I put "you have to look at the whole ecology" into my Google Academese translator and it came out as "I don't have any evidence".
-
-
Replying to @NateSilver538
Okay! Keep looking at percent of tweets as a good metric for impact—and doctors should weigh viruses/bacteria as percent of bodymass to decide on impact and not look at how it impacts body/immune system (aka the whole ecology) . Good luck, to you and Dr. Google. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
10 replies 6 retweets 122 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @NateSilver538
I'm open to these claims, but they ultimately need to generate testable hypotheses or we're not doing science. We have testable hypotheses about viruses and the immune system!
7 replies 4 retweets 71 likes -
Right now claims about low-volume social media operations having big systemic effects lack credible supporting evidence or even specific claims that could be tested.
11 replies 15 retweets 79 likes -
Replying to @BrendanNyhan @NateSilver538
Many complex systems & past events can't have simple testable hypotheses and refusing to study them would not be good. This isn't even a scial science problem. Geology manages. Also, as I keep arguing, the DNC hack and aftermath is part of this so some impacts are face-value big.
1 reply 6 retweets 31 likes -
zeynep tufekci Retweeted
Plus, I'm increasingly wondering if it is that low-volume. (See here, which is, almost by definition an undercount since we only know what's been uncovered). At the moment, anything we can measure is a modest estimate for floor since it was covert. https://twitter.com/antoniogm/status/1075854442191175680 …)
zeynep tufekci added,
This Tweet is unavailable.1 reply 0 retweets 11 likes -
Once again, though, my MAIN argument is that Nate's metric: percent of social media posts, is not strong. Social media is characterized by interaction, feedback loops, mainstream media interaction, narrative shifting, meme-copying etc. % originating is not a decisive measure.
5 replies 4 retweets 56 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @BrendanNyhan
My quick-and-dirty metric is actually social media *impressions*, not posts. The Russian troll posts constituted a *lower* share of impressions than posts, which really cuts AGAINST your hypothesis (i.e. they punched below their weight rather than going viral).
9 replies 0 retweets 14 likes -
How about this as a **testable** theory: HYPOTHESIS: If Russian troll posts were more influential than the raw numbers imply, they should have higher-than-average engagement (retweets/replies/faves) from blue-checkmark journalist Twitter accounts than other 2016 content.
7 replies 0 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @NateSilver538 @BrendanNyhan
That's just taking us back to Skinner, skipping over the whole cognitive revolution. People read and interpret, even if they don't react (especially to trolling). But, if we had full data, we could measure narratives they initiated -> media narratives. Theoretically measurable.
2 replies 3 retweets 23 likes
Also, theoratically measurable (with full dataset, ahem) is memes they originated -> spread on social media. I think what we are looking for is: did they shift the narrative? I realize we don't have full data plus a thousand person team, but theoratically possible to measure.
-
-
Hey Nate, how about this: let's measure how much resources Russia put in this effort. If it is above a certain threshold, we'll deduce that their efforts shifted the narrative and thus the election because if that wasn't the case they wouldn't have done it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
OK, kidding. But serious. Seriously kidding.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
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.