4 ms·

I hate these kinds of articles because they never actually point to anything concrete. > Researchers have documented an explosion of hate and misinformation on

I hate these kinds of articles because they never actually point to anything concrete. > Researchers have documented an explosion of hate and misinformation on Twitter since the Tesla billionaire took over in October 2022 That's great, now where are the receipts? Anytime I ever hear about "misinformation on Twitter" it's always just that blanket statement that were supposed to believe.

consumer451 3y ago
I can only add an anecdote in an area where I know the lay of the land: I live near the war, am aware of the propaganda from both sides, and now when I search for Ukraine the misinformation/Russophile volume is off the previous charts.
mrguyorama 3y ago
Why don't you just google for the articles about that?
- _aavaa_ 3y ago
  Because articles should provide their sources, not simply claim things. It is not the readers job.
  - runarberg 3y ago
    This article is based off of interviews with climate scientists. If you want their sources, look up the scientists on your favorite search engine, Twitter, or Mastodon. Al Jazeera is a news journal, not a science journal, usually news journal don’t publish sources in the same way as science journals do. If you are lucky, and the news is about one study in particular, they might link to the study, but most of the time they simply publish the story and it is up to the reader to seek out more details.
    - _aavaa_ 3y ago
      I think we are disagreeing about how they should work. I understand that they currently don’t do this. My point is that they should be doing it. It costs the news agencies 5 seconds of their time. But it saved the readers and independent fact-checkers many multiples of that.
      - runarberg 3y ago
        I guess that is the point—as well as the value—of posting news articles like these to forums like HN. An ancestor of yours posted a few studies by the ADL which back up a similar point. Perhaps it is not ideal, but this way the writers of Al Jazeera can focus on their most obvious target audience—people who just want the story—while the more curious among us can find the sources and share on these forums.
        _aavaa_ 3y ago
        I saw that. But I don’t want similar points. I what the exact points put forth by the article. But again, they already have the sources. They know exactly what reference they are using for facts they bring up. The extra work involved is Ctrl-C + Ctrl-V. The exact same argument could be said about scientific papers. The benefit of the community is that they will do the detective work of finding the references. I don’t know about you, but I would see this as a serious step backward. Business documents also have to back up their statements. Even 15 year olds in school are expected to include references. Let’s look at what they do include links for: > In another analysis, prominent climatologist Katharine Hayhoe monitored responses to a tweet on climate change that she published twice, as an experiment, on separate dates before and after Musk’s takeover. The italics are mine and they are a hyperlink in the article. Reading that sentence I, and I suspect many others, would expect the hyperlink to take us to something related to Katharine Hayhoe‘a work. But it doesn’t. It takes us to [1], which is talking about Musk making himself the sole director. That link is basically irrelevant as a reference for that paragraph. [1]: https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2022/11/1/elon-musk-fires-twitter-board-making-himself-sole-director https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2022/11/1/elon-musk-fires-...
  - Dudelander 3y ago
    I would agree with you, but articles almost never cite their sources directly, and never really did.
    - _aavaa_ 3y ago
      Poor past practices are not an argument for continuing to do them. They also used to be written on actual paper which doesn’t support hyperlinking, but the Internet thankfully does.
kelseyfrog 3y ago
The Anti-defamation League(ADL) has reports on How reinstated accounts are posting antisemitic content(hate) https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/threads-hate-how-twitters-content-moderation-misses-mark https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/threads-hate-how-twitters... A surge in QAnon content which coincides with Musk's takeover(misinformation) https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/qanon-resurgent-twitter https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/qanon-resurgent-twitter The Center for Countering Digital Hate(CCDH) has reports on How Anti-LGBTQ narratives have risen 119% after Musk bought Twitter(hate) https://counterhate.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Toxic-Twitter-II-Final-Report.pdf https://counterhate.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Toxic-Twi... More information in other reports are available at both https://www.adl.org/resources/search/research-analysis?keywords=twitter&sort_by=search_api_relevance https://www.adl.org/resources/search/research-analysis?keywo... and https://counterhate.com/research/?_sf_s=twitter https://counterhate.com/research/?_sf_s=twitter I'm not exactly interested in discussing what exactly constitutes an "explosion" or what's "hateful" or "misinformation," but those are fine starting points for garnering more receipts as you put it.

consumer451 3y ago

I can only add an anecdote in an area where I know the lay of the land: I live near the war, am aware of the propaganda from both sides, and now when I search for Ukraine the misinformation/Russophile volume is off the previous charts.

mrguyorama 3y ago

Why don't you just google for the articles about that?

_aavaa_ 3y ago
Because articles should provide their sources, not simply claim things. It is not the readers job.
- runarberg 3y ago
  This article is based off of interviews with climate scientists. If you want their sources, look up the scientists on your favorite search engine, Twitter, or Mastodon. Al Jazeera is a news journal, not a science journal, usually news journal don’t publish sources in the same way as science journals do. If you are lucky, and the news is about one study in particular, they might link to the study, but most of the time they simply publish the story and it is up to the reader to seek out more details.
  - _aavaa_ 3y ago
    I think we are disagreeing about how they should work. I understand that they currently don’t do this. My point is that they should be doing it. It costs the news agencies 5 seconds of their time. But it saved the readers and independent fact-checkers many multiples of that.
    - runarberg 3y ago
      I guess that is the point—as well as the value—of posting news articles like these to forums like HN. An ancestor of yours posted a few studies by the ADL which back up a similar point. Perhaps it is not ideal, but this way the writers of Al Jazeera can focus on their most obvious target audience—people who just want the story—while the more curious among us can find the sources and share on these forums.
      - _aavaa_ 3y ago
        I saw that. But I don’t want similar points. I what the exact points put forth by the article. But again, they already have the sources. They know exactly what reference they are using for facts they bring up. The extra work involved is Ctrl-C + Ctrl-V. The exact same argument could be said about scientific papers. The benefit of the community is that they will do the detective work of finding the references. I don’t know about you, but I would see this as a serious step backward. Business documents also have to back up their statements. Even 15 year olds in school are expected to include references. Let’s look at what they do include links for: > In another analysis, prominent climatologist Katharine Hayhoe monitored responses to a tweet on climate change that she published twice, as an experiment, on separate dates before and after Musk’s takeover. The italics are mine and they are a hyperlink in the article. Reading that sentence I, and I suspect many others, would expect the hyperlink to take us to something related to Katharine Hayhoe‘a work. But it doesn’t. It takes us to [1], which is talking about Musk making himself the sole director. That link is basically irrelevant as a reference for that paragraph. [1]: https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2022/11/1/elon-musk-fires-twitter-board-making-himself-sole-director https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2022/11/1/elon-musk-fires-...
- Dudelander 3y ago
  I would agree with you, but articles almost never cite their sources directly, and never really did.
  - _aavaa_ 3y ago
    Poor past practices are not an argument for continuing to do them. They also used to be written on actual paper which doesn’t support hyperlinking, but the Internet thankfully does.

kelseyfrog 3y ago

The Anti-defamation League(ADL) has reports on How reinstated accounts are posting antisemitic content(hate) https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/threads-hate-how-twitters-content-moderation-misses-mark https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/threads-hate-how-twitters... A surge in QAnon content which coincides with Musk's takeover(misinformation) https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/qanon-resurgent-twitter https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/qanon-resurgent-twitter The Center for Countering Digital Hate(CCDH) has reports on How Anti-LGBTQ narratives have risen 119% after Musk bought Twitter(hate) https://counterhate.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Toxic-Twitter-II-Final-Report.pdf https://counterhate.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Toxic-Twi... More information in other reports are available at both https://www.adl.org/resources/search/research-analysis?keywords=twitter&sort_by=search_api_relevance https://www.adl.org/resources/search/research-analysis?keywo... and https://counterhate.com/research/?_sf_s=twitter https://counterhate.com/research/?_sf_s=twitter I'm not exactly interested in discussing what exactly constitutes an "explosion" or what's "hateful" or "misinformation," but those are fine starting points for garnering more receipts as you put it.