Calling Bullshit Profile picture
Sep 20, 2020 8 tweets 4 min read Read on X
One of our key pieces of advice is to be careful of confirmation bias.

There's a thread going around about how the crop below is what happens when Twitter's use of eye-tracking technology to crop images is fed with data from a misogynistic society. I almost retweeted it. But…
…that story fits my pre-existing commitments about how machine learning picks up on the worst of societal biases. So I thought it was worth checking out.

Turns out, it's not Twitter at all.

Here's the @techreview tweet itself:
The picture is provides as a "twittercard", and is provided by the publisher, @techreview, as part of the header in the html file for the article.
Here's the key line in that header. (I've replaced https:// with http*// so that twitter won't reformat.)

http*://wp.technologyreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Final-Picture-web_web-e1592394489892.jpg?resize=1200,600

Try it yourself:
wp.technologyreview.com/wp-content/upl…
The problem is in the "?resize1200,600" instruction at the end of the URL.

Take this off, you get the full image.

Remember, this part of the html provided by @techreview.

http*://wp.technologyreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Final-Picture-web_web-e1592394489892.jpg
The fault here is not with twitter at all — it's a careless bit of code on @techreview's part, that just crops the middle blindly out of any image assigned to a twitter card.
This is not to say that machine learning doesn't introduce all kinds of biases, nor to say that twitter's doesn't frustrate us by not allowing users to set their own crop.

It is good lesson, though, in digging deeper before jumping to conclusions that match one's priors.
On the other hand, if you haven't seen this, this seems to be a legit case of algorithmic bias on the part of Twitter's cropping algorithm.

Click on each image to see what is going on.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Calling Bullshit

Calling Bullshit Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @callin_bull

Apr 7, 2022
Where have we heard this before?
"Sophisticated algorithms based on machine learning may discover very delicate and elusive nuances in facial characteristics and structures that correlate to innate personal traits and yet hide below the cognitive threshold of most untrained nonexperts."

callingbullshit.org/case_studies/c…
Read 6 tweets
Mar 13, 2022
Campbell's Law states that "The more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor."
Even the most elite institutions succumb.

Here's a beautiful example of how one tracks down and debunks quantitative malfeasance.

Report author Michael Thaddeus says it best:

"Columbia is a great university and, based on its legitimate merits, should attract students comparable to the best anywhere. By obsessively pursuing a ranking, however, it demeans itself. The sooner it changes course, the better."
Read 5 tweets
Dec 13, 2021
Some of you may have seen this before, but if you haven't: This slide from Moderna compares their flu mRNA vaccine to the one from Sanofi.

Can you spot the misleading dataviz trick? Image
This was a fascinating exercise. People pointed out a lot of important issues.

The different age groups, while not a dataviz trick per se, do smack of the sort of apples-to-oranges comparison we worry about.
Using a log scale for bar charts is questionable territory, though a log scale is quite appropriate here for this kind of data and I've been guilty of the same. We wrote a bit about this special case: callingbullshit.org/tools/logarith…
Read 5 tweets
Dec 10, 2021
In our course, we spend a lot of time talking about selection bias and related phenomena. These issues can be extremely subtle. Example:

The question is whether you are better protected against COVID if you've first vaccinated then reinfected, or first infected then vaccinated.
To answer that, you might look at data such as those in a recent medRxiv paper by Goldberg et al.

Comparing infection rates, it *appears* you are better off 6-8 months after being infected then vaccinated ( RtV) than you are 6 months after being vaccinated then infected (VtR).
(Here I'm setting aside issues of significance, multiple comparisons, etc. — this is intended as a teaching example.)

But there's a problem with that inference, grounded in the fact that we are looking at observational data: the groups caught COVID under different circumstances.
Read 6 tweets
Sep 22, 2021
Obviously the murder rate in the US is a dreadful thing and we want to find ways to reduce it.

But I find the graph below, which is making the rounds today on social media, to be quite misleading.

Let's take a look at why.

nytimes.com/2021/09/22/ups… Image
The first thing to notice is that this graph shows annual *change* in murder rate. Showing changes is fine, when there's a good reason to—and there may be one here.

But notice the consequence. The much larger decrease, spread over many years from the late 90s, is backgrounded.
Here is are the absolute numbers over the same time period. To the credit of the @nytimes, this graph is shown in the article as well.

But of course that's not the one that takes off on twitter, facebook, etc. Image
Read 6 tweets
May 24, 2021
I just read a *great* paper on digital literacy.

The authors explore how three different groups—Stanford students, professional academic historians, and fact checkers—evaluate the reliability of online information.

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
tl;dr — the fact checkers are very good at this, whereas the students and history professors alike are terrible.

What's the difference? Fact checkers read laterally instead of vertically.
Lateral reading means leaving the site one is trying to evaluate and learning about it from external sources—wikipedia, newspaper articles, etc.

Vertical reading is close reading of the site itself, trying to ascertain reliability from subtle cues therein.
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(