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.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @zeynep @BrendanNyhan
OK, it's pretty telling IMO that you've rejected an **actually** testable (in practice, not just in theory) hypothesis for ones that are either impossible or extremely cumbersome to test.
4 replies 0 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @NateSilver538 @BrendanNyhan
Is it possible that it's not a good one? Why would people actively respond *more* to trolling that nevertheless impacted them? How would you ever measure impacts of abusive behavior online? We know: people tend to go silent. There really was a reason we moved beyond Skinner.
5 replies 0 retweets 18 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @BrendanNyhan
OK, then give me some other hypothesis that's *actually testable* and that someone (you or me or a smart graduate student out there) could *actually test* (i.e.. the data is available publicly) in a reasonable length of time.
3 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @NateSilver538 @BrendanNyhan
You'd never have any complex research by that standard. Allow only existing data plus a grad student—preclude all other questions? Here's a reasonable ask: 1-an independent research team; 2-gets access to non-public social media data; 3-combine it with public data; 4-gets a year.
1 reply 0 retweets 15 likes -
A version of this is happening, but 2016 is excluded. Plus, we need a proper longitidunal panel for the future. My point in raising the objection is that there is genuinly doable research, but it's not easy. Framing the question right plus some resources plus, yeah, data access.
2 replies 0 retweets 14 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @BrendanNyhan
Given that low-complexity analysis doesn't support your hypothesis, it's just not a good set of facts for you that you also reject any attempt at *medium*-complexity analysis.
5 replies 0 retweets 6 likes
Low-complexity analysis (percent posts) is not relevant to the question, though. It doesn't not support anything. There is some doable medium stuff, but for once, we have limited but real longitudinal data: trapped in the corporations. I think the Q is important enough.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @BrendanNyhan
I've been in hundreds of debates On Here and I've never encountered a case where someone was so reluctant to offer up a testable hypothesis. Next time, call my bluff and assume that both you and I will be too lazy to actually follow up and do the research!
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @NateSilver538
you seem to be suffering from the acute double down syndrome again, exacerbated by sustained condescension compulsion; it doesn't look well on you
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes - Show replies
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.