2/ It makes sense. Implicitly, you have evidence of salience: it already went viral once. Immediately after the first viral episode, salience falls; but, given information overload, the familiar becomes unfamiliar quickly and salience recovers as it does.
-
-
Show this thread
-
3/ But, it's not merely the high probability of repeat virality that makes it attractive as an attack -- it's that you get to *observe* the social effects through the social graph. Not predict -- *observe*.
Show this thread -
4/ Which groups does this antagonize? What are the effects on group-partitioned beliefs wrt the topic? What are the effects on their stereotypes of the structured opposition? If the effects match what you want as an attacker, just wait a while then replay the story.
Show this thread -
5/ "Well, that's not right. It won't have the same social effects again, because the beliefs already integrated the information." Maybe. But, my guess is that the effects attenuate *with* repeat salience. So, costless replays do what you want until they do nothing at all.
Show this thread -
6/ As far as asymmetries go, that's an almost ideal attack. - Heads, I win. - Tails, I toss again.
Show this thread
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.