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 -
every single retweet/reddit post/news article/facebook post/instagram post/whatsapp message that used a screen shot of the tweet would not be counted in that tally
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Screenshots are a methodological challenge because I think they dominated how memes (and DNC conversations) spread, but even those are theoretically measurable, at least as order-of-magnitude.
-
-
aye. your tweet about following the influence on media narratives would be the correct way to analyze this. just impressions is too far detached from how groups think/digest a topic across different sites and mediums (ex: TV media refer to trending/internet framings frequently)
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.