A new paper has been making the rounds with the intriguing claim that YouTube has a *de-radicalizing* influence. https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.11211 Having read the paper, I wanted to call it wrong, but that would give the paper too much credit, because it is not even wrong. Let me explain.
-
-
In our data-driven world, the claim that we don’t have a good way to study something quantitatively may sound shocking. The reality even worse — in many cases we don’t even have the vocabulary to ask meaningful quantitative *questions* about complex socio-technical systems.
Prikaži ovu nit -
Consider the paper’s definition of radicalization: "YouTube’s algorithm [exposes users] to more extreme content than they would otherwise." Savvy readers are probably screaming: There is no "otherwise"! There is no YouTube without the algorithm! There is no neutral!
Prikaži ovu nit -
That’s the note on which I’d like to end: a plea to consider that the available quantitative methods can’t answer everything. And I want to thank the journalists who’ve been doing the next best thing — telling the stories of people led down a rabbit hole by YouTube’s algorithm.
Prikaži ovu nit
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
There are so many questions that matter to the public that don't yet have great quantitative methods- I wish there were a good way to publish papers saying "this is harder than it initially appears and here's why"
-
Yes and not everything can be explained or researched with quantitative methods as seems to be the assumption now. Everyone is hiring data scientists like they’re the oracle. No.
- Još 2 druga odgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
This is why important negative results should also be published.
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
But shouldn’t researchers have published their null results amd NOT leave that space open?
-
I don’t think he’s at all arguing they had “null results” but rather there was no way to even execute the study with an appropriate research design and well operationalized constructs. There are no results to release.
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
Yet another reason journals should be publishing negative/null result papers. The lack of quality content material leaves a void that can be more easily filled by tripe.Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
That is an another reason why 'negative' results should be valued by the scientific community I guess. Thanks for your thread !
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
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.