You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
This is (a) impossible to avoid by individual action, since it's a collective effect, controlling what we see; and (b) it actually generates _demand_ for (and a livelihood for) people doing the shoddy studies.
It's also impossible to avoid on the authorial side. You can be as careful as you like with the study and caveats, and yet it's likely to end up being shared a lot by people who like your conclusions, independent of those caveats.
An individual could amusingly mock the methodology but argue that for independent reasons the conclusion is true. Potentially gets shares from both factions.
Information vetting may be the only line of defense, and we may have to accept that the general public will not have a clear understanding of the issues. I think it's incumbent on us, as a society, to start teaching information vetting in elementary education.
@nealstephenson touches on this idea in #Anathem, both in regard to "baseline humans" and "trust networks". (The latter idea is based on information explosion, where necessity dictates the default is to consider sources unreliable unless proven otherwise with high confidence. )
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
Tongue-in-cheek rule: you can only see the result of a study when you've first approved or disapproved the methodology. The result is then approvingly tweeted by you, no matter what the result was.
