Fake News, Echo Chambers, and Filter Bubblesin the Ecosystem of Political Information

William H. Dutton @BiIIDutton

Quello Professor of Media and Information Policy

Quello Center, Michigan State University @QuelloCenter

Presentation for a discussion at Alternativas Foundation, Madrid, Spain, 27 November 2017.

Panic

Fake News

Filter Bubbles

Echo Chambers

Immediatefuture.co.uk

Medium.com

The Part Played by Search in Shaping Political Opinion

• Quello Center team in collaboration with the Oxford Internet Institute (OII), University of Oxford and Department of Communication, University of Ottawa

• Professor William H. Dutton (Quello)

• Dr. Bianca C. Reisdorf (Quello)

• Dr. Grant Blank (OII)

• Dr. Elizabeth Dubois (Ottawa)

• With the assistance of:

• Craig Robertson (PhD Student, Quello)

• Sabrina Ahmed (BA Student, Ottawa)

• Support from Google, with thanks to Jon Steinberg

Centrality of Information to Democratic Processes

Mass Media

•News, Radio, Television, and the Fourth Estate

The Internet and Search

•Search Engines, Algorithms, Social Media, User Choice, and a Fifth Estate

The Role of the Internet, Search and Social Media?

Enable citizens to make well considered

political decisions?

Distort the information citizens gain access to and choose in taking

political decisions and actions?

Technological Determinism

• More Informed Rational Citizens, Voters

• Social Media Movements, Surges

• Filter Bubbles

• Fake News in Powerful Media Effects

Social Determinism

• Spiral of Silence

• Power Law

• Echo Chambers

Social and Technical Shaping of Democratic Processes

• Agenda Setting

• Cue Taking and Giving (“group think”) - Two-Step Flow

• Werther Effects

• Fifth Estate (enabled by search and social media)

Multiple Theoretical Perspectives

Cross-National Comparative Research

A User-Centered Perspective

Review of Literature

Trace Data

Survey of 7 nations

BritainFranceGermanyItalyPolandSpainUnited States

14,000 Internet Users, January 2017

General Findings

National Comparisons:

5 Themes

Individual Differences

1. The Centrality of Search

Origins in WWW as Mountain of Trash

Becoming the first place people go for information

One of the most common uses of the Internet

Politics is a limited, specialized topic of search

Frequency of Using a Search Engine

France Germany Italy Poland Spain UK US Total

Never1.4 0.14 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.5 1.1 0.54

Less than monthly1.4 2.02 0.8 0.1 0.6 2.5 3 1.5

Monthly1.8 2.4 0.8 0.2 1.4 2.4 2.4 1.62

Weekly12.1 17.5 6.9 2.7 6.5 14.2 11.3 10.1

Daily22.5 28.9 19.3 21.8 19.8 24.3 20 22.4

Greater than once per day60.9 49.0 72.1 75 71.4 56.2 62.3 63.85

Total N1,972 1,972 1,979 1,992 1,989 1,961 1,995 13,859

Total percent100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

The Purpose of Search

3.19

3.19

3.22

3.44

3.57

3.66

3.87

3.97

0 1 2 3 4Mean results out of 5

Find entertaining content

Politics and current events

Medical or health questions

Check accuracy of news,info

Look up news on topic, event

Look up fact(s)

Navigation to sites

Info about particular topic

0=never; 4=very often

The Reliability of Search: A Learned Level of Trust

As reliable as other major sources, e.g., TV

Users in Poland, Italy, and Spain more trusting

Users in Germany, France, and Britain less trusting

One of first places to go for information about politics

Reliability of Different Sources

2.69

3.35

3.41

3.41

3.47

3.49

3.52

0 1 2 3 4Mean results out of 5

Social media

Television

Newspapers

Online news

Family, friends, colleagues

Radio

Search engine results

0=not reliable at all; 4=totally reliable

Reliability of Search Engine Results

France Germany Italy Poland Spain UK US Total

1 Total unreliable2.6 2.6 1.7 0.7 0.7 1.5 1.1 1.5

27.9 8.3 5.6 6.1 7.5 6.9 5.7 6.8

339.9 44.8 37 36.6 36.9 40.7 39 39.2

440.7 38.1 46.9 46.8 44.8 42.6 42.8 43.3

5 Total reliable9 6.3 8.9 9.8 10.1 8.3 11.4 9.1

Total N1,910 1,920 1,938 1,958 1,966 1,895 1,950 13,537

Total percent100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

2. The Diversity of Sources

Those interested in politics look at multiple (4.5) sources of information

More than two (2.4) offline, and more than two (2.1) online

Search engines: most frequent online source

Multiple Sources of Information about Politics

1.53

1.82

2.13

2.24

2.31

2.50

2.51

Neve

r

Somet

imes

Ofte

n

Very o

ften

Mean results out of 4

Charities, religious groups

Political websites

Radio

Print news

Family & friends

Online sources

TV

Online Sources of Information about Politics

2.36

2.52

2.54

2.88

3.02

3.07

3.49

Never

Rarely

Somet

imes

Ofte

n

Very o

ften

Mean results out of 5

Political website

Email

Online video platforms

Social media

Online sites of news & mags

Online news sites

Search engines

Diversity of Views Encountered Online

36 percent of sample read news they disagree with ‘often’ or ‘very often'’

Diversity of Views Among People Communicated with Online (Table 4.25)

• 15%: Views Different from you

• 65%: Mixed Beliefs

• 20%: Same as you

3. Users Check, Confirm, Information

Multiple approaches to confirming information

Over 80 percent use search to check facts

Three fourths (74%) use search to check information on social media

In Spain: 60% of Internet users search to check facts ‘often/very often’; 70% say daily or several times a day

Practices Tied to Confirming a Story

2.70

2.87

2.92

3.08

3.15

3.16

Nev

er

Rar

ely

Somet

imes

Ofte

n

Very

ofte

n

Mean results out of 5

Look for opinion of trusted source

Ask friend or family to confirm

Check different news sources

Check major offline news

Confirm by searching online

Read something disagree with

4. Finding Information Unexpected, New, and Wrong

76 percent occasionally or often find information they were not looking for (serendipity) through search

48 percent ‘often’ learn something new – serendipity

Many recognize ‘wrong’ information

Occasionally change their opinion on issues

Relative Prevalence of Practices

1.27

1.68

2.13

2.35

0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3Mean results out of 5

Changed opinion on political issue

Find wrong information

Discovered important information

Learn something new

0=never; 3=often

5. Rarely Block or Un-friend

20 percent have unfriended or blocked someone who posted because of differing political views or offensive content

12 percent block or unfriended a person who disagree with political content they posted

15 percent posted content they worried would offend friends or people they follow

Mitigating Problems

1. Centrality of Search for

Info about Politics

2. Diversity of Sources/View

points

3. Check, Confirm,

Information 4. Find Info that is New, Unexpected,

or Wrong

5. Seldom Block,

Unfriend, Censor Others

KEY THEMES

• Google Studie

• Forschungsfragen

• Methodologie

• Erste Resultate

• Bedeutung

• Diskussion

Individual Differences in Search

Importance of Online Search to Voting

France Germany Italy Poland Spain UK US Total

Not important

41.7 34.5 27.4 21.1 33.3 40.5 21 31.7

Important

58.3 65.5 72.6 78.9 66.7 59.5 79 68.3

Total N

1,496 1,486 1,666 1,129 1,617 1,559 1,568 10,520

Total percent

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Factors Shaping Good Internet & Search Practices in the Political Arena

Political

• Interest in Politics

• Online political participation

Internet

• Skills

• Levels of Internet Use

• Mobile, Next Generation Users

Information

• Diversity of Sources

• Learned Level of Trust

Operationalizing those ‘Vulnerable’

Interest in Politics: ‘Not at all’ v. ‘Somewhat Interested, Interested, Very Interested’

Skill: Ability to use a search engine: ‘Bad, Fair, or Poor’ v ‘Good or Excellent’

IF: Not at all interested in politics AND Bad/Fair/Poor ability THEN rated VULNERABLE

Percent Vulnerable (No Interest, Low Skill)

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

US

France

Poland

Britain

Spain

Germany

Italy

Vulnerables

Vulnerable

Vulnerable compose from 1-4% of Internet Users

The Vulnerables?

The ‘vulnerables’ tend to be somewhat:

• Older, less educated, no children in home, retired, unemployed, female

• Lower income, some disability

However, ‘vulnerables’ scattered across all categories

• Difficult to target by demographics

• Socially identify, alert to problems, and nudge to develop interests and skills

Nudging* Internet Users:

Encourage an interest in politics; make it interesting

Don’t undermine trust by demonizing the Internet

Recommend consulting multiple sources, on- and off-line

Identify good online practices, such as

• Use the Internet and search

• Value diversity of views and social networks

• Check questionnable news & facts (use search)

*Nudge theory associated with Richard Thaler’s 2017 Nobel Prize .

Key Issues Moving ForwardTheoretical Perspectives

• Be more critical of deterministic perspectives

• Don’t underestimate users & social shaping of search

Interest in Politics

• Are those least interested & involved more vulnerable?

Skills in Search and Internet

• Are those offline or least skilled at greater risk?

Digital Media Literacy or Best to Nudge All Users?

• Avoid inappropriate regulation of content: don’t panic!

• Nudge individuals – users – to reduce risks (Richard Thaler)?

• You are the key algorithm

The Report Plus

Dutton, W.H., Reisdorf, B.C., Dubois, E., and Blank, G. (2017), Search and Politics: The Uses and Impacts of Search in Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, and the United States, Quello Center Working Paper available on SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2960697

Dutton, W.H. (2017), ‘Fake News, Echo Chambers, and Filter Bubbles: Underresearched and Overhyped’: https://theconversation.com/fake-

news-echo-chambers-and-filter-bubbles-underresearched-and-overhyped-76688

Dutton, W. H. (2017), ‘Bubblebusters’, NESTA. http://readie.eu/bubblebusters-

countering-fake-news-filter-bubbles-and-echo-chambers/