-
-
Replying to @VPrasadMDMPH @CT_Bergstrom
I was responding to a factual claim with an empirical test. I think it's quite useful to know if the statement is true or not irrespective of whether our opinions align
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @CT_Bergstrom
ur q makes no sense; I've 0 doubt these folks had low followers pre-covid. They have high followers now b/c they have a shared world view, and broadcast that daily, and hence are chosen as reviewers when you could choose rando faculty at hopkins but couldn't guess their 2 c
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @VPrasadMDMPH @CT_Bergstrom
I mean, it's almost like there's a correlation between gaining a lot of followers during COVID-19 and being interested in publicly commenting on the pandemic. Point is, it's pretty obviously inaccurate to say that being a social media star is a requirement to review
2 replies 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @CT_Bergstrom
You are missing my point. If you want to fact check fairly, you have to pick articles fairly and pick reviewers fairly. You can't pick Marty's opinion article b/c you dislike it, and then look on twitter to find folks who tweet a ton of material that tells u they will 2
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @VPrasadMDMPH @CT_Bergstrom
You made an empirical claim in your article - that the people chosen were "twitter celebrities" rather than fact checkers. That claim appears to be incorrect, regardless of your opinions about Facebook more broadly
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @CT_Bergstrom
Of all the qualified epidemiology reviewers in the world, 80% of reviewers being on twitter with mean 42,000 followers is enriched for twitter celebrities. Sorry to break that to you
3 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @VPrasadMDMPH @CT_Bergstrom
Lol, leaving aside the absurdity of using the mean value, as we've already discussed most of those followers were probably gained for doing things precisely like this. You even agreed!
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @CT_Bergstrom
Vinay Prasad, MD MPH 🎙️ 📷 Retweeted Vinay Prasad, MD MPH 🎙️ 📷
median is 10000 Your comparison is not righthttps://twitter.com/VPrasadMDMPH/status/1369159357749862400?s=20 …
Vinay Prasad, MD MPH 🎙️ 📷 added,
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @VPrasadMDMPH @CT_Bergstrom
And how many of those "possible" reviewers regularly agree to do public fact-checks? Is it plausible that doing public fact-checks during COVID-19 is a great way to get followers quickly?
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes
Then let's consider further - of they are intentionally selecting celebrities, why is the mean so much higher than the median? Take away 2-3 of their really high follower accounts and suddenly it's mostly just boring academics
-
-
And then let's go back and take another look at some of the accounts. Several of them were ONLY CREATED in 2020 by professors with relevant subject matter expertise. Is it a reasonable claim to say that they are "twitter celebrities"?
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @CT_Bergstrom
Vinay Prasad, MD MPH 🎙️ 📷 Retweeted Vinay Prasad, MD MPH 🎙️ 📷
You are going in circles there are 2 claims 1. Among all possible qualified reviewers, these folks are disproportionately popular on twitter (true) 2. That is convenient, b/c you know how they will votehttps://twitter.com/VPrasadMDMPH/status/1369141032152014848?s=20 …
Vinay Prasad, MD MPH 🎙️ 📷 added,
Vinay Prasad, MD MPH 🎙️ 📷Verified account @VPrasadMDMPHReplying to @GidMK @CT_BergstromSadly that is not the sole claim in the article nor the appropriate test. If you pick fact checkers from folks who have telegraphed their opinion on issues (via twitter), one does not have an independent process. end of story.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.