7 ms·

Bunch of threads on twitter from expert researchers on how this study is bogus. The main point is that there is zero paper or even a blog post that can be refer

by zaxm 6y ago

Bunch of threads on twitter from expert researchers on how this study is bogus. The main point is that there is zero paper or even a blog post that can be referenced to see if this statistic is true. * https://twitter.com/ngleicher/status/1264614994475315200 https://twitter.com/ngleicher/status/1264614994475315200 * https://twitter.com/benimmo/status/1265329734705197056 https://twitter.com/benimmo/status/1265329734705197056 * https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/1264643202293751808 https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/1264643202293751808 * https://twitter.com/3r1nG/status/1264567090742206464 https://twitter.com/3r1nG/status/1264567090742206464 (edit to add more examples of counterclaims to this "research")

drtillberg 6y ago
My takeaway is that "news" from commercial outlets like MarketWatch (the publisher here) largely is not fact-based. Compare to reports in February about waves of anti-Asia discrimination, correspondeding to a major and ill-advised Democratic information initiative. I don't know if Twitter has bots or how they tilt. What I do know is post-coronavirus commerical "news" outlets have lost my trust, as has much of the political establishment, red or blue.
- mch82 6y ago
  What about COVID-19 coverage led you to your conclusion? Can you please share examples of specific news reports that we’re non-factual?
  - drtillberg 6y ago
    For example, MarketWatch has been pushing articles for months about discrimination relative to public health measures to generate a narrative critical of the U.S. travel ban earlier this year affecting flights to and from China.[1] Closer to home, you can look to the steady diet of fear-based public health reporting that the "news" outlet finally has explicitly disclaimed as non-factual (but always was defective) -- "Due to the rapidly changing nature of the coronavirus public health crisis, some of the recommendations included in this article may eventually become out-of-date."[2]. It's ok to be wrong, but the "news" consistently has been "wrong" in a manner that has generated support for particular political policies, even particlar drugs have become political lightning rods whose efficacy is not being investigated or reported in a fair and reliable manner.[3] One can explain this, and explain that, but when the sum result is being locked inside for months on end, unemployed, blocked from major life events with a media wrongly cheeleading those policies with wrong and unsupported information, this leads to a loss of trust. I'm not saying the media outlets are on a lark; I'm saying they haven't done their jobs of reporting facts outside the filter of propaganda and political bias which has infected so much policy dialog. [1] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/no-chinese-allowed-racism-and-fear-are-now-spreading-along-with-the-coronavirus-2020-01-29 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/no-chinese-allowed-racism-... [2] https://www.boston.com/culture/lifestyle/2020/04/16/is-it-safe-to-run-outside-during-the-coronavirus-pandemic https://www.boston.com/culture/lifestyle/2020/04/16/is-it-sa... [3] https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/may/28/questions-raised-over-hydroxychloroquine-study-which-caused-who-to-halt-trials-for-covid-19 https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/may/28/questions-ra...
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
      > Closer to home, you can look to the steady diet of fear-based public health reporting that the "news" outlet finally has explicitly disclaimed as non-factual (but always was defective) -- "Due to the rapidly changing nature of the coronavirus public health crisis, some of the recommendations included in this article may eventually become out-of-date."[2]. Well, let's see. > steady diet of fear-based public health reporting There's a pandemic on with a nontrivial death rate. A little fear's deserved. > that the "news" outlet I believe these are called scare quotes. > finally has explicitly disclaimed as non-factual where is this disclaim? > (but always was defective) You have certainty on your side apparently. Now the quote about stuff getting out of date, well, what do you expect? Speak to god if you want utter certainty, not scientists. Seriously, what makes you think eternally correct information drops fully formed into anyone's lap. If you want to live in a world without science, aka the middle ages, I urge you to do so, so those of us left behind with the internet, antibiotics, human rights, a stable civil society, non-agricultural jobs, and education, can suffer alone.
koheripbal 6y ago
This is the closest I could get to as an original source... https://www.cs.cmu.edu/news/nearly-half-twitter-accounts-discussing-%E2%80%98reopening-america%E2%80%99-may-be-bots?mod=article_inline https://www.cs.cmu.edu/news/nearly-half-twitter-accounts-dis... I imagine they're going to publish the research, but it doesn't look like they have yet. ...though some of their methods are described.
- mch82 6y ago
  This quote from the CMU article lines up with the headline on this HN discussion thread (200M, 62%, bots, COVID-19): > CMU researchers since January have collected more than 200 million tweets discussing coronavirus or COVID-19. Of the top 50 influential retweeters, 82% are bots, they found. Of the top 1,000 retweeters, 62% are bots. Fascinating article. Thank you for taking the time to find it.
  - leereeves 6y ago
    That suggests an entirely different conclusion: that bots are better at becoming influential on Twitter than people are.
    - dmix 6y ago
      Influential if you want your audience to be entirely made of other bots.
  - zaxm 6y ago
    without peer review or even an arxiv link these numbers might as well be pulled out of thin air
    - mch82 6y ago
      Carnegie Mellon University has credibility and is highly ranked (https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/carnegie-mellon-university-3242 https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/carnegie-mellon-univers...), so a press release from them is more credible than thin air or a random blog.
scottlocklin 6y ago
Almost all "research" I've seen in this domain is politicized bullshit. I assume even if it isn't, the ones that get air do not get it because of merit; but because it suits someone's political axe-grinding.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  Why the ranting shouts of 'bullshit' and claims of 'political axe-grinding'? Posts like this, that rarely have any facts with them, just suggest someone's angry at something they don't like. They don't tell me anything except someone's temperature is rising.
  - scottlocklin 6y ago
    The "ranting shouts" are justified because, like the whole "weapons of mass destruction" pile of bullshit, touted by mostly the same goddamned weasels -there is zero evidence for their assertions, and ample evidence that they're lying: again. If you google my name, unlike your "throwaway" anon name making assertions, irony of ironies, you will see I am a real human being, fully qualified to check into data science type assertions like this (and in fact; I have). Which is a lot more than "you" can say.
    - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
      There are literally no claims in your original post that can be verified. It's all subjective anger and whatnot. What am I or anyone supposed to take away from that? > ample evidence that they're lying: again Ok, what evidence. And don't tell me to google it or I can find it if I want to. You claim, you cite.
      - MrTuna_Man 6y ago
        > There are literally no claims in your original post that can be verified. > You claim, you cite. If a claim cannot be verified, it is not a claim per se: it's an opinion.
flavius29663 6y ago
these studies should also mention what the percentage is in the general twitter world. It might be even higher than this

by zaxm 6y ago

drtillberg 6y ago

My takeaway is that "news" from commercial outlets like MarketWatch (the publisher here) largely is not fact-based. Compare to reports in February about waves of anti-Asia discrimination, correspondeding to a major and ill-advised Democratic information initiative. I don't know if Twitter has bots or how they tilt. What I do know is post-coronavirus commerical "news" outlets have lost my trust, as has much of the political establishment, red or blue.

mch82 6y ago
What about COVID-19 coverage led you to your conclusion? Can you please share examples of specific news reports that we’re non-factual?
- drtillberg 6y ago
  For example, MarketWatch has been pushing articles for months about discrimination relative to public health measures to generate a narrative critical of the U.S. travel ban earlier this year affecting flights to and from China.[1] Closer to home, you can look to the steady diet of fear-based public health reporting that the "news" outlet finally has explicitly disclaimed as non-factual (but always was defective) -- "Due to the rapidly changing nature of the coronavirus public health crisis, some of the recommendations included in this article may eventually become out-of-date."[2]. It's ok to be wrong, but the "news" consistently has been "wrong" in a manner that has generated support for particular political policies, even particlar drugs have become political lightning rods whose efficacy is not being investigated or reported in a fair and reliable manner.[3] One can explain this, and explain that, but when the sum result is being locked inside for months on end, unemployed, blocked from major life events with a media wrongly cheeleading those policies with wrong and unsupported information, this leads to a loss of trust. I'm not saying the media outlets are on a lark; I'm saying they haven't done their jobs of reporting facts outside the filter of propaganda and political bias which has infected so much policy dialog. [1] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/no-chinese-allowed-racism-and-fear-are-now-spreading-along-with-the-coronavirus-2020-01-29 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/no-chinese-allowed-racism-... [2] https://www.boston.com/culture/lifestyle/2020/04/16/is-it-safe-to-run-outside-during-the-coronavirus-pandemic https://www.boston.com/culture/lifestyle/2020/04/16/is-it-sa... [3] https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/may/28/questions-raised-over-hydroxychloroquine-study-which-caused-who-to-halt-trials-for-covid-19 https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/may/28/questions-ra...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
    > Closer to home, you can look to the steady diet of fear-based public health reporting that the "news" outlet finally has explicitly disclaimed as non-factual (but always was defective) -- "Due to the rapidly changing nature of the coronavirus public health crisis, some of the recommendations included in this article may eventually become out-of-date."[2]. Well, let's see. > steady diet of fear-based public health reporting There's a pandemic on with a nontrivial death rate. A little fear's deserved. > that the "news" outlet I believe these are called scare quotes. > finally has explicitly disclaimed as non-factual where is this disclaim? > (but always was defective) You have certainty on your side apparently. Now the quote about stuff getting out of date, well, what do you expect? Speak to god if you want utter certainty, not scientists. Seriously, what makes you think eternally correct information drops fully formed into anyone's lap. If you want to live in a world without science, aka the middle ages, I urge you to do so, so those of us left behind with the internet, antibiotics, human rights, a stable civil society, non-agricultural jobs, and education, can suffer alone.

koheripbal 6y ago

This is the closest I could get to as an original source... https://www.cs.cmu.edu/news/nearly-half-twitter-accounts-discussing-%E2%80%98reopening-america%E2%80%99-may-be-bots?mod=article_inline https://www.cs.cmu.edu/news/nearly-half-twitter-accounts-dis... I imagine they're going to publish the research, but it doesn't look like they have yet. ...though some of their methods are described.

mch82 6y ago
This quote from the CMU article lines up with the headline on this HN discussion thread (200M, 62%, bots, COVID-19): > CMU researchers since January have collected more than 200 million tweets discussing coronavirus or COVID-19. Of the top 50 influential retweeters, 82% are bots, they found. Of the top 1,000 retweeters, 62% are bots. Fascinating article. Thank you for taking the time to find it.
- leereeves 6y ago
  That suggests an entirely different conclusion: that bots are better at becoming influential on Twitter than people are.
  - dmix 6y ago
    Influential if you want your audience to be entirely made of other bots.
- zaxm 6y ago
  without peer review or even an arxiv link these numbers might as well be pulled out of thin air
  - mch82 6y ago
    Carnegie Mellon University has credibility and is highly ranked (https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/carnegie-mellon-university-3242 https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/carnegie-mellon-univers...), so a press release from them is more credible than thin air or a random blog.

scottlocklin 6y ago

Almost all "research" I've seen in this domain is politicized bullshit. I assume even if it isn't, the ones that get air do not get it because of merit; but because it suits someone's political axe-grinding.

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
Why the ranting shouts of 'bullshit' and claims of 'political axe-grinding'? Posts like this, that rarely have any facts with them, just suggest someone's angry at something they don't like. They don't tell me anything except someone's temperature is rising.
- scottlocklin 6y ago
  The "ranting shouts" are justified because, like the whole "weapons of mass destruction" pile of bullshit, touted by mostly the same goddamned weasels -there is zero evidence for their assertions, and ample evidence that they're lying: again. If you google my name, unlike your "throwaway" anon name making assertions, irony of ironies, you will see I am a real human being, fully qualified to check into data science type assertions like this (and in fact; I have). Which is a lot more than "you" can say.
  - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
    There are literally no claims in your original post that can be verified. It's all subjective anger and whatnot. What am I or anyone supposed to take away from that? > ample evidence that they're lying: again Ok, what evidence. And don't tell me to google it or I can find it if I want to. You claim, you cite.
    - MrTuna_Man 6y ago
      > There are literally no claims in your original post that can be verified. > You claim, you cite. If a claim cannot be verified, it is not a claim per se: it's an opinion.

flavius29663 6y ago

these studies should also mention what the percentage is in the general twitter world. It might be even higher than this