4 ms·

The article is distinctly Orwellian. I am a climate skeptic and have participated in such discussions, and found that my bot-rating is very high. Other people w

by Zuider 6y ago

The article is distinctly Orwellian. I am a climate skeptic and have participated in such discussions, and found that my bot-rating is very high. Other people whom I know by reputation and online presence elsewhere are also categorized as not being actual humans. Along with this, there is the pre-emptive and dogmatic assertion without proof or serious argument that any disagreement with official dogma must necessary be deliberate 'disinformation' spread by those with an immoral vested interest in spreading falsehood.

gweinberg 6y ago
So the correct conclusion is not necessarily that most climate change skeptics are bots, but rather that climate change skeptics are likely to be characterized by the software as bots. I wonder what else makes you more likely to be characterized as a bot?
- Zuider 6y ago
  >So the correct conclusion is not necessarily that most climate change skeptics are bots, but rather that climate change skeptics are likely to be characterized by the software as bots. Yes, that is as much as we can deduce from the data presented in the paper, given that they apparently just took the 'Botometer' verdicts at face value without taking the extra steps to see if they were indeed accurate. It may, of course, be absolutely true that the 'denier' accounts are just scripts, but further investigation is necessary to establish this. > I wonder what else makes you more likely to be characterized as a bot? That would best be established by examining the bot-detector's algorithm. Another commenter on this thread noted that he received a high rating based on the fact that he rarely logged into his account.
gnarbarian 6y ago
So now we'll see twitter ban this bot because it "dehumanizes" a large group of people like the NPC meme right?
vegetablepotpie 6y ago
I listened to the drilled podcast two weeks ago and season 3 was very eye opening to me because they did an in depth look at how corporate PR has evolved to influence public opinion in very subtle and powerful ways. We’re talking oil companies setting up contracts the size of $25 million to influence opinion on single issues and they work with psychologists to take advantage of the shortcomings inherent in our minds. The result is that in 2021 people tell me things that influence their opinions that are either misleading, out of date or absolutely false. We’re talking things like climategate or that volcanoes give off more co2 than all of human civilization. I’m just a regular person, I don’t believe in climate change, I’ve researched it, it’s something I’m concerned about. A million dollar PR campaign against me and my friends, family and coworkers is not something anyone can standup against. The dogma that you perceive comes from people reacting to dissatisfaction from an important issue that isn’t being taken seriously. We are citizens, regular people, against what amounts to artificial intelligences that are maximizing the number of paper clips they produce. David and Goliath doesn’t come close to the situation we’re up against.
- Retric 6y ago
  How on earth do you come to that conclusion? Personally the physics of climate change is kind of a basic back of the envelope calculation that should be obvious to most educated people. So I genuinely wonder how people can look into it and not look at the absorption spectra of CO2 go ahh I see and then move on. I mean such a calculation isn’t enough for policy changes or anything, but it’s putting a high hurdle on the other side. Is it some disagreement about the physics involved, or just a bunch of people you believe saying something different, or what?
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    The dispute is typically over the practical implications of it, not the pure physics of "the average global temperature will rise as long as this trend continues". And this is a topic where disinformation comes from both sides - I pretty regularly run into people who've been convinced that climate change means the planet will become uninhabitable.
  - 6y ago
pii 6y ago
I also have doubts that the climate exists.

by Zuider 6y ago

gweinberg 6y ago

So the correct conclusion is not necessarily that most climate change skeptics are bots, but rather that climate change skeptics are likely to be characterized by the software as bots. I wonder what else makes you more likely to be characterized as a bot?

Zuider 6y ago
>So the correct conclusion is not necessarily that most climate change skeptics are bots, but rather that climate change skeptics are likely to be characterized by the software as bots. Yes, that is as much as we can deduce from the data presented in the paper, given that they apparently just took the 'Botometer' verdicts at face value without taking the extra steps to see if they were indeed accurate. It may, of course, be absolutely true that the 'denier' accounts are just scripts, but further investigation is necessary to establish this. > I wonder what else makes you more likely to be characterized as a bot? That would best be established by examining the bot-detector's algorithm. Another commenter on this thread noted that he received a high rating based on the fact that he rarely logged into his account.

gnarbarian 6y ago

So now we'll see twitter ban this bot because it "dehumanizes" a large group of people like the NPC meme right?

vegetablepotpie 6y ago

I listened to the drilled podcast two weeks ago and season 3 was very eye opening to me because they did an in depth look at how corporate PR has evolved to influence public opinion in very subtle and powerful ways. We’re talking oil companies setting up contracts the size of $25 million to influence opinion on single issues and they work with psychologists to take advantage of the shortcomings inherent in our minds. The result is that in 2021 people tell me things that influence their opinions that are either misleading, out of date or absolutely false. We’re talking things like climategate or that volcanoes give off more co2 than all of human civilization. I’m just a regular person, I don’t believe in climate change, I’ve researched it, it’s something I’m concerned about. A million dollar PR campaign against me and my friends, family and coworkers is not something anyone can standup against. The dogma that you perceive comes from people reacting to dissatisfaction from an important issue that isn’t being taken seriously. We are citizens, regular people, against what amounts to artificial intelligences that are maximizing the number of paper clips they produce. David and Goliath doesn’t come close to the situation we’re up against.

Retric 6y ago
How on earth do you come to that conclusion? Personally the physics of climate change is kind of a basic back of the envelope calculation that should be obvious to most educated people. So I genuinely wonder how people can look into it and not look at the absorption spectra of CO2 go ahh I see and then move on. I mean such a calculation isn’t enough for policy changes or anything, but it’s putting a high hurdle on the other side. Is it some disagreement about the physics involved, or just a bunch of people you believe saying something different, or what?
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  The dispute is typically over the practical implications of it, not the pure physics of "the average global temperature will rise as long as this trend continues". And this is a topic where disinformation comes from both sides - I pretty regularly run into people who've been convinced that climate change means the planet will become uninhabitable.
- 6y ago

pii 6y ago

I also have doubts that the climate exists.