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.
-
-
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 -
Moreover, you still haven't even listed an actual, *high*-complexity hypothesis that could be tested (given some *reasonable* parameters, e.g. a smart graduate student with a year and cooperation from one of the major social media platforms to fulfill additional data requests).
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @NateSilver538 @BrendanNyhan
I don't understand why we're limited to one graduate student here when physicists are publishing papers with 5000+ authors BUT. Yes, a reasonable sized team plus past data from social media platforms plus a year or so. You'd have a good start.
2 replies 0 retweets 13 likes -
For example: prevalence of exposure to RU-originated memes to voting (voter records are public). Shift in narrative (sentiment analysis of a true random sample) as related to exposure (obviously confounds with algorithm plus self-selection but I've seen papers that get at this).
2 replies 1 retweet 11 likes -
Oh, gee. Now any grad student can translate those Q into RQ hypotheses. Exposure to RU-originated memes (controls for all the usuals plus algorithm confounds) lessened likelihood of voting. Impressions of RU-pages corresponded to pro-Trump shift in sentiment (controls blah blah).
-
-
This is social science. Social science is not and has never been an exact science. For good reason - because Nate's approach to this is tone deaf. Zeynep is 100% correct to stress entire ecology: multiple feedback loops between social media/MSM/Trump campaign/donors/supporters.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
- 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.