Boomers share fake news nearly 7 times more than adults under 30

Share and enjoy! 18.9k Shares 18.9k 1 In a new study, researchers at Princeton and New York University found that people aged 65 years and older were nearly seven times more likely to share intentionally false stories – fake news – as those who are 30 years old or younger.

https://ascienceenthusiast.com/study-boomers-share-fake-news-nearly-7-time-adults-30/

dv said:

Boomers share fake news nearly 7 times more than adults under 30

Share and enjoy! 18.9k Shares 18.9k 1 In a new study, researchers at Princeton and New York University found that people aged 65 years and older were nearly seven times more likely to share intentionally false stories – fake news – as those who are 30 years old or younger.

https://ascienceenthusiast.com/study-boomers-share-fake-news-nearly-7-time-adults-30/

I’ll pass that on.

“It’s not easy being a father; it’s not easy being a husband”

vikings, series ? episode?

What exactly is “fake news”?

Media hype or comedy?

It has to be one of the two.

mollwollfumble said:

What exactly is “fake news”?

Media hype or comedy?

It has to be one of the two.

It has been going that way ever since they stopped using proof readers. Then they had to actually introduce fact checking.

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

What exactly is “fake news”?

Media hype or comedy?

It has to be one of the two.

It has been going that way ever since they stopped using proof readers. Then they had to actually introduce fact checking.

Probably has a lot to do with the downturn in IQ test results.

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

What exactly is “fake news”?

Media hype or comedy?

It has to be one of the two.

It has been going that way ever since they stopped using proof readers. Then they had to actually introduce fact checking.

A long time before that. Fake news had got so bad way back in 1994 that a website called “Snopes” had to be set up.

Most days, there is no significant news. So reporters have had to manufacture it. Ever watched “Drop the dead donkey”?

mollwollfumble said:

What exactly is “fake news”?

Media hype or comedy?

It has to be one of the two.

What a strange comment.

What about non-media organisations publishing not funny fake news to further their own interests.

Does that not count as “fake news”?

Peak Warming Man said:

dv said:

Boomers share fake news nearly 7 times more than adults under 30

Share and enjoy! 18.9k Shares 18.9k 1 In a new study, researchers at Princeton and New York University found that people aged 65 years and older were nearly seven times more likely to share intentionally false stories – fake news – as those who are 30 years old or younger.

https://ascienceenthusiast.com/study-boomers-share-fake-news-nearly-7-time-adults-30/

I’ll pass that on.

Are you over 64?

If this is true, it’s good news.

I doubt it is true though.

I mean the research findings, not PWM’s intention to pass it on.

certainly an abundance of news delivery capacity.

you got fast food, junk food, why not junk news?

you wanted everything electrified, so stupid got electrified.

I only skimmed the article, and haven’t read the study, but did they do statistics on the proportion of various age groups that shared “real” news?

could be some indicator of alienation/isolation of elderly

I suppose fake news has always been around as it suits peoples agendas but I imagine ever since any person and their dog can have a blog its everywhere and that’s not including the mass media organised fakes news or foreign governments state run fake news

furious said:

I only skimmed the article, and haven’t read the study, but did they do statistics on the proportion of various age groups that shared “real” news?

Article doesn’t say. Could be various effects at work – older people sharing more news stories in general, and a higher proportion being fake news because most fake news stories in the period of the study were pro-Trump, and there are more Trump supporters amongst elderly people than young etc.

I was thinking a few things

younger adults have legitimate anxieties abut what influenced their (present and future) offspring (suggestibility etc), so that and formal educational influences and limits nonsense (where it works).

those prophylactic anxieties probably wane with the elderly, and add to this isolation of the elderly, and you might get what the data shows.

Bubblecar said:

furious said:

I only skimmed the article, and haven’t read the study, but did they do statistics on the proportion of various age groups that shared “real” news?

Article doesn’t say. Could be various effects at work – older people sharing more news stories in general, and a higher proportion being fake news because most fake news stories in the period of the study were pro-Trump, and there are more Trump supporters amongst elderly people than young etc.

I wonder if its a matter of trust, elderly people trust the news or they are biased/sexist/racist/whatever and the fake news ties into this and tries to outrage them

transition said:

I was thinking a few things

younger adults have legitimate anxieties abut what influenced their (present and future) offspring (suggestibility etc), so that and formal educational influences and limits nonsense (where it works).

those prophylactic anxieties probably wane with the elderly, and add to this isolation of the elderly, and you might get what the data shows.

add too that older people might be less adaptive to the modern electrified landscape, they filter less.

conservatives might be vulnerable because repression is more psychological normal, though not abstracted, and variously media offer avenues (liberties) out of those repressive mechanisms. The equivalent of a psychological lolly.

transition said:

transition said:

I was thinking a few things

younger adults have legitimate anxieties abut what influenced their (present and future) offspring (suggestibility etc), so that and formal educational influences and limits nonsense (where it works).

those prophylactic anxieties probably wane with the elderly, and add to this isolation of the elderly, and you might get what the data shows.

add too that older people might be less adaptive to the modern electrified landscape, they filter less.

conservatives might be vulnerable because repression is more psychological normal, though not abstracted, and variously media offer avenues (liberties) out of those repressive mechanisms. The equivalent of a psychological lolly.

and of views (appealing ideas) a political lolly

end of the day media’s got a lot in common with a sectarid. You and I are attracted to screens for much the same reasons(feelings) as insects.

This wasn’t fake news but some made up outrage probably instigated by dairy industry
My FIL mentioned that some news show said that various non dairy based drinks, eg soy, almond, etc shouldn’t be called milks as they aren’t milk, he agreed, my daughter then said milk doesn’t have to come from a teat/breasts as you can milk lots of thinks, the dictionary confirms this meaning. He got on the outrage bandwagon when it really doesn’t mean anything to him at all

Cymek said:

This wasn’t fake news but some made up outrage probably instigated by dairy industry
My FIL mentioned that some news show said that various non dairy based drinks, eg soy, almond, etc shouldn’t be called milks as they aren’t milk, he agreed, my daughter then said milk doesn’t have to come from a teat/breasts as you can milk lots of thinks, the dictionary confirms this meaning. He got on the outrage bandwagon when it really doesn’t mean anything to him at all

Yeah. Who milks magnesia?

sarahs mum said:

Cymek said:

This wasn’t fake news but some made up outrage probably instigated by dairy industry
My FIL mentioned that some news show said that various non dairy based drinks, eg soy, almond, etc shouldn’t be called milks as they aren’t milk, he agreed, my daughter then said milk doesn’t have to come from a teat/breasts as you can milk lots of thinks, the dictionary confirms this meaning. He got on the outrage bandwagon when it really doesn’t mean anything to him at all

Yeah. Who milks magnesia?

Or human kindness.

Here, have some fake news on me.

So, this could be because old peoples’ brains have begun to atrophy and their prefrontal cortex has degraded – a proven reason for their general bluntness and rudeness, apparently.

Or, it could be because they didn’t grow up in the hyper-media age and have developed fewer critical scepticism skills.

Or, they don’t know how to use computers and so their attention is never 100% on any given online article, because they’re worried about the flash banner blinking or what the mouse is doing.

Or, they are vindictive arseholes who have no appreciation for robust public discourse and purposefully share fake news to further their own agendas or just cause trouble.

Or, it could be something else entirely.

Kothos said:

So, this could be because old peoples’ brains have begun to atrophy and their prefrontal cortex has degraded – a proven reason for their general bluntness and rudeness, apparently.

Or, it could be because they didn’t grow up in the hyper-media age and have developed fewer critical scepticism skills.

Or, they don’t know how to use computers and so their attention is never 100% on any given online article, because they’re worried about the flash banner blinking or what the mouse is doing.

Or, they are vindictive arseholes who have no appreciation for robust public discourse and purposefully share fake news to further their own agendas or just cause trouble.

Or, it could be something else entirely.

> Or, it could be something else entirely.

Like:

Because they think it’s ROFL.

> general bluntness and rudeness

Usually because they are in continual pain. Which is not conducive to politeness to young arseholes.

mollwollfumble said:

Kothos said:

So, this could be because old peoples’ brains have begun to atrophy and their prefrontal cortex has degraded – a proven reason for their general bluntness and rudeness, apparently.

Or, it could be because they didn’t grow up in the hyper-media age and have developed fewer critical scepticism skills.

Or, they don’t know how to use computers and so their attention is never 100% on any given online article, because they’re worried about the flash banner blinking or what the mouse is doing.

Or, they are vindictive arseholes who have no appreciation for robust public discourse and purposefully share fake news to further their own agendas or just cause trouble.

Or, it could be something else entirely.

> Or, it could be something else entirely.

Like:

Because they think it’s ROFL.

> general bluntness and rudeness

Usually because they are in continual pain. Which is not conducive to politeness to young arseholes.

Or don’t give a shit most people won’t call old people out unless they are being really unpleasant

Is fake news a crime?

Should there be harsher penalties for fake news?

Tau.Neutrino said:

Is fake news a crime?

Should there be harsher penalties for fake news?

The worry I suppose is state sponsored fake news that’s so complex that it’s hard to tell the difference.
They could generate a fake real person and get them to say lies and you might not be able to tell it’s fake at all

Cymek said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Is fake news a crime?

Should there be harsher penalties for fake news?

The worry I suppose is state sponsored fake news that’s so complex that it’s hard to tell the difference.
They could generate a fake real person and get them to say lies and you might not be able to tell it’s fake at all

State sponsored fake news has been around since WW-II if not longer. Hence the word “propaganda”.

Fey Gnus

Fake news, lampooning real news.

consider, the ABC news for example, that on slow news days it might only be ten minutes, or on no news days the ABC news reader briefly appeared and let you know nothing of import happened today, so instead there will be thirty minutes of music, or borrowed some Ghan footage from SBS slow TV.

from this not entirely unimaginable hypothetical, clearly delivery capacity influences content. The machine, the apparatus, and an expectant audience, you need fill.

you might also assume the machine is (involved in) generating some of the news, for continuity and more.

transition said:

consider, the ABC news for example, that on slow news days it might only be ten minutes, or on no news days the ABC news reader briefly appeared and let you know nothing of import happened today, so instead there will be thirty minutes of music, or borrowed some Ghan footage from SBS slow TV.

from this not entirely unimaginable hypothetical, clearly delivery capacity influences content. The machine, the apparatus, and an expectant audience, you need fill.

you might also assume the machine is (involved in) generating some of the news, for continuity and more.

add of course there are 24/7 news services these days.