Jonathan Stray

@jonathanstray

Working on better personalized news and information at . Previously: computational journalism , editor , made

San Francisco
Joined May 2008

Tweets

You blocked @jonathanstray

Are you sure you want to view these Tweets? Viewing Tweets won't unblock @jonathanstray

  1. Pinned Tweet

    If "engagement" shouldn't drive media algorithms, what should? held a workshop with 40 recommender system professionals, researchers, and critics and here are our answers.

    Undo
  2. A better headline might have been: "CDC study shows vaccines don't protect against Delta as well as earlier variants, underscoring the importance of herd immunity."

    Show this thread
    Undo
  3. If you want to get serious about this, you could compute the risk ratio between vaxxed and unvaxxed, using a base rate of 69% vaxxed for the county (as the CDC paper notes). I've seen similar cases of failure to use a risk ratio in journalism before

    Show this thread
    Undo
  4. Part of the journalistic challenge here is there are two key messages to get across, that seem to pull in opposite directions: - you can still get infected even if vaxxed - but vaccines really cut down the risk Together, this is the reason why everyone needs to get vaxxed.

    Show this thread
    Undo
  5. If this isn't clear to you, consider: when 100% of the population is vaccinated, then 100% of the COVID cases will be in vaccinated people. There is no information about the effectiveness of the vaccines in this headline, even though it sounds like there is.

    Show this thread
    Undo
  6. This is an awful, awful, headline. I've been teaching stats to journalists for years but I never thought it would be life or death (base rate fallacy). Should have gone with "Roughly 97% of new hospitalizations and 99.5% of deaths in the U.S. are among unvaccinated individuals"

    Show this thread
    Undo
  7. This is one of those rare cases where an understanding of Bayes' Theorem is actually critical. "% infected people who were vaxxed" is really, really not the same as "% of vaxxed people who were infected." If 90% are vaxxed, most infections will be vaxxed.

    Undo
  8. Platform recommender engineer told me today: yes, we could turn up the diversity so no one's feed gets too specific. But then a lot of people would miss out on finding all the other folks who are into whatever their thing is, and people get a lot of joy and connection from that.

    Undo
  9. Sometimes people are like "why is polarization bad?" and I'm like, well, I reeallly don't want to go any further up this escalation curve.

    Undo
  10. Retweeted

    Still, these data paint a starkly different picture from the CrowdTangle dashboard that Kevin Roose regularly tweets. See

    Show this thread
    Undo
  11. Remember when I said that the White House might be the worst possible messenger for trying to get people vaccinated? This backfire effect has been confirmed.

    Undo
  12. We just aren’t there yet with basic recommender controls.

    Undo
  13. Retweeted

    I am awestruck at this combo of fluent data analytics for non-coders plus training for data journalists. Kudos , , for advancing what I first saw in DabbleDB () and OpenRefine ().

    Undo
  14. I see this correlation too. This thread picks apart potential reasons for that, but more importantly how this cultural fact might bias guesses about what types of AI social impacts will prove most significant.

    Undo
  15. Retweeted

    I'm going to repeat this -- please read this whole thread, which is one of the smarter things I've read on this issue. Whether respect is useful as a strategy for deniers depends almost entirely on your location in the network.

    Show this thread
    Undo
  16. The tweet it composed for me was pretty good, actually. Full points for self-reference.

    Undo
  17. Retweeted

    Good. I’m sick and tired of classic artists being exempt from the attention economy. They should feel the dehumanizing pressure of engagement metrics just like the rest of us.

    Undo
  18. Retweeted

    Instagram, which is owned by Facebook, is now targeting me with ads about the awesomeness of targeted ads

    Show this thread
    Undo
  19. My takeaway: this is a very cool algo auditing method. But it’s recsys 101 stuff. The hard question is not whether a recsys responds to your interests — it does! — but what's happening with the humans, and what kinds of media diets are healthy. Bot audits can’t answer that. /FIN

    Show this thread
    Undo
  20. To close, a word on transparency. I’d love the reporters to publish their code so we can see exactly what they did, and how to build on it. The deeper problem is it should be possible for outsiders to run audits on real platforms. Perhaps like this. 15/

    Show this thread
    Undo
  21. The reporters also found it surprising that only one signal — watch time — was enough to establish each bot’s interests. I don’t find this surprising. Both theory and practice show that a single reward signal can produce incredibly complex behavior. 14/

    Show this thread
    Undo

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.

    You may also like

    ·