3 ms·
I don't see a scale anywhere; am I just missing it? It makes a big difference if red is 4-5 tweets (per what time period), or 4-5 thousand.
by showerst 13y ago
I don't see a scale anywhere; am I just missing it?
It makes a big difference if red is 4-5 tweets (per what time period), or 4-5 thousand.
- sp332 13y agoIn the "about this map" popup, it says the data was collected from June 2012-April 2013 and contains about 150,000 tweets total.
- benjamincburns 13y agoThe data is normalized by number of tweets for a particular region (county, I believe). So what you're looking at is a comparison between the portion of total tweets for a region which is racist/homophobic/disabled-biased. Put differently: If county A has 100 tweets over the time period and 1 of them are racist it will appear identical to county B which has 1000 tweets of which 10 are racist over the same time period.
- VLM 13y agoIts broken at least on current firefox with reasonable adblock etc. Its supposed to give you the actual numbers. I think we're being trolled. The one guy in the north woods of wisconsin who uses twitter used the "n word" once but no one in the entire 4 million person metro Milwaukee area has. Hmm. The Milwaukee MSA has 0.5% of the population of the entire USA and about 90% of the black population of Wisconsin, so it should have included 750 tweets based on supposed sample size yet none of them in troll happy twitter were *-ist in any form. Unlikely. I think we're being trolled, perhaps as a sociology test of gullibility, and being fed data on "decade of founding of city" or something equally irrelevant. Or perhaps just random. Or data intentionally designed to make the east look worse than the west, although it seems weird to merge Wyoming in culturally with San Franciso or Berkley in with Colorado.