Study: Majority of online news consumed by Trump supporters is actually #FakeNews

No mean feat. The fucking majority.

The study is here but seems their servers are buckling under the pressure.

Other urls found in this thread:

Its nothing new. Trumpcucks were always retarded.

I'm not a fan of the liberal concept of 'fake news'. Respectable liberal outlets are pure ideology, just like all media under capitalism. NYT and Wapo are oligarch founded outlets linked to the 'intelligence community' and the military industrial complex, obsessed with pushing clickbait and inane conspiracy theories about Russia. These sort of 'studies' are made so bougie liberals can feel superior to Trump voters, which isn't exactly a high standard imo.

Aren't liberal staples like the Russian interference narrative as conspiratorial as anything out of Alex Jones? Liberalism is ideology posing as the absence of ideology. Process, institutions, legitimacy and compromise are sacred above all else. This leads to paradox: Trump is a fascist threat to the republic and yet bipartisanship and compromise remain as important as they ever were. Democrats are fundamentally unable of grasping the concept of the political.

seriously. who knows what they're classifying as "real news" in comparison. and no one needed a study to tell them that facts have no impact on peoples' beliefs


So it's not actually about the content of which is said, just that the website is not reputeable. So if a non-reputable website says water is wet, this study would regard it as fake news. Great job.

Also, the concept of fake news was invented by the liberal mainstream first, and then blew up in their faces as the alt-right appropriated it.

Explains why they think bullshit like the Nunes memo is going to throw Obama in prison.

Honestly, the Russia hysteria of liberals who think Trump is going to get impeached because he talked to a Russian once is of the same fabric. It's two sides of the same coin. Watching neolibs and alt-rightards accusing each other of fake news is just fun to watch, because both miss the point so much.

but what are these sites

Infowars and breitbart of course.

They're making the frogs gay!!

You should read the actual study, it looks like they've got info on left/"left" users too

but as an aside I think it's important that we start recognizing content farm style websites as an increasingly destructive political force

Fuck off libtard, hating trump doesn't make you valid, you're still a piece of shit

List of junk news sources:

We both know this. They just don't care. They know they're wrong. That's why the option available is to punch them.

Fuck that guy, heard he's a nazii misogynoir

But what if the child consents tho?

the really important thing is i'm a commie and feel superior to both

"This study is fake news perpetrated by the jews to keep the white man down and discredit our supreme leader Trump"

t. Holla Forums

They don't. There's like 50 studies showing they have something like 80 Autism Level.

Rural and suburban retards meme is based on facts.

No. Russia has been caught doing this all around the world. Meanwhile The_Donald and Holla Forums think the FBI filled with Republicans work for Hillary Clinton and Obama.

at last i truly see

But there's no evidence they interfered in the US election

The Dutch literally watched them hack the DNC servers in real time.
What exactly do you want from them in terms of evidence?

Uh, any? Even the link you posted is unconfirmed accounts from anonymous sources.

This is a Trumper talking point. Do you know how journalism works? Is Reuters a reputable source?

unconfirmed accounts from anonymous sources are evidence. not STRONG evidence, obviously, but they're still evidence. the claim that there is no evidence at all is blatantly false and just a trumpet talking point. if you want to claim that the evidence is weak or circumstantial, that's fine. the reason trumpets say there is NO evidence, rather than admitting evidence exists but claiming it isn't strong, is because they are too fucking stupid to know the difference

who would have thought

Do you know how evidence works you fucking retards? "Someone somewhere is believed to have said that someone might have done some thing" isn't fucking evidence.

You're even more retarded for believing state intelligence agencies. You fucking dipshits are just regurgitating propaganda.

So you don't know how journalism works. But nah, all of FVEY intelligence is lying about everything because they work for Hillary and Obama.

Hello FBI


lmao at a person on leftypol defending the fucking FBI.

The FBI are patriots who risk their lives everyday to serve America and protect us from Russian subversion, show a little respect there kiddo.

It's not just the FBI though. It's many intelligence agencies around the world confirming Russian interference. Denying this is Holla Forums tier Alex Jones because you're basically saying all of these orgs are in on a conspiracy against Trump.

You are right, we should place our trust in the same intelligence agencies and the same media establishment that shilled for the iraq war through lies and misinformation. Because muh Trump. Do you seriously expect radical leftists to believe in the institutional sanctity of the bourgeois media and the state repressive apparatus? The spooks are already using the omnipresent russian subversion narrative to target the left, BLM and environmentalist protestors. The cold war red scare tactics are unsubtle af.


I don't know how to break this to you but most capitalist intelligence agencies are populated by liars, conmen, and reactionaries.

Notice how anyone who deviates however slightly from the neoliberal agenda eventually gets associated with nebulous russian subversion, happened to Corbyn and the Catalan independence movement. Intelligence agencies have never been neutral, NATO hegemony is not worth defending, the military industrial spook complex is not worth defending. The real enemy is capitalism, not evil oriental russians corrupting pure innocent western liberal democracy

I'm willing to bet $10 your desktop is full of txt files with links to 20 hour documentaries on 911 and flat earth conspiracies.

This is one of those articles where I just kind of read it and feel like its telling me what I already knew. I mean, you don't wanna be a dick and judge a book by its cover, but I'm also not a fucking retard. Unfortunately, most trumpcucks i meet are literal fucking retards with battered wife syndrome. He treats even his own people like garbage and his base still comes back to him. Cringe.

This study just came out, but yeah there's been dozens of studies confirming Trump supporters are subhumans. They have even lower I Q than they claim for "mexidumbs."

the sheer amount of astroturf is enough to make one vomit

So post the evidence.

Oh wait there isn't any.

Purely anecdotal, but I was in the US last month and everybody I saw wearing a MAGA hat looked like they were a few McNuggets short of a Happy Meal.

Trouble is, I think they are. The whole "Russia hacked the election" narrative, while plausible, just seems a little too… sophisticated for the Trump team.

Coincidentally, the FBI investigation into Trump's activities before and after his election is the one that seems to be yielding results. While it's pure speculation at this point, it wouldn't surprise me that over the course of these meetings, some sort of 'Cash for Sanctions Rollback' would have been made. Were the deal to then fall apart (say, because Trump struggles to implement his agenda because despite having effective control over all three branches of government, still can't get his agenda through), then the Russians would still be able to exploit the situation to their advantage and cause Trump maximum damage. While this wouldn't be as good an outcome as getting rid of the sanctions, it'd still be great as America would be in political meltdown, which can only work to Russia's advantage.

This has to be joke

Do Trump supporters actually exist in America? Are they actually vocal about their support now that he's turned out to be a fucking stooge failure? Or do they keep quiet about it.

they're still around but they have to stick to their own cliques, everyone wants to kick the shit outta them but the cops are on their side.


40% - 35% of Americans approve of his job performance, but a good chunk of that is tied to the economy.

Filed it with the studies that show Trump supporters have an Autism Level of 85. Thanks.

I live in Texas, I've never seen anyone wearing a MAGA hat in my life outside the internet.

I'm in houston user, large hispanic communities here, I doubt any skinny whiteboi has the balls to pull out a maga cap in public.

lol ok

All news is fake news.

The key here is that the media has conflated "interference" with "hacking" on purpose. Of course Russia interfered to some degree, like any global player interferes with all others, but this being America, undue interference by Americans no doubt dwarves the efforts of the entire rest of the world put together. It's just infuriating that liberals are only now shocked, shocked at such an affront to muh freedoms.

yes, keep sucking porky's multi-million dollar media conglomerate cock

Holla Forums perpetuates and falls for ad verecundiam.

I gave this place a chance and I'm disappointed instantly. Some of you are actually have a clue and I'm grateful for that.

What? We hate the media and constantly shit on their pushed narratives. It doesn't change the fact that Trump supporters got suckered by the very worst elements of said media.

Ive always had this feeling, this just solidifies it.

Pseudointellectual tards here cant see the irony of these emotional appeals leftist from sjw to marxist kepp trying try to pass of as MUHSCUYIEENCEFACTS to deny inconvenient facts

OK, it got the gossip machine Drudge and the pure bullshit Infowars. But how did end up on that, was that a snap decision based on just the name, or aren't they pro-Hillary enough? To a large extent they are just taking bits from mainstream media and then give a comment on that from a slightly more progressive angle. Why is Occupy Democrats junk? (I would say because they are Democrats, but that's probably not the reason for the "scientists" behind the study.) I don't get it. There is an online supplement with the seed data used in the study, and they give example urls for each site, for Occupy Dems it's an article entitled
And linking to that article is evidence you are an idiot who reads fake news?

I read the pdf of the study, and they list factors that make a news site junk, and these factors sound reasonable (e. g. emotionally driven language, highly biased reporting), but measuring that sounds like a very ambiguous affair, so all the sciencey packaging aside, they just start with their opinion that some sites are shit, and then they do some social network data-cluster blahblah with results that are obvious given the assumptions they start with. The pdf claims as evidence for the objectivity of the junk-news characterization the high correlation between how different people in a team judged the same site, but that's just a measure of how homogeneous the team is.

I have a strongly negative opinion about anybody who shills for "alternative" health voodoo bullshit, which is something that Hilary Clinton does. So I would include her twitter account in the list of junk things if I were to make a similar study. As the authors of the study point out, Trump shills tend to be hiveminds, so if I put Trump shills on the team that determines what counts as junk, that will give me the wonderful high correlation between them in what they categorize as junk, which I can take as evidence of them being objective, just like how the original study does it. You see, you are only sheeple outside the lab, inside the lab the very same data about how very similar your views are counts as proof that you are on the right track. is actually a gommunist hacker site, you guys: (algorithm for distributing a thing in the most egalitarian fashion when there are fewer cookies or whatever than the sum of individual requests)