In a study by Acemoglu et al. (2021).

Two groups of factors have been highlighted, albeit there is still no

agreement on what encourages the spread of untruths and misleading content on social media. The first
is the existence of social media echo chambers, which happen when people interact and exchange
content with other users who share their viewpoints. Echo chambers may be an inevitable side effect of
social media because users can select who as well as what they engage to far more freely than they can
with traditional media. There is proof, however, that platform algorithms' "filter bubbles" also contribute
to echo chambers. Due to these so called “echo chambers”, only the chosen content will be shown to the
user based on their likes and preferences which in turn filter out information that is not relevant to the
preferences of the user, which makes them susceptible to fake news.

Acemoglu, D., Ozdaglar, A., & Siderius, J. (2021). A Model of Online Misinformation.
https://doi.org/10.3386/w28884

In a study by Acemoglu et al. (2021). Two groups of factors have been highlighted, albeit there is still no
agreement on what encourages the spread of untruths and misleading content on social media. The first
is the existence of social media echo chambers, which happen when people interact and exchange
content with other users who share their viewpoints. Echo chambers may be an inevitable side effect of
social media because users can select who as well as what they engage to far more freely than they can
with traditional media. There is proof, however, that platform algorithms' "filter bubbles" also contribute
to echo chambers. Due to these so called “echo chambers”, only the chosen content will be shown to the
user based on their likes and preferences which in turn filter out information that is not relevant to the
preferences of the user, which makes them susceptible to fake news.

Acemoglu, D., Ozdaglar, A., & Siderius, J. (2021). A Model of Online Misinformation.
https://doi.org/10.3386/w28884

Rashkin et al. (2017) posits that words in the news press and conversations about politics have a
significant influence on how people think and feel. As a result, in order to enhance impact, their sincerity
is frequently compromised. There have been almost three times as many organized efforts devoted
solely to fact-checking as there were before the rise of fake news. Companies like PolitiFact.com actively
investigate and rate the accuracy of statements produced by elected officials, reporters, and institutions.
The creation of these applications shows the severity of the spread of fake news, even with the fact-
checking now in place, it is still difficult to differentiate truthful information to fake ones.

Rashkin, H., Choi, E., Jang, J., Volkova, S., & Choi, Y. (2017). Truth of Varying Shades: Analyzing Language
in Fake News and Political Fact-Checking. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/d17-1317

In a study by Shao et al. (2016) he states that on social media, a tremendous amount of false information
has been seen to proliferate unchecked. Rumors, hoaxes, false information, and conspiracy theories are
some examples. Several news organizations invest a lot of time and energy in thoroughly verifying the
accuracy of assertions made online. The ensuing information cascades unfold across various time scales,
frequently reach sizable audiences, and include instances of both true and false information. Due to the
openness of social media, anyone can post information without fact-checking, although fact-checking is
present in some apps such as Facebook and Instagram, it is enough as misinformation is still present on
both platforms.

Shao, C., Ciampaglia, G. L., Flammini, A., & Menczer, F. (2016). Hoaxy. Proceedings of the 25th
International Conference Companion on World Wide Web - WWW ’16 Companion.
doi:10.1145/2872518.2890098

According to Jerit and Zhao (2020) preexisting ties to a political faction or ideological viewpoint transmit
strong directional goals, which is a key feature of processing political information in particular.
Directional motives cause prejudices in how people gather and assess knowledge regarding the political
landscape, which adds to the ongoing issue of misinformation. An individual who has a strong previous
hostility to immigration, for instance, may possess false beliefs that support his or her position on policy.
That being said, even with the right information present, some individuals may not accept present
information as valid as it opposes their established viewpoints.

Jerit, J., & Zhao, Y. (2020). Political Misinformation. Annual Review of Political Science, 23(1), 77–94.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-050718-032814\