Consistent with our findings showing relatively low levels of fake news exposure concentrated among people who already had highly skewed information diets http://www.dartmouth.edu/~nyhan/fake-news-2016.pdf … https://twitter.com/ylelkes/status/1020313354248904704 …
The key effect isn’t spillover imo—the most important part is ecology shift. I mean, who doesn’t cover his tweets? That alone would be huge. Fox News transformed as a response to Facebook fueled Breitbart. It *is* very hard to capture effects when the whole ecology is shifting.
-
-
I was using spillovers broadly to encompass effects of the internet on non-internet users (including shifts in the media ecology to the extent that those are driven by the internet).
-
Okay. In that case I would argue that they are huge — historic, broad and widespread. Also rapid. But it’s very hard to easily or precisely measure such ecological quakes. Non-internet users are very much affected by them.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.