“You know what I did? I left troops to take the oil. I took the oil. The only troops I have are taking the oil, they’re protecting the oil. I took over the oil.”

  • Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election

    In summary, our data suggest that social media were not the most important source of election news, and even the most widely circulated fake news stories were seen by only a small fraction of Americans. For fake news to have changed the outcome of the election, a single fake news story would need to have convinced about 0.7 percent of Clinton voters and non-voters who saw it to shift their votes to Trump, a persuasion rate equivalent to seeing 36 television campaign ads.

    • A new study kills the notion that fake news swung the US election to Trump

      Though millions of fake news stories were shared on Facebook, people still get most of their news from TV and conventional news websites. “If you follow the public discussion, you might get the impression that a majority of Americans were getting most or a very large share of their news from social media.” Matthew Gentzkow, one of the authors of the study, told Vox. “[O]ur results showed something pretty different.”

      (Note : avec un titre « définitif », « moraliste » et « qui buzze » – “kills it”, “nails it” –, qui pour moi relève justement de la notion de fake news. Il faudrait vraiment réfléchir à cette épidémie des titres définitifs à buzz, et avec une prétention moralisante, et à leur rapport avec la notion de « fake news ».)