3 ms·

how would you characterize "the sentiment of the headline"? I mean, it reads as literally identical to the quote. "thousands of scientists are cutting back o

by zzzeek 3y ago

how would you characterize "the sentiment of the headline"? I mean, it reads as literally identical to the quote. "thousands of scientists are cutting back on twitter" and "more than half of 9200 (which would be....4600, hmm yep that's indeed "thousands") have reduced the time ("reduced"? Chatgpt whats a synonym for "cutting back" ?) they spend on the platform (ah what's "the platform"? Oh it's X, not twitter. Ha!)"

londons_explore 3y ago
The headline is carefully worded to be technically correct yet misleading. Most people reading the headline will believe that most scientists have left or are leaving and that twitter is about to collapse. And the data doesn't show that.
- zzzeek 3y ago
  So you're in a boat, and a hole is in the base, and well, only a little bit of water has come in so far. Everything is fine? In november of last year, there were no alternatives to Twitter at all save for Mastodon which was an unknown open source backwater. nobody needed them. Now we have a vastly larger Mastodon userbase as well as extremely serious competitors like Threads, Bluesky, Post, etc on the scene, and to a greater or lesser degree, people are moving to them. This seems pretty significant to me, if I were the person in charge of keeping Twitter where everyone is Bigger picture, this kind of discussion is so silly. When Musk took over Twitter, Hacker News was all like "hooray! free speech at last!" what a joke, right? the man literally throttles /bans individual users and offlinks he personally doesn't like. I am going to posit right here that all of this "ho ho, the data shows nothing, if anything scientists are joining twitter" will also be similarly ridiculous in six months.
  - londons_explore 3y ago
    In which case, the headline could be "7% of scientists have moved from twitter to other platforms. Could this be the start of a grand exodus?"
    - zzzeek 3y ago
      The full headline was too long to post. The headline is: "Thousands of scientists are cutting back on Twitter, seeding angst and uncertainty" I think "seeding" is pretty directly in line with "could this be the start". Plus, they aren't really even getting at any kind of "grand exodus" here. That's not what this article is about. It's about there being no one place that is a clearinghouse for new scientific research to be posted, that is, a fragmenting of the community. so you're correct! they used your idea. but they aren't getting at a "grand exodus" in any case, just the platform itself no longer being an effective place on which scientific researchers would singularly focus .
karaterobot 3y ago
The headline could just as easily be that 93% of scientists are sticking with Twitter. There's plenty of room for framing with a survey like this.
logifail 3y ago
> how would you characterize "the sentiment of the headline"? Imagine it rewritten as "3% of scientists contacted by us said they were cutting back on Twitter".
smsm42 3y ago
> how would you characterize "the sentiment of the headline"? A lot of scientists are abandoning Twitter, and this is a significant development. In reality, they could only talk to a tiny minority of people they tried to (which by itself causes selection bias - if I were ok with Twitter, I wouldn't talk to journalists about it, but if I had an ax to grind, I'd surely jump at the chance) - who are also a tiny minority of all Twitter users. And of those that did respond, they had about half using Twitter less (how much less? why? maybe they are busy doing, you know, actual science, instead of tweeting?) - what does it tell us? Pretty much nothing. But they are trying to build a narrative from it: The survey from Nature asked whether people had changed their use of Twitter in the past six months and why. The reasons respondents gave varied, but many of those who had markedly reduced or stopped their activity on X mentioned Musk’s management of the platform. Many said that they had noticed an uptick in the amount of fake accounts, trolls and hate speech on the platform. Žiga Malek, an environmental scientist at the Free University of Amsterdam, mentioned in the survey that he had started seeing a lot of “strange” political far-right accounts espousing science denialism and racism in his feed. The message is clear: Musk removed the censorship and now far-right fascist racist trolls took over twitter and the scientists are fleeing from it. We need much more censorship - especially, political censorship - on the social media, or the science (especially female researchers struggling with inequity!) is doomed. That's the sentiment embedded in the message. That's why this article is written, actually.
- LexiMax 3y ago
  > But they are trying to build a narrative from it: I feel like the reality is that it has less to do with unbanning a bunch of alt-right trolls and more having to do with changes to tweet discoverability and blue-checks. It's not hard to find people even in this thread complaining about how their feed has turned into a "ghost town," which foots with complaints I've heard from my Twitter-using acquaintances. That is a serious problem for a site that used to function as a shared social space.
  - smsm42 3y ago
    It very well may be so, but Nature chooses to highlight exactly the "alt-right trolls" aspect of it, and pretty much brings no other possible reasons why it could be happening. Especially hilarious part is when they explain how Twitter is very important because "Scientists could discuss suspicions of research fraud, often anonymously" - when we fully know that Twitter has been consistently hunting down and removing any dissent from the self-appointed "scientific consensus", even about topics that we already know where the "consensus" was wrong (such as the question of COVID origins), and that an anonymous complaint about something that is considered part of the "consensus" would most certainly be dismissed as "troll". Even blue-checks could have been de-checked and suppressed for dissenting take on a "consensus" topic, but an anonymous there'd be no chance. But the important part is that "Twitter helped to raise awareness and accountability for concepts such as scientific colonialism". I mean, this article is positively stuffed with political references and shibboleths (which all lean to one side, of course), it's impossible to take it as any kind of neutral non-political research about what is happening with twitter.

by zzzeek 3y ago

londons_explore 3y ago

The headline is carefully worded to be technically correct yet misleading. Most people reading the headline will believe that most scientists have left or are leaving and that twitter is about to collapse. And the data doesn't show that.

zzzeek 3y ago
So you're in a boat, and a hole is in the base, and well, only a little bit of water has come in so far. Everything is fine? In november of last year, there were no alternatives to Twitter at all save for Mastodon which was an unknown open source backwater. nobody needed them. Now we have a vastly larger Mastodon userbase as well as extremely serious competitors like Threads, Bluesky, Post, etc on the scene, and to a greater or lesser degree, people are moving to them. This seems pretty significant to me, if I were the person in charge of keeping Twitter where everyone is Bigger picture, this kind of discussion is so silly. When Musk took over Twitter, Hacker News was all like "hooray! free speech at last!" what a joke, right? the man literally throttles /bans individual users and offlinks he personally doesn't like. I am going to posit right here that all of this "ho ho, the data shows nothing, if anything scientists are joining twitter" will also be similarly ridiculous in six months.
- londons_explore 3y ago
  In which case, the headline could be "7% of scientists have moved from twitter to other platforms. Could this be the start of a grand exodus?"
  - zzzeek 3y ago
    The full headline was too long to post. The headline is: "Thousands of scientists are cutting back on Twitter, seeding angst and uncertainty" I think "seeding" is pretty directly in line with "could this be the start". Plus, they aren't really even getting at any kind of "grand exodus" here. That's not what this article is about. It's about there being no one place that is a clearinghouse for new scientific research to be posted, that is, a fragmenting of the community. so you're correct! they used your idea. but they aren't getting at a "grand exodus" in any case, just the platform itself no longer being an effective place on which scientific researchers would singularly focus .

karaterobot 3y ago

The headline could just as easily be that 93% of scientists are sticking with Twitter. There's plenty of room for framing with a survey like this.

logifail 3y ago

> how would you characterize "the sentiment of the headline"? Imagine it rewritten as "3% of scientists contacted by us said they were cutting back on Twitter".

smsm42 3y ago

> how would you characterize "the sentiment of the headline"? A lot of scientists are abandoning Twitter, and this is a significant development. In reality, they could only talk to a tiny minority of people they tried to (which by itself causes selection bias - if I were ok with Twitter, I wouldn't talk to journalists about it, but if I had an ax to grind, I'd surely jump at the chance) - who are also a tiny minority of all Twitter users. And of those that did respond, they had about half using Twitter less (how much less? why? maybe they are busy doing, you know, actual science, instead of tweeting?) - what does it tell us? Pretty much nothing. But they are trying to build a narrative from it: The survey from Nature asked whether people had changed their use of Twitter in the past six months and why. The reasons respondents gave varied, but many of those who had markedly reduced or stopped their activity on X mentioned Musk’s management of the platform. Many said that they had noticed an uptick in the amount of fake accounts, trolls and hate speech on the platform. Žiga Malek, an environmental scientist at the Free University of Amsterdam, mentioned in the survey that he had started seeing a lot of “strange” political far-right accounts espousing science denialism and racism in his feed. The message is clear: Musk removed the censorship and now far-right fascist racist trolls took over twitter and the scientists are fleeing from it. We need much more censorship - especially, political censorship - on the social media, or the science (especially female researchers struggling with inequity!) is doomed. That's the sentiment embedded in the message. That's why this article is written, actually.

LexiMax 3y ago
> But they are trying to build a narrative from it: I feel like the reality is that it has less to do with unbanning a bunch of alt-right trolls and more having to do with changes to tweet discoverability and blue-checks. It's not hard to find people even in this thread complaining about how their feed has turned into a "ghost town," which foots with complaints I've heard from my Twitter-using acquaintances. That is a serious problem for a site that used to function as a shared social space.
- smsm42 3y ago
  It very well may be so, but Nature chooses to highlight exactly the "alt-right trolls" aspect of it, and pretty much brings no other possible reasons why it could be happening. Especially hilarious part is when they explain how Twitter is very important because "Scientists could discuss suspicions of research fraud, often anonymously" - when we fully know that Twitter has been consistently hunting down and removing any dissent from the self-appointed "scientific consensus", even about topics that we already know where the "consensus" was wrong (such as the question of COVID origins), and that an anonymous complaint about something that is considered part of the "consensus" would most certainly be dismissed as "troll". Even blue-checks could have been de-checked and suppressed for dissenting take on a "consensus" topic, but an anonymous there'd be no chance. But the important part is that "Twitter helped to raise awareness and accountability for concepts such as scientific colonialism". I mean, this article is positively stuffed with political references and shibboleths (which all lean to one side, of course), it's impossible to take it as any kind of neutral non-political research about what is happening with twitter.