The Misinformation Cascade
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/09/us/politics/debunk-fake-news-election-day.html?_r=0
As the country looks back on the 2016 presidential election, there has been a common consensus regarding the role that misinformation and fake news has played in swaying the opinions of the electorate. While initially thought of as a strong connecting force, social media has proved to be just as divisive. It has provided a voice to sites and people that spread fake news, thus giving it a bigger audience. For example, sites like The Denver Guardian and The Conservative Daily Post have shared stories like how a Hillary-related FBI agent killed his wife and how World War 3 is only days away (Rodgers and Bromwhich, 2016). While this news is absurd to some, these stories are often shared more than the stories correcting them.
This phenomenon can be explained as an information cascade. This is when people will copy the behavior of others or believe some information simply because they think the other person knows better. In addition, the more people there are that believe something, the more likely it is that someone who see that will believe it. One scenario that we described in class was switching a restaurant decision that was made based on a review online when you get to the restaurant and see more people in a different one. The online spread of information is like this. Even though there are a few sites debunking the story, if relatively more people are sharing a fake one then it becomes easier to believe. The more times is gets shared the more people believe it and the harder it becomes to debunk. This is information cascade on an extremely large scale.
That all being said, there are limits to online information cascades. Since the country is currently so divided, people are more prone to believe what they want to hear. People who believe fake news stories will only share it if they agree enough to believe what is being said and same with the stories debunking the fake ones. So while stories are more prone to spread online, they only spread among the echo chambers created by partisan online users. The other side might catch wind of the story and share articles against it, but those articles will only spread amongst their echo chamber. This raises the question of if these misinformation cascades really have that strong of an effect. Despite their effect being limited to one side, I believe these stories do the greatest damage in growing the divide between people. Obviously, truth should be valued over lies, but society needs to find a way to address this rather than just spreading debunking stories because that only continues to widen the divide.