4 ms·
1) The point is bogus. The upvote trajectory is typical for a HN frontpage submission. If you think there's an upvote ring, the appropriate behavior is to messa
by qsort 5y ago
1) The point is bogus. The upvote trajectory is typical for a HN frontpage submission. If you think there's an upvote ring, the appropriate behavior is to message moderators. The expected value of throwing around a random accusation without proof is zero.
2) I don't know where they took the 189 from, but the other numbers match what the report says. It could be that the article is garbage, but that is a very minor point. It's referencing research from a reputable institution, if you want to criticize the research or methodology, do so upstream.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago1 is a fair criticism of that post. Posting the report isn't. >It could be that the article is garbage, but that is a very minor point. It's referencing research from a reputable institution, if you want to criticize the research or methodology, do so upstream. It's not a minor point, the article was what is posted here for discussion. No matter how reliable the report is the article may be suspect. I figured out how they got the 98000 too, it's the total number of interactions the Ambassadors tweets got. Using that number in the bullet point when the report claims well under half of them were part of the campaign is intentionally misleading.