PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Grinberg, Nir
AU  - Joseph, Kenneth
AU  - Friedland, Lisa
AU  - Swire-Thompson, Briony
AU  - Lazer, David
TI  - Fake news on Twitter during the 2016 U.S. presidential election
AID  - 10.1126/science.aau2706
DP  - 2019 Jan 25
TA  - Science
PG  - 374--378
VI  - 363
IP  - 6425
4099  - http://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6425/374.short
4100  - http://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6425/374.full
SO  - Science2019 Jan 25; 363
AB  - There was a proliferation of fake news during the 2016 election cycle. Grinberg et al. analyzed Twitter data by matching Twitter accounts to specific voters to determine who was exposed to fake news, who spread fake news, and how fake news interacted with factual news (see the Perspective by Ruths). Fake news accounted for nearly 6% of all news consumption, but it was heavily concentrated—only 1% of users were exposed to 80% of fake news, and 0.1% of users were responsible for sharing 80% of fake news. Interestingly, fake news was most concentrated among conservative voters.Science, this issue p. 374; see also p. 348The spread of fake news on social media became a public concern in the United States after the 2016 presidential election. We examined exposure to and sharing of fake news by registered voters on Twitter and found that engagement with fake news sources was extremely concentrated. Only 1% of individuals accounted for 80% of fake news source exposures, and 0.1% accounted for nearly 80% of fake news sources shared. Individuals most likely to engage with fake news sources were conservative leaning, older, and highly engaged with political news. A cluster of fake news sources shared overlapping audiences on the extreme right, but for people across the political spectrum, most political news exposure still came from mainstream media outlets.