Right but that wasn’t a rumor. It was just sensationally worded.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep
Sensationally worded, yes. But also the tweet stripped away the context for that number, which can happen when we translate science to social media...
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @katestarbird
My concern is that it was a less context-stripped use of R0 than a lot of opeds in NYT, WaPo etc. (I pick on outlets that I write for and that I subscribe as examples to be fair). It was more informative than many out in credible media at the time. (I still didn't like it but...)
1 reply 2 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @katestarbird
I mean the wording plus saying he'd never seen that R0 blah blah disqualified him as an expert in my book, for sure. But in the sea of misinformation we have been swimming in, good amount from traditional sources, it seemed to be a mild example.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
That critique makes sense. The explanation is my colleagues have expertise in science literacy and we’re developing a set of research questions at the intersection of their expertise and ours (online mis- and disinformation during crisis). This case sits at the intersection.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @katestarbird @zeynep
Also, this case got picked up and pushed up into broader conversations by more traditional sources (including journalists). The correction was eventually boosted by journalists as well. It highlights that intersection - how social media influence shapes broader conversations.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @katestarbird
Indeed. I’m just hoping that we manage to look at all those intersections—the whole ecology is involved.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @katestarbird
(In my particular case, a careful curation from social media was more informative and correct than traditional media. Social media had a lot of nonsense but also much more useful stuff than the traditional media which was full of misinformation. So hard for ordinary people!)
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
You definitely did an amazing job wading through it and synthesizing. Your thread in late-Feb (on why social distancing and other measure would be so important) was one of the best—most frightening but most informative—things I read about the virus.
2 replies 1 retweet 13 likes -
Replying to @katestarbird
Thank you! One reason I started tweeting/writing was frustration with the traditional media reporting. I used to teach sociology of pandemics, so I was familiar with some of the science and some of the social dynamics, but the failure of informatics hadn't been my thing then.
1 reply 0 retweets 9 likes
Plus, I was just doing research in Hong Kong which has direct line to China, so I was well-placed to follow the developments. Then watched in horror in February as my local well-educated networks shared "don't panic; go on traveling; what about the flu" articles from trad media.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @katestarbird
So it is such a complicated moment! As was the case in the my Arab Spring research, social media was sometimes more informative and a good runaround the topdown misinformation. But also, a lot of misinformation, too--so how do we disentangle all this? Fascinating moment.
0 replies 0 retweets 6 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.