4 ms·

This submission was about an algorithm of X, which clearly is on topic, particularly nowadays when millions of users migrate to Bluesky. The study doesn't offe

by pms 2y ago

This submission was about an algorithm of X, which clearly is on topic, particularly nowadays when millions of users migrate to Bluesky. The study doesn't offer any conclusion, but it analyses some data and offers a potential interpretation. Other interpretations can be provided and discussed. The post was heading for the front page. Personally, I was very interested in the discussion. Was any HN guideline broken?

Dalewyn 2y ago
The study is speculation about supposed changes to the algorithm based off of subsequent changes in trends in sheer ignorance to other events that transpired on the dates specified. Basically arguing that correlation is causation and placing the cart before the horse. This isn't good grounds for insightful or even useful conversations and this was already breaking the guidelines by being a political subject matter about celebrities.
- pms 2y ago
  First, you don't understand the methodology of this study. Difference in differences takes into account external events by assuming that two different time series are affected by external events in the same way. In this case, the two time series correspond to the number of views of Republican-leaning and Democrat-leaning users on X. Thus, the methodology takes into account external events. Second, the speculation you're writing about is an interpretation of the new data analysis. Third, the authors don't argue that correlation is causation. If you still think they do, then please quote the sentence where they do that. Honestly, it looks like this thread is being taken down because some people don't like it, including you, which goes against HN guidelines.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - pms 2y ago
      You're changing your arguments whenever I address the previous one. Have you noticed? > Hacker News biases heavily against Trump and Musk I imagine you're writing this only because you are biased for Musk (and/or Trump). Many people in Hacker News seek truth. Clearly, you're not the one, and you're deciding for this community that it shouldn't seek it either.
      - Dalewyn 2y ago
        >You're changing your arguments whenever I address the previous one. Have you noticed? Nope, I already pointed out the study is speculative bullshit: The axiom is "potential algorithmic bias around July 13, 2024". "Potential" bias (read: changes) around one of the most significant days in the entire election cycle is why X suddenly shifted further Right from July 13 onwards? So much happened on July 13 that changes to the algorithm (if any) at most played a minor factor, let alone "potential" changes that the study doesn't even have the gall to affirmatively declare. Sincerely: Stop wasting my (our?) time with this bullshit. >I imagine you're writing this only because you are biased for Musk (and/or Trump). You are correct that I like Trump and Musk, I voted for Trump and I continue to be amazed at the crazy stuff Musk pulls off. A look through my comment history would indicate that, too. >Many people in Hacker News seek truth. If by "truth" you mean primarily Left/Progressive "truth". I will break the guidelines by saying this, but the audience here really isn't that different from Reddit with regards to politics. This is to be expected, of course: Hacker News is a forum for tech enthusiasts/professionals and small cap investors operated by venture capitalists, and most if not all of those demographics are heavily Left/Progressive. One thing I will point out that I think is fairly unique to Hacker News is the sheer level of resentment towards Musk. You can't even have a conversation about the guy unless it's to shit on him. If most other communities suffer Trump Derangement Syndrome, Hacker News suffers Musk Derangement Syndrome.
        pms 2y ago
        I admire that you've confirmed your biases. By truth I mean scientific discourse centered on evidence and freedom of speech. Unfortunately, Musk's and Trump's "freedom of speech" includes freedom to disinform the public to achieve their goals, so it isn't equivalent to everyone's freedom of speech. By taking down this post, you're acting against everyone's freedom of speech. The study is honest, because it doesn't make any conclusions, just provides new data analysis, potential interpretations, and a call for further research. You haven't responded to my arguments, e.g., about how the study takes into account external events. It sounds like you're misperceiving the post because of your personal biases, but at least you're upfront about it, which I appreciate. You're taking down the post, because you don't like it. That's against Hacker News guidelines. This kind of behavior needs more attention, just like the behaviors of Musk and Trump. We need more transparency, not less, so I appreciate that you're upfront. BTW, I haven't voted for Harris nor Trump. My perfect (non-existing) candidate would take the best from each of them. While I appreciate various things about Trump and Musk, I'm critical about the fact that they both disinform the public to achieve their personal goals. That's unethical.
rsynnott 2y ago
The most important guideline of all; thou shalt not make weird billionaires look bad.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
jazzyjackson 2y ago
Thanks for pointing to the guidelines, I didn't realize I was the one breaking them by commenting that I flagged this. But there is "Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter. " I have a feeling that the research on its own would not have generated the discussion that the toot did, because the toot really just prompted people to give their own impression without discussing the actual research. Sometimes I flag stuff just because it's flame bait, maybe the submission didn't break guidelines but the comments will be snarky and shallow and not conducive to building the community culture. And I rely on the democratic aspect of HN, if my flag is frivolous so be it, no harm done.

by pms 2y ago

Dalewyn 2y ago

The study is speculation about supposed changes to the algorithm based off of subsequent changes in trends in sheer ignorance to other events that transpired on the dates specified. Basically arguing that correlation is causation and placing the cart before the horse. This isn't good grounds for insightful or even useful conversations and this was already breaking the guidelines by being a political subject matter about celebrities.

pms 2y ago
First, you don't understand the methodology of this study. Difference in differences takes into account external events by assuming that two different time series are affected by external events in the same way. In this case, the two time series correspond to the number of views of Republican-leaning and Democrat-leaning users on X. Thus, the methodology takes into account external events. Second, the speculation you're writing about is an interpretation of the new data analysis. Third, the authors don't argue that correlation is causation. If you still think they do, then please quote the sentence where they do that. Honestly, it looks like this thread is being taken down because some people don't like it, including you, which goes against HN guidelines.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - pms 2y ago
    You're changing your arguments whenever I address the previous one. Have you noticed? > Hacker News biases heavily against Trump and Musk I imagine you're writing this only because you are biased for Musk (and/or Trump). Many people in Hacker News seek truth. Clearly, you're not the one, and you're deciding for this community that it shouldn't seek it either.
    - Dalewyn 2y ago
      >You're changing your arguments whenever I address the previous one. Have you noticed? Nope, I already pointed out the study is speculative bullshit: The axiom is "potential algorithmic bias around July 13, 2024". "Potential" bias (read: changes) around one of the most significant days in the entire election cycle is why X suddenly shifted further Right from July 13 onwards? So much happened on July 13 that changes to the algorithm (if any) at most played a minor factor, let alone "potential" changes that the study doesn't even have the gall to affirmatively declare. Sincerely: Stop wasting my (our?) time with this bullshit. >I imagine you're writing this only because you are biased for Musk (and/or Trump). You are correct that I like Trump and Musk, I voted for Trump and I continue to be amazed at the crazy stuff Musk pulls off. A look through my comment history would indicate that, too. >Many people in Hacker News seek truth. If by "truth" you mean primarily Left/Progressive "truth". I will break the guidelines by saying this, but the audience here really isn't that different from Reddit with regards to politics. This is to be expected, of course: Hacker News is a forum for tech enthusiasts/professionals and small cap investors operated by venture capitalists, and most if not all of those demographics are heavily Left/Progressive. One thing I will point out that I think is fairly unique to Hacker News is the sheer level of resentment towards Musk. You can't even have a conversation about the guy unless it's to shit on him. If most other communities suffer Trump Derangement Syndrome, Hacker News suffers Musk Derangement Syndrome.
      - pms 2y ago
        I admire that you've confirmed your biases. By truth I mean scientific discourse centered on evidence and freedom of speech. Unfortunately, Musk's and Trump's "freedom of speech" includes freedom to disinform the public to achieve their goals, so it isn't equivalent to everyone's freedom of speech. By taking down this post, you're acting against everyone's freedom of speech. The study is honest, because it doesn't make any conclusions, just provides new data analysis, potential interpretations, and a call for further research. You haven't responded to my arguments, e.g., about how the study takes into account external events. It sounds like you're misperceiving the post because of your personal biases, but at least you're upfront about it, which I appreciate. You're taking down the post, because you don't like it. That's against Hacker News guidelines. This kind of behavior needs more attention, just like the behaviors of Musk and Trump. We need more transparency, not less, so I appreciate that you're upfront. BTW, I haven't voted for Harris nor Trump. My perfect (non-existing) candidate would take the best from each of them. While I appreciate various things about Trump and Musk, I'm critical about the fact that they both disinform the public to achieve their personal goals. That's unethical.

rsynnott 2y ago

The most important guideline of all; thou shalt not make weird billionaires look bad.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

jazzyjackson 2y ago

Thanks for pointing to the guidelines, I didn't realize I was the one breaking them by commenting that I flagged this. But there is "Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter. " I have a feeling that the research on its own would not have generated the discussion that the toot did, because the toot really just prompted people to give their own impression without discussing the actual research. Sometimes I flag stuff just because it's flame bait, maybe the submission didn't break guidelines but the comments will be snarky and shallow and not conducive to building the community culture. And I rely on the democratic aspect of HN, if my flag is frivolous so be it, no harm done.