sure in part. but those mood/turnout effects were tiny at individual level. magnitude of FB effects being overstated
-
-
Replying to @BrendanNyhan @zeynep
at least as far as what we know scientifically
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BrendanNyhan
The tweaks were tiiiiny, and yet they had measurable impacts. Obviously tiny on purpose--to get p-value without more impact.
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @BrendanNyhan
Voting study tweak was so tiny that blew my mind how big the impact was. Now imagine a year of fake Clinton news, every day.
3 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
the verified vote effect? .4% - agree remarkable for how weak treatment was but small. again I'm fully on board w/potential effects
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BrendanNyhan @zeynep
but want to be clear what is/is not evidence-based
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @BrendanNyhan
Yes I believe the evidence exists. If you mean we don't know how high it could go? Not sure how to even test that.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @zeynep
i mean direct evidence of Facebook fake info exposure effects on opinion, beliefs etc
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @BrendanNyhan @zeynep
hard platform to study from outside the company, major causal inference problems
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @BrendanNyhan
Yes, Facebook is hard to study but cultivation theory research (longitudinal, too) shows this impact pretty well I think.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Facebook's own research already established the basics of how it operates, and we have research on the mechanism itself.
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.