@MichelleNMeyer @seanjtaylor "who posted one status update"
-
-
Replying to @zeynep
@zeynep@seanjtaylor course study analyzing text couldn't have been done w/users who produced no text. So results perhaps not gen to lurkers3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MichelleNMeyer
@MichelleNMeyer@seanjtaylor But big diff between class-based non-random (political-id + frequent use) and imperfect random while attempting1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
@zeynep@seanjtaylor true, but what were alternatives? Could use what self-ID pol users post to create predictive algorithm of ideology?6 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MichelleNMeyer
@MichelleNMeyer@seanjtaylor 4-Inferential/imputational methods also confound, but everything is imperfect, triangulation is best.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
@zeynep@seanjtaylor Suspect imputation-based study wld hv led 2criticisms of FB trying 2reduce complex beh 2algo; voting recs "creepy" etc2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MichelleNMeyer
@MichelleNMeyer@seanjtaylor FB already imputes. Already. Voting records were already looked up. Also, you're now imputing the future.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
@zeynep@seanjtaylor Yes, & FB already manipulates News Feed by algorithm. But when they did it to *learn its effects,* collective freak out4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MichelleNMeyer
@MichelleNMeyer@seanjtaylor No, roots of collective freakout is because they have all this power and they keep denying it. Ridiculous.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
@zeynep@seanjtaylor mood contagion experiment did not exonerate News Feed. If mood contag hypoth correct, + posts not risky but - posts are3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@MichelleNMeyer @seanjtaylor Small tweak, tiny effect, oversold conclusion, they did NOT anticipate the backlash.
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.