Everyone seeks information that validates them and supports the things they already want to believe.
People with mostly mainstream views can get that validation anywhere: academic studies, cable news, newspapers, friends, coworkers, etc.
For example, I know that climate change is happening and can easily consume info that fits my reality.
For the far-right, social media is the only place to find that, because major institutions mostly refuse to say it out loud. So of course their engagement is high, because they crave the validation and feeling that they "aren't alone" in their extreme beliefs.
>because major institutions mostly refuse to say it out loud
because most of the actual content of far-right echo chambers is insane. Let's be real for a second the reason why this happens:
> [...]"Every other type of news outlet suffers a "misinformation penalty" if they share false information. The analysis found that in the far left, slightly left, and center categories, credible stories saw between two and five times as much engagement as fake news. On the far-right, however, misinformation received 426 interactions per thousand followers in an average week, while credible far-right information received only 259 engagements[...]"
is because the average far-right reader is, to put it bluntly, kind of stupid. Can you imagine what the average Economist reader thinks if the Economist were to publish "the earth is hollow, Bill Gates is a lizard, MAGA!".
This has nothing to do with 'major institutions', it's to do with the people who consume far-right content. I guess if you want to start to talk about solutions, you would have to stop to be politically correct, ironically enough a major demand of the far-right, and stop trying to pretend the consumers of this content are equal in their ability to critically process information.
Funny because I think that firing person for saying a bad word, especially when talking about the nature of the word and not using it in a negative context, is an excessively and obviously bad practice of the 'Far Left' and that people who believe in this ideology are quite 'stupid'.
Banning Dr. Seuss books and trying to get publishers to stop publishing or carrying books by Children's authors like JK Rowling is equally bad, supported by 'stupid' people, who 'do not have the ability to critically process information'.
Much of this stupidity is authoritarian and unfortunately is backed by institutional forces.
I think the OP is essentially correct: the 'Far Right' (or the most stupid among them) are relegated to to Parler et. al. because the 'furthest right' of it is not acceptable in public commons.
Far Left ideology is actually supported by enough institutions, private and public, that however controversial their actions may be, it can exist in public discourse.
You can be a literal Communist today, in 2020 and possibly be ridiculed, but not banned.
Also: I suggest the timing of this may be a problem. Since the 2020 US Election, Trump has made the most serious lie of his career and repeated it often, which relates to his claims to have won the election. This is a Trumpian lie, of hyperbolic magnitude, and has millions of people caught up in it. If you read only Newsmax or occasionally Fox (remember that most people don't watch that much news) you might be inclined to believe this lie. In effect there is an incredible amount of buzz still lingering about the election lies, and this might distort the findings. I wonder what the results will be next year? I suggest probably similar, but not as drastic.
this is really misunderstanding the dynamics of belief. from climate change to covid lockdowns to election results, what's going on are quintessentially political acts: trying to coerce the world into being the way you (i, we) want it to be by spouting what you (i, we) want to be true, not necessarily what you (i, we) actually believe to be true (which you may not even be cognizant of because you haven't self-examined enough on the topic).
supposing validation--or even worse, idiocy, ignorance, or idolotry--as motivation for rhetoric/belief, is really just adding fog to the theater, not clarity. you won't understand the world better through such beliefs.
sure, some earnestly believe the election was stolen, but that's probably <1%.
most realize that, regardless of belief, saying it was stolen (and reciting the popular but dubious evidence) is how to keep the issue at the fore. they do so because the result was painful and want others to share in and console (even remedy) these feelings of loss. this attention and response is worth the relative deception in their personal calculus.
we all exaggerate this way from time to time in our social interactions. a significant part of our brain is dedicated to detecting and countering (and creating) deception for a reason.
a similar phenomenon happens with pro-maskers, where the practical utility of masks is actually pretty limited in time and (social) space. most vocal advocates don't really care/know if they work (particularly when and where they work); what's desired is (public) compliance, to soothe fears and anxieties, hence relatively forceful affirmations of belief around them (this has a negative net effect, because it takes away critical mindshare from distancing, which is much more broadly useful and effective).
That is not true about everyone though. Everyone does it sometimes in some places, but it’s important to recognise that some groups of people have been able to build self-critical institutions and regularly consume information that challenges their own views.
Left institutions are somewhat famous for self-criticism (“the left eats its own”). Left media, such as The Ezra Klein Show, regularly has right wing people on the show and it has a wonk liberal host.
I sought out animal rights philosophy when I ate lots of meat (and I’ve now stopped). I’ve read Hayek, Barry Goldwater’s Conscience of a Conservative (Bozell actually wrote it), and Peter Thiel, and I’m on the left.
It is not true that everyone is the same in their information seeking activities, nor true that all institutions act as captured servants of some validation-seeking audience.
Considering the clear bias of the authors, their findings are not surprising, and I suspect that folks on the right would disagree with their classifications. Classifying "misinformation" in a non-partisan way is not a straightforward task at all.
They also seem to be grouping things by source, not by article. They appear to decide something is a "misinformation source", and then count everything coming from that outlet as misinformation.
Everyone seeks information that validates them and supports the things they already want to believe.
People with mostly mainstream views can get that validation anywhere: academic studies, cable news, newspapers, friends, coworkers, etc.
For example, I know that climate change is happening and can easily consume info that fits my reality.
For the far-right, social media is the only place to find that, because major institutions mostly refuse to say it out loud. So of course their engagement is high, because they crave the validation and feeling that they "aren't alone" in their extreme beliefs.