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
-
-
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
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
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 -
Now let's think about a counterfactual. The people most likely to agree to participate in a public fact-check of their peers work are also the most likely to be active on social media during the pandemic, and may have gained followers for precisely this reason Plausible?
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @CT_Bergstrom
No. This fact checking is purportedly important, so if you ask random university faculty, many will likely agree. The pool of qualified reviewers is massive 10k +; I see no reason to think that folks active on twitter will preferentially agree to review/so much they dominate
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
And what do you think happens when people start participating in this sort of fact checking exercise in terms of their twitter following?
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @CT_Bergstrom
Honestly, nothing, because the fact checkers are not named in Facebook's labeling, and they are hard to find the names. To be honest you are wrong about 2 of them. Topol and Angella R. are not fact checkers.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Moreover, among randomly selected faculty just 30% are on twitter, not 80%, so if it was selected by expertise alone, many would not have accounts to grow
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
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.