#readwise # Far-right news sources on Facebook more engaging ![rw-book-cover](https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1200/1*ZHIHIthFgcuAmpIIS1-ebw.png) ## Metadata - Author: [[Cybersecurity for Democracy]] - Full Title: Far-right news sources on Facebook more engaging - URL: https://medium.com/cybersecurity-for-democracy/far-right-news-sources-on-facebook-more-engaging-e04a01efae90 ## Summary Researchers studied 8.6 million Facebook posts from U.S. news pages around the 2020 election. Far-right pages got the most interactions per follower, then far-left, then center. Far-right sources that spread misinformation performed even better, while misinformation on center or left pages drew less engagement. The study used third-party ratings and engagement data only, so it could not measure how many people saw posts or how algorithms affected results. ## Highlights We analyzed how users interacted with different types of posts promoted as news in the lead-up to and aftermath of the U.S. 2020 elections. We found that politically extreme sources tend to generate more interactions from users. In particular, content from sources rated as far-right by independent news rating services consistently received the highest engagement per follower of any partisan group. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01k47ct832pb1pdttm6z7ce99j)) ^wxzogl --- Looking at the far-right, misinformation sources far outperform non-misinformation sources. Far-right sources designated as spreaders of misinformation had an average of 426 interactions per thousand followers per week, while non-misinformation sources had an average of 259 weekly interactions per thousand followers. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01k47cvaqpnyjnnrzrtkzhyejn)) --- Given the widely reported disinformation around election fraud in the lead-up to the election and the extremism that surfaced at the Capitol, we were concerned about news sources that spread misinformation and conspiracy theories. Both Media Bias Fact Check and NewsGuard sources evaluate, among other criteria, whether a news source is a consistent spreader of misinformation or conspiracy theories. ![](https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1400/1*6y92N6cQpZO9LbOKI2jZIw.png) For far-right news sources, misinformation significantly outperforms non-misinformation; for all other political leanings, there is a misinformation penalty resulting in lower engagement per follower. When we look only at the far-right, we see that misinformation sources significantly outperform non-misinformation sources: Far-right sources designated as spreaders of misinformation had an average of 426 interactions per thousand followers per week, while non-misinformation sources had an average of 259 weekly interactions per thousand followers. Being a consistent spreader of far-right misinformation appears to confer a significant advantage. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01k47d0qcn2573pmxxaz44vtg1)) ^52wqm4 --- We define misinformation penalty as a measurable decline in engagement for news sources that are unreliable. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01k47d1h31mpkq1k4gesn7g77g)) ---