperformed reputable news in social media engagement in 2016 #corroborates (0.78) — Cailin O’Connor and James Owen Weatherall, The Misinformation Age, 18
• Fake news softens trust in sources before status-based propaganda replaces persuasion #expands (0.75) — Lee McIntyre, Post-Truth, 229
• Audience laziness and entitlement, not just technology, enable modern fake news #corroborates (0.72) — Lee McIntyre, Post-Truth, 212