mlb_hn

45 ms·

31.
by mlb_hn 7y ago
Yep, there's been some academic work like MapWatch (2016) [0] on tracking the differences in how different providers present different borders in different regions over time. [0] https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=28830
32.
by mlb_hn 7y ago
>> Sad to see once decent, thoughtful operations like WSJ, NY Times, WaPo, basically turned into conflict generation drivel producers. I'm not sure that's a fair description of news orgs. The world's fairly complex and
33.
by mlb_hn 7y ago
It seems to conflate search/auto-complete and then ignores the context of search having adversarial groups consistently trying to manipulate search rankings. While it's possible this was a good faith article, given News Corps&#x27
34.
by mlb_hn 7y ago
Seems parts are a bit misleading and exaggerating capabilities. E.g. >> Images from the cameras are in turn fed to computer programs that allow analysts to track suspects, and even to rewind to look back over their paths, like watchin
35.
by mlb_hn 7y ago
I think the disinformation you're thinking about matters [cf 0], but being able to project power to the right place at the right time requires a lot of logistical planning and material even if the information can be trusted. There are
36.
by mlb_hn 7y ago
Have there been any studies on how many people actually see those tweets, and of those, how many remember the content and then agree/disagree? I'm a bit unsure how data based any of these actions are.
37.
by mlb_hn 7y ago
Abramowitz and Sanders (2008)[1] is a good article showing the debate going on 10 years ago over whether or not we were even seeing polarization, which supports the possibility that tech is a spurious factor. A really cool causal factor (e.
38.
by mlb_hn 7y ago
Sadly, Library of Congress was archiving all tweets at the time. They stopped doing so later that year [1]. I don't know if it was ever resumed or not. Fortunately, tons of people are archiving that sort of thing on their own anyway :)
39.
by mlb_hn 7y ago
I get that. It's complicated because no one knows what happened; did he order it declassified and they just did it poorly or was he instead saving whoever originally took it a huge deal of trouble.
40.
by mlb_hn 7y ago
While that's accurate, it looks like the classification markers were blacked out post picture. That's important because it indicates that they didn't go and declassify the picture on the original system to share it. So the pi
41.
by mlb_hn 7y ago
Wharley (1982) is a great paper formalizing how militaries use deception [1]. There's a lot of combinations of tactics to use disinformation to distract from the truth beyond the chaff case. [1] https://www.tandfonline.com&#
42.
by mlb_hn 7y ago
I'm a bit confused on what sort of authorities anyone's got here or what the actual intent of the program is. Ultimately, does DOD have any sort of authorities to do anything about potential US person speech and how would that be
43.
by mlb_hn 7y ago
They've definitely gotten things very wrong, e.g. in 1989 Howard Schaffer, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia, testified to Congress "“We’re confident that [the Pakistani supported Afghan Government] will be neithe
44.
by mlb_hn 7y ago
The US Army had previously pointed out a similar issue to the BBC article, where a lack of internal guidance and oversight was leading to analysis and collection of non-optimal data [1]. Just like in academia, there seems to be a bit of a t
45.
by mlb_hn 7y ago
For anyone having trouble with the paywall, adding a '.' after the .com and before the '/' lets you close the popup. Otherwise, disabling javascript also works.
46.
Building Infrastructure for Studying Social Media in Elections and Democracy(socialscience.one)
1 points by mlb_hn 7y ago|0 comments
47.
Journalism Is an Action(splinternews.com)
3 points by mlb_hn 7y ago|0 comments
48.
Credit cards have a privacy problem(washingtonpost.com)
238 points by mlb_hn 7y ago|174 comments
49.
by mlb_hn 7y ago
David Carroll tweeted "... effects cannot be measured. There are no control groups in elections" [1]. His stake in it was getting access to his data though, not coming at it from a data science perspective. I'm not sure I agr
50.
by mlb_hn 7y ago
I think we agree on the sourcing, just we disagree on the definition of "inside".
51.
by mlb_hn 7y ago
The current title I'm seeing is "Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program" which seems misleading as well; it's more of a history of press releases. Doesn't look like they interviewed anyon
52.
Judge in Facebook Sex-Trafficking Case Blocks New Privacy Feature(bloomberg.com)
2 points by mlb_hn 7y ago|0 comments
53.
by mlb_hn 7y ago
SS1 researcher responded on Twitter, https://twitter.com/SolomonMg/status/1164927631957143554 . TLDR: they've been working on building a framework to preserve privacy and then to train researchers on how to ac
54.
by mlb_hn 7y ago
Deepmind did a demo of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUTMhmVh1qs
55.
by mlb_hn 7y ago
Nope, generals play politics and talk funding. Which is logistics.
56.
by mlb_hn 7y ago
I'm more concerned about the propaganda issue. I argued a couple years ago (heavily edited) when I left the Army that foreign actors (read: Russia) were data mining stolen data for fracture lines to amplify [0] which makes it hard to f
57.
by mlb_hn 7y ago
Interesting that FT adds that first bit to copy/paste.
58.
by mlb_hn 7y ago
Right before social media started to take off the academics were arguing if we were already seeing polarization [e.g. 0]. It might be worth considering whether the polarization trend changed with social media before attributing causes and p
59.
by mlb_hn 7y ago
For those that don't read the article, someone posted about the medical response to Epstein's suicide on 4Chan before the news picked it up. A lot of people had access to that information at the time.
60.
by mlb_hn 7y ago
The author doesn't seem to include any metrics for how they're measuring technological changes, or am I missing that? Seems like a graph and numbers would be useful for measuring what sort of slowdown it's talking about; most

More ›