• Lab
  • AndroidForMobile Foundation at
    HOME
              
    LATEST STORY
    Facebook’s attempts to fight fake news seem to be working. (Twitter’s? Not so much.)
    ABOUT                    SUBSCRIBE
    March 30, 2018, 9:19 a.m.
    Audience & Social

    Has Facebook’s algorithm change hurt hyperpartisan sites? According to this data, nope

    Data that NewsWhip pulled together for AndroidForMobile Lab suggests that popular hyperpartisan publishers are actually doing pretty well post–algorithm change.

    The growing stream of reporting on and data about fake news, misinformation, partisan content, and news literacy is hard to keep up with. This weekly roundup offers the highlights of what you might have missed.

    An ongoing engagement. It seems as if Facebook’s algorithm changes — which deprioritize publisher content in News Feed in favor of content from family and friends, and are supposed to favor trusted news sources over untrusted ones — would result in decreased traffic for hyperpartisan sites. But so far, data provided to AndroidForMobile Lab by NewsWhip suggests, hyperpartisan sites — as well as two totally-just-fake-news sites — are doing as well or better on Facebook, at least when it comes to engagement, as they were before the changes.

    To be sure, conservative sites like Breitbart, The Blaze, and Gateway Pundit . They suggest, moreover, that changes are .

    “Liberal publishers have gained about 2 percent more web traffic from Facebook than they were getting prior to the algorithm changes implemented in early February,” George Upper for rightwing site The Western Journal, citing data he collected from SimilarWeb. “On the other hand, conservative publishers have lost an average of nearly 14 percent of their traffic from Facebook.” (Note: Western Journal categorized publishers as conservative or liberal based on the rankings from Media Bias/Fact Check, a site that is not associated with any larger organization; it’s run by a man named Dave Van Zandt, who he’s spent “more than 20 years as an arm chair researcher on media bias and its role in political influence.”)

    It makes intuitive sense that hyperpartisan sites would suffer under the algorithm changes. But you’ll forgive me for not believing that Facebook was going to do the intuitive thing here. This also didn’t seem to fit with data that NewsWhip about the top individual reporters on Facebook; it showed that reporters from right-wing outlets are still doing really well on Facebook, much better than reporters from mainstream or left-leaning outlets.

    It also just so happens that this week, NewsWhip on the performance of publishers on Facebook post-algorithm changes, which my colleague Christine Schmidt wrote up here. NewsWhip’s data suggests that news publishers are generally doing pretty well post-change; here’s a chart that includes Fox News, for instance:

    NewsWhip also said in its new report that Your Newswire, a straight-up fake news site, had the 26th-most-viewed story (“CDC Doctor: ‘Disastrous’ Flu Shot Is Causing Deadly Flu Outbreak”) after the algorithm change. (Fact check: .)

    So I asked NewsWhip to break out the performance of the hyperpartisan outlets that appeared on its top-reporters list, pre-and post-algorithm changes. I also asked them to check on a couple of left-leaning sites — Daily Kos and Raw Story — even though those sites didn’t appear on NewsWhip’s most-popular sites, and NewsWhip threw in three left-leaning sites as well: Opposition Report, Think Progress, and Talking Points Memo. (For the record, I don’t think Talking Points Memo really belongs in this category.) On the right, I asked them to check Daily Wire, Daily Caller, Breitbart, Gateway Pundit, Western Journal, and The Blaze. I also asked them to look at engagement on the two fake-news sites that made their “top reporters” list: Your Newswire and Neon Nettle. Here’s what they found about engagement (which they define as likes, shares, reactions, and comments) on these sites pre- and post-algorithm change.

    Couple things:

    — Note the Y-axes on the charts; the conservative sites get much, much more engagement than the sites on the left.

    — So far, the sites do not show clear patterns of changes in engagement pre- or post-algorithm change. Engagements aren’t the same thing as traffic, but they’re a pretty good proxy for it.

    — Maybe there will be more changes over the next few months. So far, though, the changes do not seem catastrophic to hyperpartisan sites, and it seems too early to conclude that conservative sites have been singled out.

    — Breitbart’s traffic has , but likely for reasons other than the algorithm change.

    — The NewsWhip data appears to contradict that used BuzzSumo (a NewsWhip competitor) data to suggest that conservative sites had seen a particularly big decrease following the Facebook algorithm changes. The Outline said that Fox News experienced a “serious dip” in January, for instance, but NewsWhip’s data shows the opposite.

    “None of us can turn back the clock. On Thursday, Facebook held a conference call with some journalists about its “ongoing election efforts.” A transcript is . Mashable’s Kerry Flynn also .

    Facebook’s third-party fact-checkers are now fact-checking photos and videos, “starting in France with the AFP and will be scaling to more countries and partners soon.” This was . In Italy and Mexico, meanwhile, “we enabled fact-checking partners to proactively identify and rate stories, ensuring we could take action quickly in the run-up to their elections,” rather than waiting for the stories to be tagged by users.

    Illustration from L.M. Glackens’ The Yellow Press (1910) via .

    POSTED     March 30, 2018, 9:19 a.m.
    SEE MORE ON Audience & Social
    PART OF A SERIES     Real News About Fake News
    SHARE THIS STORY
       
     
    Join the 45,000 who get the freshest future-of-journalism news in our daily email.
    Facebook’s attempts to fight fake news seem to be working. (Twitter’s? Not so much.)
    Plus: How YouTubers spread far-right beliefs (don’t just blame algorithms), and another cry for less both-sides journalism.
    Public or closed? How much activity really exists? See how other news organizations’ Facebook Groups are faring
    We analyzed the data of groups as large as 40,000 members and as small as 300, from international organizations to local publishers. How does yours fit in?
    Here’s what the Financial Times is doing to get bossy man voice out of (okay, less prominent in) its opinion section
    “She wrote a fabulous piece that did incredibly well and I think there’s no way on earth that (a) she would have submitted or (b) it would have run, before we started this stuff. It got more than double the usual number of pageviews for an opinion piece.”
    profvest.com/

    T-Bitbot отзывы

    hbhostel.com.ua