4 ms·

"Anyone who has worked with data knows that you can torture the data show anything you want." Couldn't this cut both ways though?

WisNorCan 5y ago
Sure and that happens. Journalists will cherry pick data to tell the story they want. But there is a difference. If the data is out there someone can dispute the journalists characterization. If Facebook controls all the data and presents the story, there is no way to verify their characterization.
- jsemrau 5y ago
  Up to this day I am wondering for most social media sites how much of their daily active users is actually bots. I'd like to find a way to verify that.
  - stirfish 5y ago
    They will never tell you how many bots are on a platform because advertisers don't want to show ads to bots
    - yuliyp 5y ago
      They do reveal how many fake accounts they think they have. From Facebook's 2020 Annual Report (https://investor.fb.com/financials/sec-filings-details/default.aspx?FilingId=14646367 https://investor.fb.com/financials/sec-filings-details/defau... page 4): > In the fourth quarter of 2020, we estimated that duplicate accounts may have represented approximately 11% of our worldwide MAUs. We believe the percentage of duplicate accounts is meaningfully higher in developing markets such as the Philippines and Vietnam, as compared to more developed markets. In the fourth quarter of 2020, we estimated that false accounts may have represented approximately 5% of our worldwide MAUs. Our estimation of false accounts can vary as a result of episodic spikes in the creation of such accounts, which we have seen originate more frequently in specific countries such as Indonesia and Vietnam. From time to time, we disable certain user accounts, make product changes, or take other actions to reduce the number of duplicate or false accounts among our users, which may also reduce our DAU and MAU estimates in a particular period. We intend to disclose our estimates of the number of duplicate andfalse accounts among our MAUs on an annual basis.
  - mateo411 5y ago
    Well, that's pretty easy to do. 1. Get a job on a social media site. 2. Join the bot detection team. 3. Create algorithms that measure if a user is a bot. 4. Create daily reports on the number of bots detected.
  - schuyler2d 5y ago
    I believe Zignal (which is sort of CrowdTangle for Twitter) provides a variable in their API for "likelihood they are a bot" which is direct from Twitter -- so Twitter often knows the account is a bot, but much less often takes action.
    - jsemrau 5y ago
      Interesting. Let me check it out.
- minorityreport 5y ago
  >> Sure and that happens. Journalists will cherry pick data to tell the story they want. But there is a difference. If the data is out there someone can dispute the journalists characterization. Does it actually happen though? The media controls most of the narrative, including what goes into legislative discussions. The "paper of record" becomes history while everything else goes into a vast firehose of tweets which get washed away by the dominant narrative. Real recent example. NYTimes June 21, 2021: "How Big Tech Allows the Racial Wealth Gap to Persist" https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/21/us/politics/big-tech-racial-wealth-gap.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/21/us/politics/big-tech-raci... So according to the NYTimes, "big tech" allows a racial wealth gap. Consider that this is the only industry where Asians, Indians, and others are actually allowed to consistently and widely climb ranks into senior management. The ultimate irony is -- this is coming from the NYTimes -- a small group of mostly white, rich, people in Brooklyn and the Upper West Side of Manhattan -- with almost zero diversity at the executive ranks -- is saying this. Further, there is no discussion about the FAANG exams, hiring committees, etc -- or the fact that the authors hire on no objective measures themselves -- they are mostly hired based on which elite private school they attended. So what happens? We end up with congressional investigations on big tech monopolies (worth looking into) but ignore obvious monopolies like my mobile phone provider, my healthcare providers, etc -- places that charge a pound of flesh and have no competitors.
  - stirfish 5y ago
    >So according to the NYTimes Here's the report that the NYTimes is reporting on. https://www.conference-board.org/press/mind-the-gap-June2021 https://www.conference-board.org/press/mind-the-gap-June2021 >The ultimate irony is -- this is coming from the NYTimes - >with almost zero diversity at the executive ranks >the authors hire on no objective measures themselve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
    - ipsum2 5y ago
      It's not whataboutism because, from your link: > attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument but the parent has addressed the argument: > Consider that this is the only industry where Asians, Indians, and others are actually allowed to consistently and widely climb ranks into senior management.

WisNorCan 5y ago

Sure and that happens. Journalists will cherry pick data to tell the story they want. But there is a difference. If the data is out there someone can dispute the journalists characterization. If Facebook controls all the data and presents the story, there is no way to verify their characterization.

jsemrau 5y ago
Up to this day I am wondering for most social media sites how much of their daily active users is actually bots. I'd like to find a way to verify that.
- stirfish 5y ago
  They will never tell you how many bots are on a platform because advertisers don't want to show ads to bots
  - yuliyp 5y ago
    They do reveal how many fake accounts they think they have. From Facebook's 2020 Annual Report (https://investor.fb.com/financials/sec-filings-details/default.aspx?FilingId=14646367 https://investor.fb.com/financials/sec-filings-details/defau... page 4): > In the fourth quarter of 2020, we estimated that duplicate accounts may have represented approximately 11% of our worldwide MAUs. We believe the percentage of duplicate accounts is meaningfully higher in developing markets such as the Philippines and Vietnam, as compared to more developed markets. In the fourth quarter of 2020, we estimated that false accounts may have represented approximately 5% of our worldwide MAUs. Our estimation of false accounts can vary as a result of episodic spikes in the creation of such accounts, which we have seen originate more frequently in specific countries such as Indonesia and Vietnam. From time to time, we disable certain user accounts, make product changes, or take other actions to reduce the number of duplicate or false accounts among our users, which may also reduce our DAU and MAU estimates in a particular period. We intend to disclose our estimates of the number of duplicate andfalse accounts among our MAUs on an annual basis.
- mateo411 5y ago
  Well, that's pretty easy to do. 1. Get a job on a social media site. 2. Join the bot detection team. 3. Create algorithms that measure if a user is a bot. 4. Create daily reports on the number of bots detected.
- schuyler2d 5y ago
  I believe Zignal (which is sort of CrowdTangle for Twitter) provides a variable in their API for "likelihood they are a bot" which is direct from Twitter -- so Twitter often knows the account is a bot, but much less often takes action.
  - jsemrau 5y ago
    Interesting. Let me check it out.
minorityreport 5y ago
>> Sure and that happens. Journalists will cherry pick data to tell the story they want. But there is a difference. If the data is out there someone can dispute the journalists characterization. Does it actually happen though? The media controls most of the narrative, including what goes into legislative discussions. The "paper of record" becomes history while everything else goes into a vast firehose of tweets which get washed away by the dominant narrative. Real recent example. NYTimes June 21, 2021: "How Big Tech Allows the Racial Wealth Gap to Persist" https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/21/us/politics/big-tech-racial-wealth-gap.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/21/us/politics/big-tech-raci... So according to the NYTimes, "big tech" allows a racial wealth gap. Consider that this is the only industry where Asians, Indians, and others are actually allowed to consistently and widely climb ranks into senior management. The ultimate irony is -- this is coming from the NYTimes -- a small group of mostly white, rich, people in Brooklyn and the Upper West Side of Manhattan -- with almost zero diversity at the executive ranks -- is saying this. Further, there is no discussion about the FAANG exams, hiring committees, etc -- or the fact that the authors hire on no objective measures themselves -- they are mostly hired based on which elite private school they attended. So what happens? We end up with congressional investigations on big tech monopolies (worth looking into) but ignore obvious monopolies like my mobile phone provider, my healthcare providers, etc -- places that charge a pound of flesh and have no competitors.
- stirfish 5y ago
  >So according to the NYTimes Here's the report that the NYTimes is reporting on. https://www.conference-board.org/press/mind-the-gap-June2021 https://www.conference-board.org/press/mind-the-gap-June2021 >The ultimate irony is -- this is coming from the NYTimes - >with almost zero diversity at the executive ranks >the authors hire on no objective measures themselve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
  - ipsum2 5y ago
    It's not whataboutism because, from your link: > attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument but the parent has addressed the argument: > Consider that this is the only industry where Asians, Indians, and others are actually allowed to consistently and widely climb ranks into senior management.