"Social bots have influenced elections." Does it sound plausible? Yes. Is it scientifically founded? Not at all. Many mistakes were made in the research and a lack of review allowed an unfounded theory to spread around the world: https://michaelkreil.github.io/openbots/ 1/11
-
-
The Berkeley/Swansea team claims that during the 2016 US elections,
#socialbot shifted the results by 3.23% towards Trump, based on a correlation between the amounts of tweets using various political hashtags & vote results. What they forgot: Correlation doesn’t mean causality!Prikaži ovu nit -
We need to ask ourselves how the totally unfunded
#socialbot theory spread so widely. And more generally, we need to ask ourselves how and why academic research teams spread wrong theories based on scientifically flawed clickbait research.Prikaži ovu nit -
We need to ask ourselves why journalists base their reporting on studies whose results contradict each other, and don't even question if these theories produce accurate results. How do you explain that the tool you reported on classifies 1/2 of the US congress as
#socialbot?Prikaži ovu nit -
We need to ask ourselves why we pass new laws based on unreviewed research published by a few scientists, and what that means for our democracy.
Prikaži ovu nit -
Academic research teams, review the
#socialbot papers. Journalists and lawmakers, don't base your reporting and laws on wrong research claims. Do you have more info? Get in touch!https://michaelkreil.github.io/openbots/Prikaži ovu nit -
It is important to look for explanations for the main political events of the last years. And we should keep doing so. But the research needs to be accurate, reviewed, and reproducible. The
#socialbot theory isn't. I call#bullshit!Prikaži ovu nit
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.