,
8 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Excuse my mini rant before I go dark for a while, which after the names and bad faith arguments put forth about my work primarily by people in the academy. So let's review. How many hours journalists and policy makers have asked to have access to the data? Lots. How many 1/n
Academics or think tanks have reached out to request access to the data? Zero. Let me repeat that: ZERO. How many policy makers and journalists are asking questions or confirmation, trying to contact listed person's? Many. How many academics and think tanks are convinced 2/n
The work is wrong despite never having seen the data or even asked to see the data? Many. How many journalists and policy makers are trying to get out stories, make decisions, and get information operating under constraints understand the variety of pressures here? All. 3/n
How many academics can even rationalize doing something in less than a year? Zero. I have 25,000 unique people and your are complaining because i didn't do so in depth background check on hundreds? I'm going to refrain from using really strong language. The moronic 4/n
Arguments such as who cares if China killed their ownn because you publicized data are astounding. Add in people arguing with the fictional profiles i created to anonymize people after i told them the names and dates were meant to obscure just boggles the mind. Yes, i know 5/n
And i even told you this was the case at the beginning of the paper. I have been over backwards to answer questions and will continue to be as open as possible to trusted individuals and institutions in private forms. This is sensitive data and I'm testing it as such. When 6/n
You work under these constraints, you realize how narrow many of your decisions are. Finally, the towering hypocrisy of people ranting about the need to protect Chinese subject anonymity who suddenly demand data access is quite something. At least we know human hypocrisy is 7/n
Alive and well. There is a reason this data is sensitive. Balding out.
