If independently validated, an 8% decrease in sharing of false information is a big deal.
Someday companies will routinely be required/expected to share results of their experiments on us, rather than journalists leaking results. By @CraigSilverman
buzzfeednews.com/article/craigs…
Someday companies will routinely be required/expected to share results of their experiments on us, rather than journalists leaking results. By @CraigSilverman
buzzfeednews.com/article/craigs…
Think how big an effect an 8% sharing reduction would be, if real (withholding judgment without details).
A platform data scientist is claiming they can reduce sharing of statements by a person with a huge megaphone, whose tweets are newsworthy, & who has a committed base 😮
A platform data scientist is claiming they can reduce sharing of statements by a person with a huge megaphone, whose tweets are newsworthy, & who has a committed base 😮
Debates on online discourse have a baseline problem. It's impractical & undesirable for 0% of a head of state's comments to reach the public. But 100% isn't great if they're false.
That's how policy debates get stuck on arguments that a firm could "do more" & real wins get lost.
That's how policy debates get stuck on arguments that a firm could "do more" & real wins get lost.
What's the way out of this dilemma? Focus on finding policies that work by looking at their *effects*. If companies committed (or were forced) to report their research results, we could celebrate wins and move on from duds.
medium.com/mit-media-lab/…
medium.com/mit-media-lab/…
The most frustrating part of the this story is how @CraigSilverman & others are reduced to cobbling together guess-timation math without enough evidence to evaluate corporate claims. Is 80% better than 8%? It's literally impossible to tell without more detail.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
