- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
A nonprofit organization that researches links between social media, hate and extremism has been threatened with a lawsuit by X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter.
Literally page 1 there says all you need to know about what this “research” was out to prove. The very first line:
They’re declaring that the word “grooming” is “hate speech”. It’s not.
More just on page 1:
So they’re saying that the overall discourse including those defending against the “slurs” is what has increased, not just actual “hate speech”.
Still on page 1:
Ah, so they spiked because of events happening in the world that talk about the thing that is being discussed. Who would have guessed? It’s almost like things that are currently happening get discussed on social media.
On page 3 they then go on to this:
So as I suggested, they’ve cherry picked specific accounts with high engagement and use of terms that they decided are hate speech and are using those to show how bad twitter is for hate speech lol.
Sorry but this “research” is ridiculous. It’s the very definition of having a conclusion you want and then working backwards to try and confirm it no matter how.
Hey, you skipped over the word “narrative” Mr. “I’m gonna call this cherrypicking”
I love unintentional irony.
I love how you don’t understand irony.
The irony is that you misread the article, quoted parts while still misreading the article, allowing everyone to see that you misread the article
Then made an argument that only works provided nobody else noticed you misread the article
Which would be a form of cherrypicking.
Because you have stepped over that it’s “Grooming Narrative” and not “Grooming” every single post since that one. The conversation is the hate speech, not the specific word.
I didn’t misread the article though, so your entire premise falls apart.
Like I said, they didn’t check “the narrative”. They did searches finding combinations of words. To this study, a tweet saying “LGBT people stand against grooming kids!” would count as a “hate speech” post 🤣. If 100 people retweeted that, it counts as 101 “hate speech” occurrences.
You don’t see the issues with that?